# Official Journal C 313/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 313 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4920 December 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 313

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4920 December 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 313/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 313/2 | Initiation of proceedings (Case COMP/M.4404 — Universal Music Group/BMG Music Publishing) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2006/C 313/3 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2006/C 313/4 | Czech national procedure for the allocation of limited air traffic rights (
  1
  ) | 9 |
| 2006/C 313/5 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 12 |
| 2006/C 313/6 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 2004/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on measuring instruments (
  1
  ) | 14 |
| 2006/C 313/7 | Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of coke of coal in pieces with a diameter of more than 80 mm (Coke 80+) originating in the People's Republic of China | 15 |
| 2006/C 313/8 | Information procedure — Technical rules (
  1
  ) | 19 |
| 2006/C 313/9 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4430 — Doosan/Mitsui Babcock) (
  1
  ) | 24 |
| 2006/C 313/0 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4437 — Sun Group/Autobar Packaging) (
  1
  ) | 24 |
| 2006/C 313/1 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4440 — GE/Disko/ASL) (
  1
  ) | 25 |
| | European Data Protection Supervisor |
| 2006/C 313/2 | Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between Member States (COM (2005) 690 final) | 26 |
| 2006/C 313/3 | Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the draft Council Regulation (EC) laying down the form of the laissez-passer to be issued to members and servants of the institutions | 36 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 313/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 313/2

Initiation of proceedings (Case COMP/M.4404 — Universal Music Group/BMG Music Publishing) (
  1
  )

1

2

2006/C 313/3

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (
  1
  )

1

3

2006/C 313/4

Czech national procedure for the allocation of limited air traffic rights (
  1
  )

1

9

2006/C 313/5

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

12

2006/C 313/6

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 2004/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on measuring instruments (
  1
  )

1

14

2006/C 313/7

Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of coke of coal in pieces with a diameter of more than 80 mm (Coke 80+) originating in the People's Republic of China

15

2006/C 313/8

Information procedure — Technical rules (
  1
  )

1

19

2006/C 313/9

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4430 — Doosan/Mitsui Babcock) (
  1
  )

1

24

2006/C 313/0

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4437 — Sun Group/Autobar Packaging) (
  1
  )

1

24

2006/C 313/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4440 — GE/Disko/ASL) (
  1
  )

1

25

European Data Protection Supervisor

2006/C 313/2

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between Member States (COM (2005) 690 final)

26

2006/C 313/3

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the draft Council Regulation (EC) laying down the form of the laissez-passer to be issued to members and servants of the institutions

36

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 313/4 | Call for proposals — DG EAC/61/06 — Lifelong Learning programme | 42 |

III   Notices

Commission

2006/C 313/4

Call for proposals — DG EAC/61/06 — Lifelong Learning programme

42

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2006/C 313/5 | Corrigendum to Common position (EC) No 27/2006 adopted by the Council on 25 September 2006, with a view to the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) (OJ C 301E, 12.12.2006 p. 1) | 44 |
| 2006/C 313/6 | Corrigendum to the Draft Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on efficiency and equity in education and training (OJ C 298, 8.12.2006) | 44 |

Corrigenda

2006/C 313/5

Corrigendum to Common position (EC) No 27/2006 adopted by the Council on 25 September 2006, with a view to the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) (OJ C 301E, 12.12.2006 p. 1)

(OJ C 301E, 12.12.2006 p. 1)

44

2006/C 313/6

Corrigendum to the Draft Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on efficiency and equity in education and training (OJ C 298, 8.12.2006)

(OJ C 298, 8.12.2006)

44

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

I Information

Commission

| 20.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

19 December 2006

(2006/C 313/01)

1 euro=

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3158 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 155,48 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4538 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67125 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0252 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6024 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 90,75 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,164 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5781 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,745 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 253,13 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6974 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8113 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,4169 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,64 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 34,88 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8845 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6824 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5217 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2299 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8981 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0326 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 226,39 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,2168 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2911 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3688 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 026,41 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7057 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 65,001 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,641 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,073 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3158

JPY

Japanese yen

155,48

DKK

Danish krone

7,4538

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67125

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0252

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6024

ISK

Iceland króna

90,75

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,164

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5781

CZK

Czech koruna

27,745

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

253,13

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6974

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8113

RON

Romanian leu

3,4169

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,64

SKK

Slovak koruna

34,88

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8845

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6824

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5217

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2299

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8981

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0326

KRW

South Korean won

1 226,39

ZAR

South African rand

9,2168

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2911

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3688

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 026,41

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7057

PHP

Philippine peso

65,001

RUB

Russian rouble

34,641

THB

Thai baht

47,073

---

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 20.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/2

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case COMP/M.4404 — Universal Music Group/BMG Music Publishing)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 313/02)

On 8 December 2006, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (fax No (32-2) 296 43 01 — 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4404 — Universal Music Group/BMG Music Publishing, to the following address:

| Commission of the European Communities |
| --- |
| Competition DG |
| Merger Registry |
| Rue Joseph II/Jozef II-straat 70 |
| B-1000 Brussels |

Commission of the European Communities

Competition DG

Merger Registry

Rue Joseph II/Jozef II-straat 70

B-1000 Brussels

---

| 20.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/3

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 313/03)

| Aid No | XS 128/06 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Slovak Republic |
| Region | Stredné Slovensko, Žilinský kraj |
| Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid | KLF – ZVL OMNIA, a.s., Na stanicu 22, SK-010 09 Žilina
  IČO: 31 635 164 |
| Legal basis | Ustanovenie § 240 ods. 3 a § 241 ods. 3 v spojení s ustanovením § 277a zákona č. 461/2003 Z. z. o sociálnom poistení v znení zákona č. 721/2004 Z. z.,
  Ustanovenie § 5 ods. 2 písm. b) zákona č. 231/1999 Z. z. o štátnej pomoci, Metodické usmernenie Sociálnej poisťovne č. 30/2005 |
| Annual expenditure planned or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company | Aid scheme | Annual overall amount | |
| Loans guaranteed | |
| Individual aid | Overall aid amount | SKK 6 520 324,50
  EUR 168 776,03 |
| Loans guaranteed | |
| Maximum aid intensity | In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation | Yes
  63,93 % |
| Date of implementation | 2006 |
| Duration of scheme or individual aid award | 14.7.2006 |
| Objective of aid | Aid to SMEs | Yes |
| Economic sectors concerned | Limited to specific sectors | Yes |
| — | Manufacturing |

Aid No

XS 128/06

Member State

Slovak Republic

Region

Stredné Slovensko, Žilinský kraj

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid

KLF – ZVL OMNIA, a.s., Na stanicu 22, SK-010 09 Žilina

IČO: 31 635 164

Legal basis

Ustanovenie § 240 ods. 3 a § 241 ods. 3 v spojení s ustanovením § 277a zákona č. 461/2003 Z. z. o sociálnom poistení v znení zákona č. 721/2004 Z. z.,

Ustanovenie § 5 ods. 2 písm. b) zákona č. 231/1999 Z. z. o štátnej pomoci, Metodické usmernenie Sociálnej poisťovne č. 30/2005

Annual expenditure planned or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company

Aid scheme

Annual overall amount

Loans guaranteed

Individual aid

Overall aid amount

SKK 6 520 324,50

EUR 168 776,03

Loans guaranteed

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation

Yes

63,93 %

Date of implementation

2006

Duration of scheme or individual aid award

14.7.2006

Objective of aid

Aid to SMEs

Yes

Economic sectors concerned

Limited to specific sectors

Yes

—

Manufacturing

Yes

Name and address of the granting authority

Sociálna poisťovňa, agentúra Žilina

| Námestie Ľ. Štúra č. 5 |
| --- |
| SK-010 01 Žilina |
| Web address: www.socpoist.sk |

Námestie Ľ. Štúra č. 5

SK-010 01 Žilina

Web address: www.socpoist.sk

Large individual aid grants

In conformity with Article 6 of the Regulation

No

| Aid No | XS 143/06 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Region | Merseyside |
| Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid | Centre for High Throughput Materials Discovery |
| Legal basis | Higher Education Corporation incorporated under the Education
  Reform Act 1988 |
| Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company | Aid scheme | Annual overall amount | 2006: GBP 0,066million
  2007: GBP 0,066million |
| Loans guaranteed | |
| Individual aid | Overall aid amount | |
| Loans guaranteed | |
| Maximum aid intensity | In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation | Yes |
| Date of implementation | From 31.10.2006 |
| Duration of scheme or individual aid award | Until 30.6.2007 — scheme will run until the end of December 2007 and will apply SME regulation in force |
| Objective of aid | Aid to SMEs | Yes |
| Economic sectors concerned | All sectors eligible for aid to SMEs | Yes |
| Name and address of the granting authority | University of Liverpool |
| The Foresight Centre |
| 1 Brownlow Street |
| L69 3GL Liverpool |
| United Kingdom |

Aid No

XS 143/06

Member State

United Kingdom

Region

Merseyside

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid

Centre for High Throughput Materials Discovery

Legal basis

Higher Education Corporation incorporated under the Education

Reform Act 1988

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company

Aid scheme

Annual overall amount

2006: GBP 0,066million

2007: GBP 0,066million

Loans guaranteed

Individual aid

Overall aid amount

Loans guaranteed

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation

Yes

Date of implementation

From 31.10.2006

Duration of scheme or individual aid award

Until 30.6.2007 — scheme will run until the end of December 2007 and will apply SME regulation in force

Objective of aid

Aid to SMEs

Yes

Economic sectors concerned

All sectors eligible for aid to SMEs

Yes

Name and address of the granting authority

University of Liverpool

The Foresight Centre

1 Brownlow Street

L69 3GL Liverpool

United Kingdom

Large individual aid grants N/A

In conformity with Article 6 of the Regulation

Yes

| Aid No | XS 147/06 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Estonia |
| Region | Estonia |
| Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid | Investment aid for the development and diversification of alternative economic activity in rural areas |
| Legal base | Põllumajandusministri 7. septembri 2006 määrus nr 92 “Põllumajandusministri 28. juuli 2004. a määruse nr 126”“Eesti riikliku arengukava Euroopa Liidu struktuurifondide kasutuselevõtuks — ühtne programmdokument aastateks 2004–2006” meetme 3.3 “Majandustegevuse mitmekesistamine maapiirkonnas” tingimused “muutmine” (RTL 19.9.2006, 69, 1277) |
| Annual expenditure planned or overall amount of aid granted to the company | Aid scheme | Annual overall amount
  EEK 57 462 076 (EUR 3 672 496
  of which EEK 14 365 519 (EUR 918 124)
  from the Republic of Estonia
  and EEK 43 096 557 (EUR 2 754 372) from the EAGGF |
| Loans guaranteed | |
| Individual aid | Overall aid amount | |
| Loans guaranteed | |
| Maximum aid intensity | In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation | Yes |
| Date of implementation | 22.9.2006 |
| Duration of scheme or individual aid award | Until 31.12.2006 |
| Objective of aid | Aid to SMEs | Yes |
| Economic sectors concerned | Limited to specific sectors | Yes |
| — | Coalmining |

Aid No

XS 147/06

Member State

Estonia

Region

Estonia

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid

Investment aid for the development and diversification of alternative economic activity in rural areas

Legal base

Põllumajandusministri 7. septembri 2006 määrus nr 92 “Põllumajandusministri 28. juuli 2004. a määruse nr 126”“Eesti riikliku arengukava Euroopa Liidu struktuurifondide kasutuselevõtuks — ühtne programmdokument aastateks 2004–2006” meetme 3.3 “Majandustegevuse mitmekesistamine maapiirkonnas” tingimused “muutmine” (RTL 19.9.2006, 69, 1277)

Annual expenditure planned or overall amount of aid granted to the company

Aid scheme

Annual overall amount

EEK 57 462 076 (EUR 3 672 496

of which EEK 14 365 519 (EUR 918 124)

from the Republic of Estonia

and EEK 43 096 557 (EUR 2 754 372) from the EAGGF

Loans guaranteed

Individual aid

Overall aid amount

Loans guaranteed

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation

Yes

Date of implementation

22.9.2006

Duration of scheme or individual aid award

Until 31.12.2006

Objective of aid

Aid to SMEs

Yes

Economic sectors concerned

Limited to specific sectors

Yes

—

Coalmining

No

Other manufacturing

Yes

Other services

Yes

Name and address of the granting authority

Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet

Narva mnt 3 Tartu

Large individual aid grants

In conformity with Article 6 of the Regulation

Yes

| Aid No | XS 148/06 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Slovak Republic |
| Region | Západné Slovensko |
| Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid | Prefabetón Koš, a. s. Nováky, Lehotská 640, SK-972 71 Nováky |
| Legal basis | 1. | Ustanovenie § 240 ods. 3 a § 241 ods. 3 v spojení s ustanovením § 277a zák. č. 461/2003 Z. z. o sociálnom poistení v znení zák. č. 721/2004 Z. z. internetové spojenie www.socpoist.sk |

Aid No

XS 148/06

Member State

Slovak Republic

Region

Západné Slovensko

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid

Prefabetón Koš, a. s. Nováky, Lehotská 640, SK-972 71 Nováky

Legal basis

1.

Ustanovenie § 240 ods. 3 a § 241 ods. 3 v spojení s ustanovením § 277a zák. č. 461/2003 Z. z. o sociálnom poistení v znení zák. č. 721/2004 Z. z. internetové spojenie www.socpoist.sk

| 2. | Ustanovenie § 5 ods. 2 písm. b) zák. č. 231/1999 Z. z. o štátnej pomoci.70/2001 v znení neskorších predpisov, internetové spojenie www.finance.gov.sk |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ustanovenie § 5 ods. 2 písm. b) zák. č. 231/1999 Z. z. o štátnej pomoci.70/2001 v znení neskorších predpisov, internetové spojenie www.finance.gov.sk

| 3. | Metodické usmernenie Sociálnej poisťovne č. 30/2005 |
| --- | --- |

3.

Metodické usmernenie Sociálnej poisťovne č. 30/2005

| 4. | Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to SMEs |
| --- | --- |

4.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to SMEs

Annual expenditure planned or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company

Aid scheme

Annual overall amount

Loans guaranteed

Individual aid

Overall aid amount

EUR 330 281,80

SKK 12 431 477

Loans guaranteed

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation

Yes

49,73 %

Date of implementation

Decision 1100-122-GC09/2006 of 4.9.2006, effective 6.9.2006

Duration of scheme or individual aid award

September 2006 — one-off aid measure

Objective of aid

Aid to SMEs

Yes

Economic sectors concerned

Limited to specific sectors

Yes

| — | Manufacturing |
| --- | --- |

—

Manufacturing

Yes — construction

Name and address of the granting authority

Sociálna poisťovňa, agentúra Prievidza

| Matice slovenskej 10 |
| --- |
| SK-971 01 Prievidza |
| Web address: www.socpoist.sk |

Matice slovenskej 10

SK-971 01 Prievidza

Web address: www.socpoist.sk

Large individual aid grants

In conformity with Article 6 of the Regulation

Yes

| Aid No | XS 149/06 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Netherlands |
| Region | Province of Flevoland |
| Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid | ‘De Boerderij’ children's day-care centre |
| Legal basis | — | Decentralisatie-convenant Rijk/Flevoland m.b.t. het Leader+ programma Regio Randstad 2000-2006 d.d. 11 april 2001 |

Aid No

XS 149/06

Member State

Netherlands

Region

Province of Flevoland

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid

‘De Boerderij’ children's day-care centre

Legal basis

—

Decentralisatie-convenant Rijk/Flevoland m.b.t. het Leader+ programma Regio Randstad 2000-2006 d.d. 11 april 2001

| — | Leader+ overeenkomst tussen de provincie Flevoland en mevrouw A. Reijns |
| --- | --- |

—

Leader+ overeenkomst tussen de provincie Flevoland en mevrouw A. Reijns

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company

Aid scheme

Annual overall amount

Loans guaranteed

Individual aid

Overall aid amount

EUR 11 718

Loans guaranteed

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation

Yes,

the aid intensity is 15 %. This is in line with Article 4(2)(a) of Regulation 70/2001

Date of implementation

The decree will be issued once the notice has appeared in the Official Journal of the European Union

Duration of scheme or individual aid award

Until 1.8.2007

Objective of aid

Aid to SMEs

Yes,

aid is granted for investment in tangible assets (Article 4(1)). The purpose of the aid is to contribute to the costs incurred by the undertaking in establishing a children's day-care centre

Economic sectors concerned

All sectors eligible for aid to SMEs

Yes

Name and address of the granting authority

Provincie Flevoland

| Postbus 55 |
| --- |
| 8200 AB Lelystad |
| Nederland |

Postbus 55

8200 AB Lelystad

Nederland

Large individual aid grants

In conformity with Article 6 of the Regulation

Yes

| Aid No | XS 150/06 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Region | Yorkshire & the Humber |
| Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid | Kestonbond Holdings Limited |
| Legal basis | Local Government Act 2000 |
| Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company | Aid scheme | Annual overall amount | |
| Loans guaranteed | |
| Individual aid | Overall aid amount | GBP 0,173 million |
| Loans guaranteed | |
| Maximum aid intensity | In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation | Yes |
| Date of implementation | From 9.10.2006 |
| Duration of scheme or individual aid award | Until 30.6.2007 |
| Objective of aid | Aid to SMEs | Yes |
| Economic sectors concerned | All sectors eligible for aid to SMEs | Yes |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber |
| 25 Queen Street |
| Leeds, LS1 2TW |
| United Kingdom |

Aid No

XS 150/06

Member State

United Kingdom

Region

Yorkshire & the Humber

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid

Kestonbond Holdings Limited

Legal basis

Local Government Act 2000

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company

Aid scheme

Annual overall amount

Loans guaranteed

Individual aid

Overall aid amount

GBP 0,173 million

Loans guaranteed

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation

Yes

Date of implementation

From 9.10.2006

Duration of scheme or individual aid award

Until 30.6.2007

Objective of aid

Aid to SMEs

Yes

Economic sectors concerned

All sectors eligible for aid to SMEs

Yes

Name and address of the granting authority

Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber

25 Queen Street

Leeds, LS1 2TW

United Kingdom

Large individual aid grants

In conformity with Article 6 of the Regulation

Yes

| Aid No | XS 151/06 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Germany |
| Region | Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg |
| Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid | Hamburg R&D promotion directive |
| Legal basis | § 9 des Gesetzes über die Förderung von kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen und der in der Wirtschaft tätigen freien Berufen |
| Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company | Aid scheme | Annual overall amount | EUR 1,8 million |
| Loans guaranteed | |
| Individual aid | Overall aid amount | |
| Loans guaranteed | |
| Maximum aid intensity | In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation | Yes |
| Date of implementation | 3.1.2005 |
| Duration of scheme or individual aid award | Until 31.12.2007 |
| Objective of aid | Aid to SMEs | Yes |
| Economic sectors concerned | All sectors eligible for aid to SMEs | Yes |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Behörde für Wirtschaft und Arbeit |
| Alter Steinweg 4 |
| D-20459 Hamburg |

Aid No

XS 151/06

Member State

Germany

Region

Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid

Hamburg R&D promotion directive

Legal basis

§ 9 des Gesetzes über die Förderung von kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen und der in der Wirtschaft tätigen freien Berufen

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company

Aid scheme

Annual overall amount

EUR 1,8 million

Loans guaranteed

Individual aid

Overall aid amount

Loans guaranteed

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation

Yes

Date of implementation

3.1.2005

Duration of scheme or individual aid award

Until 31.12.2007

Objective of aid

Aid to SMEs

Yes

Economic sectors concerned

All sectors eligible for aid to SMEs

Yes

Name and address of the granting authority

Behörde für Wirtschaft und Arbeit

Alter Steinweg 4

D-20459 Hamburg

Large individual aid grants

In conformity with Article 6 of the Regulation

Yes

| Aid No | XS 152/06 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Region | North East of England |
| Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid | Neosensors Ltd |
| Legal basis | The University of Durham and Newcastle Act 1963 |
| Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company | Aid scheme | Annual overall amount | |
| Loans guaranteed | |
| Individual aid | Overall aid amount | GBP 4 446,24 |
| Loans guaranteed | |
| Maximum aid intensity | In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation | Yes |
| Date of implementation | From 2.6.2006 |
| Duration of scheme or individual aid award | Until 30.6.2006 |
| Objective of aid | Aid to SMEs | Yes |
| Economic sectors concerned | All sectors eligible for aid to SMEs | Yes |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Government Office for the North East
  European Programmes Secretariat |
| Citygate |
| NE1 4WH Newcastle upon Tyne |
| United Kingdom |

Aid No

XS 152/06

Member State

United Kingdom

Region

North East of England

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid

Neosensors Ltd

Legal basis

The University of Durham and Newcastle Act 1963

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company

Aid scheme

Annual overall amount

Loans guaranteed

Individual aid

Overall aid amount

GBP 4 446,24

Loans guaranteed

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation

Yes

Date of implementation

From 2.6.2006

Duration of scheme or individual aid award

Until 30.6.2006

Objective of aid

Aid to SMEs

Yes

Economic sectors concerned

All sectors eligible for aid to SMEs

Yes

Name and address of the granting authority

Government Office for the North East

European Programmes Secretariat

Citygate

NE1 4WH Newcastle upon Tyne

United Kingdom

Sponsor Contact

| Professor Ken Snowdon |
| --- |
| University of Newcastle (INEX) |
| Herschel Annex |
| NE1 7RU Newcastle upon Tyne |
| United Kingdom |

Professor Ken Snowdon

University of Newcastle (INEX)

Herschel Annex

NE1 7RU Newcastle upon Tyne

United Kingdom

Large individual aid grants

In conformity with Article 6 of the Regulation

Yes

---

| 20.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/9

---

Czech national procedure for the allocation of limited air traffic rights

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 313/04)

In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 847/2004 on the negotiation and implementation of air service agreements between Member States and third countries, the European Commission publishes the following national procedure for the distribution among eligible Community carriers of air traffic rights where they are limited under air service agreements with third countries.

Procedure for the granting of traffic rights to Community air carriers in relation to third countries

In the Czech Republic, decision-making on the granting of traffic rights falls within the exclusive competence of the Ministry of Transport. The Civil Aviation Division proceeds in accordance with the general rules governing administrative procedures (in particular Act No 500/2004 Coll., the Administrative Code), subject to specific derogations laid down in Act No 49/1997 Coll. on civil aviation and amending Act No 455/1991 Coll. on trade licensing (Trade Licensing Act), as amended (cf. Sections 70a — 70d).

The Ministry of Transport takes decisions on the granting of traffic rights to air carriers on the basis of written applications. Applications for the granting of traffic rights are to be submitted, in Czech or in English, to the following address:

| Ministry of Transport |
| --- |
| tel.: +420 972 231 390 |
| Nábřeží Ludvíka Svobody 12/1222 |
| fax: +420 972 231 032 |
| P.O. Box 9 |
| CZ-110 15 Prague 1 |

Ministry of Transport

tel.: +420 972 231 390

Nábřeží Ludvíka Svobody 12/1222

fax: +420 972 231 032

P.O. Box 9

CZ-110 15 Prague 1

‘Section 70a

Granting of traffic rights

(1)   The Ministry of Transport shall take decisions on the granting of traffic rights to air carriers on the basis of written applications.

(2)   The requirements of applications for the granting of traffic rights and the list of documents to be submitted in support of an application shall be specified in implementing provisions.

Section 70b

(1)   The Ministry of Transport shall publish information concerning the receipt of the first application for the granting of traffic rights on its official notice board, and at the same time in a manner which allows remote access, within seven days following receipt of the application. Other air carriers may submit an application for the granting of traffic rights for the same route(s) within a period of 21 days following the publication of information on the first application. Applications submitted later than this shall not be taken into consideration. Information on the receipt of applications from other air carriers shall be published by the Ministry of Transport on its official notice board, and at the same time in a manner which allows remote access, within seven days following receipt of such applications.

(2)   The Ministry of Transport shall take a decision on the basis of a joint procedure covering all the applications submitted in accordance with paragraph 1.

(3)   In procedures for the granting of traffic rights, access to files shall be allowed only after the deadline for the submission of applications specified in paragraph 1 has expired.

Section 70c

(1)   When taking decisions on the granting of traffic rights, the Ministry of Transport shall take into consideration:

| (a) | the type and level of air services offered, |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the type and level of air services offered,

| (b) | the frequency of the air services offered and the capacity offered, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the frequency of the air services offered and the capacity offered,

| (c) | the proposed start date and period of operation, |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the proposed start date and period of operation,

| (d) | the accessibility to users of the services offered, |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the accessibility to users of the services offered,

| (e) | the fare structure offered, |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the fare structure offered,

| (f) | transport service provision, including integration into, and connections with, the existing route network. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

transport service provision, including integration into, and connections with, the existing route network.

(2)   The Ministry of Transport shall take a decision on applications for the granting of traffic rights within a period of 60 days following receipt of the first application.

(3)   A decision to grant traffic rights shall be valid for a period of 10 years.

(4)   The Ministry of Transport shall publish decisions on the granting of traffic rights on its official notice board and, at the same time, in a manner which allows remote access.

(5)   Traffic rights which have been granted shall not be ceded by an air carrier to another person.

(6)   If the competent authority of a foreign State does not grant to the air carrier concerned an operating authorisation for the provision of transport services on the specified route, or revokes such authorisation, the air carrier shall notify the Ministry of Transport thereof in writing without delay.

Section 70d

Revocation of traffic rights

The Ministry of Transport shall revoke traffic rights it has granted if:

| (a) | the air carrier does not commence operations on the specified route within six months following the date on which the decision to grant traffic rights acquires legal force, |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the air carrier does not commence operations on the specified route within six months following the date on which the decision to grant traffic rights acquires legal force,

| (b) | the air carrier does not make use of the granted traffic rights for a period exceeding 12 consecutive calendar months, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the air carrier does not make use of the granted traffic rights for a period exceeding 12 consecutive calendar months,

| (c) | the competent authority of a foreign State does not grant the relevant operating authorisation to the air carrier, or revokes such authorisation, |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the competent authority of a foreign State does not grant the relevant operating authorisation to the air carrier, or revokes such authorisation,

| (d) | the air carrier violates the conditions laid down in the decision to grant traffic rights’. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the air carrier violates the conditions laid down in the decision to grant traffic rights’.

Text of implementing provisions Section 70a(2) of Act No 49/1997 Coll. on civil aviation, as amended, laying down formal requirements for applications for the granting of traffic rights (new Section 18a of Ministry of Transport Decree No 108/1997 Coll., as amended)

| 36. | The following new Section 18a, including the title and footnote 11d, is inserted after Section 18:
  ‘18a
  Formal requirements for applications for the granting of traffic rights and documents to be appended to such applications
  (re. Section 70a(2) of the Act)
  (1)   An application for the granting of traffic rights shall include:






  — | the information specified in the relevant specific legislation (1), |
| --- | --- | --- |

36.

The following new Section 18a, including the title and footnote 11d, is inserted after Section 18:

‘18a

Formal requirements for applications for the granting of traffic rights and documents to be appended to such applications

(re. Section 70a(2) of the Act)

(1)   An application for the granting of traffic rights shall include:

—

the information specified in the relevant specific legislation (1),

1

| — | description of the services to be offered, including the period and type of operation, |
| --- | --- |

—

description of the services to be offered, including the period and type of operation,

| — | proposed timetable, including restrictions on traffic rights, |
| --- | --- |

—

proposed timetable, including restrictions on traffic rights,

| — | aircraft type and configuration, |
| --- | --- |

—

aircraft type and configuration,

| — | anticipated start-up date, |
| --- | --- |

—

anticipated start-up date,

| — | fare structure to be offered, |
| --- | --- |

—

fare structure to be offered,

| — | expected profitability of the operations, |
| --- | --- |

—

expected profitability of the operations,

| — | description of forms in which services are to be offered, including ticketing, |
| --- | --- |

—

description of forms in which services are to be offered, including ticketing,

| — | connections with the carrier's existing route network and links to other carriers' networks. |
| --- | --- |

—

connections with the carrier's existing route network and links to other carriers' networks.

Applicants are to append to the following to their applications:

| — | operating licence for commercial air transport, in accordance with the directly applicable EC legislation (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

operating licence for commercial air transport, in accordance with the directly applicable EC legislation (2),

2

| — | air operator's certificate, including the operating specification with the corresponding geographical specification covering the requested traffic rights, |
| --- | --- |

—

air operator's certificate, including the operating specification with the corresponding geographical specification covering the requested traffic rights,

| — | proof of liability insurance in respect of damage caused by the operation of an aircraft, in relation to passengers, baggage, cargo and third persons, |
| --- | --- |

—

proof of liability insurance in respect of damage caused by the operation of an aircraft, in relation to passengers, baggage, cargo and third persons,

| — | security programme |
| --- | --- |

—

security programme

---

(1)  Section 45 of Act No 500/2004 Coll., Administrative Code.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers’.

2

---

| 20.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/12

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 313/05)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 8.11.2006 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 216/06 |
| Member State | France |
| Title | Indemnisation des ramasseurs agrées d'huiles usagées |
| Legal basis | Délibération du Conseil d'administration de l'Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Énergie (ADEME) no 06-1-2 du 2 février 2006 |
| Type of measure | aid scheme |
| Objective | environmental protection |
| Form of aid | direct grant |
| Budget | annual expenditure planned: EUR 13 million |
| Duration | 1.1.2007 — 31.12.2012 |
| Economic sectors | waste oil collection |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Énergie (ADEME) |
| 2, square La Fayette |
| BP 90 406 |
| F-49004 Angers cedex 01 |

Date of adoption of the decision

8.11.2006

Reference number of the aid

N 216/06

Member State

France

Title

Indemnisation des ramasseurs agrées d'huiles usagées

Legal basis

Délibération du Conseil d'administration de l'Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Énergie (ADEME) no 06-1-2 du 2 février 2006

Type of measure

aid scheme

Objective

environmental protection

Form of aid

direct grant

Budget

annual expenditure planned: EUR 13 million

Duration

1.1.2007 — 31.12.2012

Economic sectors

waste oil collection

Name and address of the granting authority

Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Énergie (ADEME)

2, square La Fayette

BP 90 406

F-49004 Angers cedex 01

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

| Date of adoption of the decision | 13.11.2006 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 320/06 |
| Member State | Malta |
| Title | Participation in the EUREKA-programme |
| Legal basis | Malta Enterprise Corporation Act (Cap 463) |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Research and development |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Annual budget: 0,1 million MTL; Overall budget: 0,4 million MTL |
| Intensity | 30 % |
| Duration | 31 December 2010 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Malta Enterprise Corporation; Enterprise Centre; |
| San Gwann SGN 09, Malta |

Date of adoption of the decision

13.11.2006

Reference number of the aid

N 320/06

Member State

Malta

Title

Participation in the EUREKA-programme

Legal basis

Malta Enterprise Corporation Act (Cap 463)

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Research and development

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Annual budget: 0,1 million MTL; Overall budget: 0,4 million MTL

Intensity

30 %

Duration

31 December 2010

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

Malta Enterprise Corporation; Enterprise Centre;

San Gwann SGN 09, Malta

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

| Date of adoption of the decision | 20.9.2006 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 501/05 |
| Member State | Netherlands |
| Title | Draagkrachtondersteuning voor bodemsanering van bedrijfsterreinen |
| Legal basis | Artikel 55b en 76j van de Wet bodembescherming en artikel 40 en 40a van het Besluit financiële bepalingen bodemsanering |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Environmental protection |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 20 million; Overall budget: EUR 500 million |
| Intensity | 115 % |
| Duration | 20 September 2006 — 31 December 2030 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |

Date of adoption of the decision

20.9.2006

Reference number of the aid

N 501/05

Member State

Netherlands

Title

Draagkrachtondersteuning voor bodemsanering van bedrijfsterreinen

Legal basis

Artikel 55b en 76j van de Wet bodembescherming en artikel 40 en 40a van het Besluit financiële bepalingen bodemsanering

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Environmental protection

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 20 million; Overall budget: EUR 500 million

Intensity

115 %

Duration

20 September 2006 — 31 December 2030

Economic sectors

All sectors

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---

| 20.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/14

---

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 2004/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on measuring instruments

(Text with EEA relevance)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)

(2006/C 313/06)

| ESO (1) | Reference and title of the harmonised standard
  (and reference document) | Reference of superseded standard | Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of superseded standard
  Note 1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CEN | EN 1359:1998
  Gas meters — Diaphragm gas meters | — | |
| EN 1359:1998/A1:2006 | | |
| CEN | EN 12261:2002
  Gas meters — Turbine gas meters | — | |
| EN 12261:2002/A1:2006 | | |
| CEN | EN 12405-1:2005
  Gas meters — Conversion devices — Part 1: Volume conversion | — | |
| EN 12405-1:2005/A1:2006 | | |
| CEN | EN 12480:2002
  Gas meters — Rotary displacement gas meters | — | |
| EN 12480:2002/A1:2006 | | |

ESO (1)

Reference and title of the harmonised standard

(and reference document)

Reference of superseded standard

Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of superseded standard

Note 1

CEN

EN 1359:1998

Gas meters — Diaphragm gas meters

—

EN 1359:1998/A1:2006

CEN

EN 12261:2002

Gas meters — Turbine gas meters

—

EN 12261:2002/A1:2006

CEN

EN 12405-1:2005

Gas meters — Conversion devices — Part 1: Volume conversion

—

EN 12405-1:2005/A1:2006

CEN

EN 12480:2002

Gas meters — Rotary displacement gas meters

—

EN 12480:2002/A1:2006

| Note 1 | Generally the date of cessation of presumption of conformity will be the date of withdrawal (‘dow’), set by the European Standardisation Organisation, but attention of users of these standards is drawn to the fact that in certain exceptional cases this can be otherwise. |
| --- | --- |

Note 1

Generally the date of cessation of presumption of conformity will be the date of withdrawal (‘dow’), set by the European Standardisation Organisation, but attention of users of these standards is drawn to the fact that in certain exceptional cases this can be otherwise.

| Note 3 | In case of amendments, the referenced standard is EN CCCCC:YYYY, its previous amendments, if any, and the new, quoted amendment. The superseded standard (column 3) therefore consists of EN CCCCC:YYYY and its previous amendments, if any, but without the new quoted amendment. On the date stated, the superseded standard ceases to give presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the directive. |
| --- | --- |

Note 3

In case of amendments, the referenced standard is EN CCCCC:YYYY, its previous amendments, if any, and the new, quoted amendment. The superseded standard (column 3) therefore consists of EN CCCCC:YYYY and its previous amendments, if any, but without the new quoted amendment. On the date stated, the superseded standard ceases to give presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the directive.

NOTE:

| — | Any information concerning the availability of the standards can be obtained either from the European Standardisation Organisations or from the national standardisation bodies of which the list is annexed to the Directive 98/34/EC (2) of the European Parliament and Council amended by the Directive 98/48/EC (3). |
| --- | --- |

—

Any information concerning the availability of the standards can be obtained either from the European Standardisation Organisations or from the national standardisation bodies of which the list is annexed to the Directive 98/34/EC (2) of the European Parliament and Council amended by the Directive 98/48/EC (3).

| — | Publication of the references in the Official Journal of the European Union does not imply that the standards are available in all the Community languages. |
| --- | --- |

—

Publication of the references in the Official Journal of the European Union does not imply that the standards are available in all the Community languages.

| — | This list replaces all the previous lists published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Commission ensures the updating of this list. |
| --- | --- |

—

This list replaces all the previous lists published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Commission ensures the updating of this list.

More information about harmonised standards on the Internet at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/

---

(1)  ESO: European Standardisation Organisation:

| — | CEN: rue de Stassart 36, B-1050 Brussels, Tel. (32-2) 550 08 11; fax (32-2) 550 08 19 (http://www.cenorm.be) |
| --- | --- |

—

CEN: rue de Stassart 36, B-1050 Brussels, Tel. (32-2) 550 08 11; fax (32-2) 550 08 19 (http://www.cenorm.be)

| — | CENELEC: rue de Stassart 35, B-1050 Brussels, Tel. (32-2) 519 68 71; fax (32-2) 519 69 19 (http://www.cenelec.org) |
| --- | --- |

—

CENELEC: rue de Stassart 35, B-1050 Brussels, Tel. (32-2) 519 68 71; fax (32-2) 519 69 19 (http://www.cenelec.org)

| — | ETSI: 650, route des Lucioles, F-06921 Sophia Antipolis, Tel. (33) 492 94 42 00; fax (33) 493 65 47 16 (http://www.etsi.org) |
| --- | --- |

—

ETSI: 650, route des Lucioles, F-06921 Sophia Antipolis, Tel. (33) 492 94 42 00; fax (33) 493 65 47 16 (http://www.etsi.org)

(2)  OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

(3)  OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18.

---

| 20.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/15

---

Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of coke of coal in pieces with a diameter of more than 80 mm (Coke 80+) originating in the People's Republic of China

(2006/C 313/07)

The Commission has received a complaint pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (‘the basic Regulation’) (1), alleging that imports of Coke 80+, originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the country concerned’), are being dumped and are thereby causing material injury to the Community industry.

1.   Complaint

The complaint was lodged on 20 November 2006 by three Community producers (‘the complainant’) representing a major proportion, in this case more than 30 % of the total Community production of Coke 80+.

2.   Product

The product allegedly being dumped is coke of coal in pieces with a diameter of more than 80 mm (‘Coke 80+’) originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the product concerned’), normally declared within CN code ex 2704 00 19. This CN code is only given for information.

3.   Allegation of dumping

In view of the provisions of Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, the complainant established normal value for the People's Republic of China on the basis of a constructed normal value in a market economy country, which is mentioned in point 5.1(d). The allegation of dumping is based on a comparison of normal value, thus calculated, with the export prices of the product concerned when sold for export to the Community.

On this basis, the dumping margin calculated is significant.

4.   Allegation of injury

The complainant has provided evidence that imports of the product concerned from the People's Republic of China have increased overall in absolute terms and in terms of market share.

It is alleged that the volumes and the prices of the imported product concerned have, among other consequences, had a negative impact on the market share held, the quantities sold and the level of prices charged by the Community industry, resulting in substantial adverse effects on the overall performance and the financial situation of the Community industry.

5.   Procedure

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that the complaint has been lodged by or on behalf of the Community industry and that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of a proceeding, the Commission hereby initiates an investigation pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation.

5.1.   Procedure for the determination of dumping and injury

The investigation will determine whether the product concerned originating in the People's Republic of China is being dumped and whether this dumping has caused injury.

(a)   Sampling

In view of the apparent large number of parties involved in this proceeding, the Commission may decide to apply sampling in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

(i)   Sampling for exporters/producers in the People's Republic of China

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporters/producers, or representatives acting on their behalf, are hereby requested to make themselves known by contacting the Commission and providing the following information on their company or companies within the time limit set in point 6(b)(i) and in the format indicated in point 7:

| — | name, address, e-mail address, telephone, and fax numbers and contact person, |
| --- | --- |

—

name, address, e-mail address, telephone, and fax numbers and contact person,

| — | the turnover in local currency and the volume in tonnes of the product concerned sold for export to the Community during the period 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006, |
| --- | --- |

—

the turnover in local currency and the volume in tonnes of the product concerned sold for export to the Community during the period 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006,

| — | the turnover in local currency and the sales volume in tonnes of the product concerned sold on the domestic market during the period 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006, |
| --- | --- |

—

the turnover in local currency and the sales volume in tonnes of the product concerned sold on the domestic market during the period 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006,

| — | whether the company intends to claim an individual margin (2) (individual margins can only be claimed by producers), |
| --- | --- |

—

whether the company intends to claim an individual margin (2) (individual margins can only be claimed by producers),

| — | the precise activities of the company with regard to the production of the product concerned, |
| --- | --- |

—

the precise activities of the company with regard to the production of the product concerned,

| — | the names and the precise activities of all related companies (3) involved in the production and/or selling (export and/or domestic) of the product concerned, |
| --- | --- |

—

the names and the precise activities of all related companies (3) involved in the production and/or selling (export and/or domestic) of the product concerned,

| — | any other relevant information that would assist the Commission in the selection of the sample, |
| --- | --- |

—

any other relevant information that would assist the Commission in the selection of the sample,

| — | by providing the above information, the company agrees to its possible inclusion in the sample. If the company is chosen to be part of the sample, this will imply replying to a questionnaire and accepting an on-the-spot investigation of its response. If the company indicates that it does not agree to its possible inclusion in the sample, it will be deemed to not have co-operated in the investigation. The consequences of non-cooperation are set out in point 8 below. |
| --- | --- |

—

by providing the above information, the company agrees to its possible inclusion in the sample. If the company is chosen to be part of the sample, this will imply replying to a questionnaire and accepting an on-the-spot investigation of its response. If the company indicates that it does not agree to its possible inclusion in the sample, it will be deemed to not have co-operated in the investigation. The consequences of non-cooperation are set out in point 8 below.

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for the selection of the sample of exporters/producers, the Commission will, in addition, contact the authorities of the exporting country, and any known associations of exporters/producers.

(ii)   Sampling for importers

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all importers, or representatives acting on their behalf, are hereby requested to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide the following information on their company or companies within the time limit set in point 6(b)(i) and in the formats indicated in point 7:

| — | name, address, e-mail address, telephone, and fax numbers and contact person, |
| --- | --- |

—

name, address, e-mail address, telephone, and fax numbers and contact person,

| — | the total turnover in euro of the company during the period 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006, |
| --- | --- |

—

the total turnover in euro of the company during the period 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006,

| — | the total number of employees, |
| --- | --- |

—

the total number of employees,

| — | the precise activities of the company with regard to the product concerned, |
| --- | --- |

—

the precise activities of the company with regard to the product concerned,

| — | the volume in tonnes and value in euro of imports into and resales made in the Community market during the period 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006 of the imported product concerned originating in the People's Republic of China, |
| --- | --- |

—

the volume in tonnes and value in euro of imports into and resales made in the Community market during the period 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006 of the imported product concerned originating in the People's Republic of China,

| — | the names and the precise activities of all related companies (3) involved in the production and/or selling of the product concerned, |
| --- | --- |

—

the names and the precise activities of all related companies (3) involved in the production and/or selling of the product concerned,

| — | any other relevant information that would assist the Commission in the selection of the sample, |
| --- | --- |

—

any other relevant information that would assist the Commission in the selection of the sample,

| — | by providing the above information, the company agrees to its possible inclusion in the sample. If the company is chosen to be part of the sample, this will imply replying to a questionnaire and accepting an on-the-spot investigation of its response. If the company indicates that it does not agree to its possible inclusion in the sample, it will be deemed to not have co-operated in the investigation. The consequences of non-cooperation are set out in point 8 below. |
| --- | --- |

—

by providing the above information, the company agrees to its possible inclusion in the sample. If the company is chosen to be part of the sample, this will imply replying to a questionnaire and accepting an on-the-spot investigation of its response. If the company indicates that it does not agree to its possible inclusion in the sample, it will be deemed to not have co-operated in the investigation. The consequences of non-cooperation are set out in point 8 below.

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for the selection of the sample of importers, the Commission will, in addition, contact any known associations of importers.

(iii)   Final selection of the samples

All interested parties wishing to submit any relevant information regarding the selection of the sample must do so within the time limit set in point 6(b)(ii).

The Commission intends to make the final selection of the samples after having consulted the parties concerned that have expressed their willingness to be included in the sample.

Companies included in the samples must reply to a questionnaire within the time limit set in point 6(b)(iii) and must cooperate within the framework of the investigation.

If sufficient co-operation is not forthcoming, the Commission may base its findings, in accordance with Articles 17(4) and 18 of the basic Regulation, on the facts available. A finding based on facts available may be less advantageous to the party concerned, as explained in point 8.

(b)   Questionnaires

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the Community industry and to any association of producers in the Community, to the sampled exporters/producers in the People's Republic of China, to any association of exporters/producers, to the sampled importers, to any association of importers named in the complaint, and to the authorities of the exporting country concerned.

Exporters/producers in the People's Republic of China claiming an individual margin, with a view to the application of Articles 17(3) and 9(6) of the basic Regulation, must submit a completed questionnaire within the time limit set in point 6(a)(ii) of this notice. They therefore have to request a questionnaire within the time limit set in point 6(a)(i). However, such parties should be aware that if sampling is applied to exporters/producers, the Commission may nonetheless decide not to calculate an individual margin for them, if the number of exporters/producers is so large that individual examination would be unduly burdensome and would prevent the timely completion of the investigation.

(c)   Collection of information and holding of hearings

All interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known, submit information other than questionnaire replies and to provide supporting evidence. This information and supporting evidence has to reach the Commission within the time limit set in point 6(a)(ii).

Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request showing that there are particular reasons why they should be heard. This request must be made within the time limit set in point 6(a)(iii).

(d)   Selection of the market economy country

In accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, it is envisaged to choose the United States of America as an appropriate market economy country for the purpose of establishing normal value in respect of the People's Republic of China. Interested parties are hereby invited to comment on the appropriateness of this choice within the specific time limit set in point 6(c).

(e)   Market economy status

For those exporters/producers in the People's Republic of China who claim and provide sufficient evidence that they operate under market economy conditions, i.e. that they meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, normal value will be determined in accordance with Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation. Exporters/producers intending to submit duly substantiated claims must do so within the specific time limit set in point 6(d). The Commission will send claim forms to all exporters/producers in the People's Republic of China named in the complaint and to any association of exporters/producers named in the complaint, as well as to the authorities of the People's Republic of China.

5.2.   Procedure for assessment of Community interest

In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation and in the event that the allegations of dumping and injury caused thereby are substantiated, a decision will be reached as to whether the adoption of anti-dumping measures would not be against the Community interest. For this reason the Community industry, importers, their representative associations, representative users and representative consumer organizations, provided that they prove that there is an objective link between their activity and the product concerned, may, within the general time limits set in point 6(a)(ii), make themselves known and provide the Commission with information. The parties which have acted in conformity with the precedent sentence may request a hearing setting the particular reasons why they should be heard within the time limit set in point 6(a)(iii). It should be noted that any information submitted pursuant to Article 21 will only be taken into account if supported by factual evidence at the time of submission.

6.   Time limits

(a)   General time limits

(i)   For parties to request a questionnaire or other claim forms

All interested parties should request a questionnaire or other claim forms as soon as possible, but not later than 10 days after the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(ii)   For parties to make themselves known, to submit questionnaire replies and any other information

All interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views and submit questionnaire replies or any other information within 40 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified. Attention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party's making itself known within the aforementioned period.

Companies selected in a sample must submit questionnaire replies within the time limits specified in point 6(b)(iii).

(iii)   Hearings

All interested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 40 day time limit.

(b)   Specific time limit in respect of sampling

| (i) | The information specified in point 5.1(a)(i) and 5.1(a)(ii) should reach the Commission within 15 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, given that the Commission intends to consult parties concerned that have expressed their willingness to be included in the sample on its final selection within a period of 21 days of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(i)

The information specified in point 5.1(a)(i) and 5.1(a)(ii) should reach the Commission within 15 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, given that the Commission intends to consult parties concerned that have expressed their willingness to be included in the sample on its final selection within a period of 21 days of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

| (ii) | All other information relevant for the selection of the sample as referred to in 5.1(a)(iii) must reach the Commission within a period of 21 days of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

All other information relevant for the selection of the sample as referred to in 5.1(a)(iii) must reach the Commission within a period of 21 days of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

| (iii) | The questionnaire replies from sampled parties must reach the Commission within 37 days from the date of the notification of their inclusion in the sample. |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

The questionnaire replies from sampled parties must reach the Commission within 37 days from the date of the notification of their inclusion in the sample.

(c)   Specific time limit for the selection of the market economy country

Parties to the investigation may wish to comment on the appropriateness of the United States of America which, as mentioned in point 5.1(d), is envisaged as a market-economy country for the purpose of establishing normal value in respect of the People's Republic of China. These comments must reach the Commission within 10 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(d)   Specific time limit for submission of claims for market economy status and/or for individual treatment

Duly substantiated claims for market economy status (as mentioned in point 5.1(e)) and/or for individual treatment pursuant to Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation, must reach the Commission within 15 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

7.   Written submissions, questionnaire replies and correspondence

All submissions and requests made by interested parties must be made in writing (not in electronic format, unless otherwise specified) and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers of the interested party. All written submissions, including the information requested in this notice, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis shall be labeled as ‘Limited’ (4) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, shall be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which will be labeled ‘For inspection by interested parties’.

Commission address for correspondence:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate General for Trade |
| Directorate B |
| Office: J-79 5/16 |
| B-1049 Brussels |
| Fax (32-2) 295 65 05. |

European Commission

Directorate General for Trade

Directorate B

Office: J-79 5/16

B-1049 Brussels

Fax (32-2) 295 65 05.

8.   Non-cooperation

In cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, provisional or final findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.

Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of the facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favorable to that party than if it had cooperated.

9.   Schedule of the investigation

The investigation will be concluded, according to Article 6(9) of the basic Regulation within 15 months of the date of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. According to Article 7(1) of the basic Regulation, provisional measures may be imposed no later than 9 months from the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17).

(2)  Individual margins may be claimed pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation for companies not included in the sample, article 9(5) of the basic Regulation concerning individual treatment in cases involving non market economy countries/economies in transition, and article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation for companies claiming market economy status. Note that claims for individual treatment necessitate an application pursuant to Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and that claims regarding market economy status necessitate an application pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.

(3)  For guidance on the meaning of related companies, please refer to Article 143 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1).

(4)  This means that the document is for internal use only. It is protected pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43). It is a confidential document pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation and Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (Anti-dumping Agreement).

---

| 20.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/19

---

Information procedure — Technical rules

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 313/08)

Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services. (OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37; OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18).

Notifications of draft national technical rules received by the Commission

| Reference (1) | Title | End of three-month standstill period (2) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2006/0610/PL | Draft Order of the Minister for the Economy amending the Order on the criteria and procedures for allowing waste to be placed at certain types of landfill sites | 19.2.2007 |
| 2006/0611/E | Draft Act on impulse measures of the Information Society | 21.2.2007 |
| 2006/0612/S | The Swedish Road Administration's administrative provisions on cars and trailers pulled by cars | 21.2.2007 |
| 2006/0613/NL | Amendment to the National Waste Management Plan 2002-2012 | 22.2.2007 |
| 2006/0614/EE | Regulation of the Minister for Agriculture: Improved list of businesses subject to approval in the field of food handling, the content requirements for the approval application, the list of documents to be included in the approval application, and the application procedure | 22.2.2007 |
| 2006/0615/D | Draft Third Act amending the Acts on excise duties | 23.2.2007 |
| 2006/0616/UK | The Undersized Bass Order 2007 | 23.2.2007 |
| 2006/0617/B | Royal Decree on inland waterway vessels also used for non-international sea voyages | 26.2.2007 |
| 2006/0618/D | Additional technical terms of contract and guidelines for civil engineering works (German designation: ZTV-ING), Part 2 Foundation work, Chapter 1 Building pits, Chapter 2 Foundations, Chapter 3 Drainage, Chapter 4 Supporting structures | 26.2.2007 |
| 2006/0619/E | National Table of Frequency Allocations (Spanish acronym: CNAF) | 26.2.2007 |

Reference (1)

Title

End of three-month standstill period (2)

2006/0610/PL

Draft Order of the Minister for the Economy amending the Order on the criteria and procedures for allowing waste to be placed at certain types of landfill sites

19.2.2007

2006/0611/E

Draft Act on impulse measures of the Information Society

21.2.2007

2006/0612/S

The Swedish Road Administration's administrative provisions on cars and trailers pulled by cars

21.2.2007

2006/0613/NL

Amendment to the National Waste Management Plan 2002-2012

22.2.2007

2006/0614/EE

Regulation of the Minister for Agriculture: Improved list of businesses subject to approval in the field of food handling, the content requirements for the approval application, the list of documents to be included in the approval application, and the application procedure

22.2.2007

2006/0615/D

Draft Third Act amending the Acts on excise duties

23.2.2007

2006/0616/UK

The Undersized Bass Order 2007

23.2.2007

2006/0617/B

Royal Decree on inland waterway vessels also used for non-international sea voyages

26.2.2007

2006/0618/D

Additional technical terms of contract and guidelines for civil engineering works (German designation: ZTV-ING), Part 2 Foundation work, Chapter 1 Building pits, Chapter 2 Foundations, Chapter 3 Drainage, Chapter 4 Supporting structures

26.2.2007

2006/0619/E

National Table of Frequency Allocations (Spanish acronym: CNAF)

26.2.2007

The Commission draws attention to the judgement delivered on 30 April 1996 in the ‘CIA Security’ case (C-194/94 — ECR I, p. 2201), in which the Court of Justice ruled that Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 98/34/EC (formerly 83/189/EEC) are to be interpreted as meaning that individuals may rely on them before national courts which must decline to apply a national technical regulation which has not been notified in accordance with the Directive.

This judgement confirms the Commission's communication of 1 October 1986 (OJ C 245, 1.10.1986, p. 4).

Accordingly, breach of the obligation to notify renders the technical regulations concerned inapplicable, and consequently unenforceable against individuals.

For more information on the notification procedure, please write to:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| DG Enterprise and Industry, Unit C3 |
| B-1049 Brussels |
| e-mail: dir83-189-central@ec.europa.eu |

European Commission

DG Enterprise and Industry, Unit C3

B-1049 Brussels

e-mail: dir83-189-central@ec.europa.eu

Also consult the website: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/tris/

If you require any further information on these notifications, please contact the national departments listed below:

LIST OF NATIONAL DEPARTMENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DIRECTIVE 98/34/EC

BELGIUM

| BELNotif |
| --- |
| Qualité et Sécurité |
| SPF Economie, PME, Classes moyennes et Energie |
| NG III — 4ème étage |
| boulevard du Roi Albert II/16 |
| B-1000 Bruxelles |
| Ms Pascaline Descamps |
| Tel.: (32) 2 277 80 03 |
| Fax: (32) 2 277 54 01 |
| E-mail: pascaline.descamps@mineco.fgov.be |
| paolo.caruso@mineco.fgov.be |
| General e-mail: belnotif@mineco.fgov.be |
| Website: http://www.mineco.fgov.be |

BELNotif

Qualité et Sécurité

SPF Economie, PME, Classes moyennes et Energie

NG III — 4ème étage

boulevard du Roi Albert II/16

B-1000 Bruxelles

Ms Pascaline Descamps

Tel.: (32) 2 277 80 03

Fax: (32) 2 277 54 01

E-mail: pascaline.descamps@mineco.fgov.be

paolo.caruso@mineco.fgov.be

General e-mail: belnotif@mineco.fgov.be

Website: http://www.mineco.fgov.be

CZECH REPUBLIC

| Czech Office for Standards, Metrology and Testing |
| --- |
| Gorazdova 24 |
| P.O. BOX 49 |
| CZ-128 01 Praha 2 |
| Mr Miroslav Chloupek |
| Director of International Relations Department |
| Tel.: (420) 224 907 123 |
| Fax: (420) 224 914 990 |
| E-mail: chloupek@unmz.cz |
| Ms Lucie Růžičková |
| Tel.: (420) 224 907 139 |
| Fax: (420) 224 907 122 |
| E-mail: ruzickova@unmz.cz |
| General e-mail: eu9834@unmz.cz |
| Website: http://www.unmz.cz |

Czech Office for Standards, Metrology and Testing

Gorazdova 24

P.O. BOX 49

CZ-128 01 Praha 2

Mr Miroslav Chloupek

Director of International Relations Department

Tel.: (420) 224 907 123

Fax: (420) 224 914 990

E-mail: chloupek@unmz.cz

Ms Lucie Růžičková

Tel.: (420) 224 907 139

Fax: (420) 224 907 122

E-mail: ruzickova@unmz.cz

General e-mail: eu9834@unmz.cz

Website: http://www.unmz.cz

DENMARK

| Erhvervs- og Byggestyrelsen |
| --- |
| (National Agency for Enterprise and Construction) |
| Dahlerups Pakhus |
| Langelinie Allé 17 |
| DK-2100 København Ø (or DK-2100 Copenhagen OE) |
| Mr Bjarne Bang Christensen |
| Legal adviser |
| Tel.: (45) 35 46 63 66 (direct) |
| E-mail: bbc@ebst.dk |
| Ms Birgit Jensen |
| Principal Executive Officer |
| Tel.: (45) 35 46 62 87 (direct) |
| Fax: (45) 35 46 62 03 |
| E-mail: bij@ebst.dk |
| Ms Pernille Hjort Engstrøm |
| Head of Section |
| Tel.: (45) 35 46 63 35 (direct) |
| E-mail: phe@ebst.dk |
| Common mailbox for notification messages — noti@ebst.dk |
| Website: http://www.ebst.dk/Notifikationer |

Erhvervs- og Byggestyrelsen

(National Agency for Enterprise and Construction)

Dahlerups Pakhus

Langelinie Allé 17

DK-2100 København Ø (or DK-2100 Copenhagen OE)

Mr Bjarne Bang Christensen

Legal adviser

Tel.: (45) 35 46 63 66 (direct)

E-mail: bbc@ebst.dk

Ms Birgit Jensen

Principal Executive Officer

Tel.: (45) 35 46 62 87 (direct)

Fax: (45) 35 46 62 03

E-mail: bij@ebst.dk

Ms Pernille Hjort Engstrøm

Head of Section

Tel.: (45) 35 46 63 35 (direct)

E-mail: phe@ebst.dk

Common mailbox for notification messages — noti@ebst.dk

Website: http://www.ebst.dk/Notifikationer

GERMANY

| Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie |
| --- |
| Referat EA3 |
| Scharnhorststr. 34 — 37 |
| D-10115 Berlin |
| Ms Christina Jäckel |
| Tel.: (49) 30 20 14 63 53 |
| Fax: (49) 30 20 14 53 79 |
| E-mail: infonorm@bmwa.bund.de |
| Website: http://www.bmwa.bund.de |

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie

Referat EA3

Scharnhorststr. 34 — 37

D-10115 Berlin

Ms Christina Jäckel

Tel.: (49) 30 20 14 63 53

Fax: (49) 30 20 14 53 79

E-mail: infonorm@bmwa.bund.de

Website: http://www.bmwa.bund.de

ESTONIA

| Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications |
| --- |
| Harju str. 11 |
| EE-15072 Tallinn |
| Mr Karl Stern |
| Executive Officer of Trade Policy Division |
| EU and International Co-operation Department |
| Tel.: (372) 6 256 405 |
| Fax: (372) 6 313 029 |
| E-mail: karl.stern@mkm.ee |
| General e-mail: el.teavitamine@mkm.ee |
| Website: http://www.mkm.ee |

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications

Harju str. 11

EE-15072 Tallinn

Mr Karl Stern

Executive Officer of Trade Policy Division

EU and International Co-operation Department

Tel.: (372) 6 256 405

Fax: (372) 6 313 029

E-mail: karl.stern@mkm.ee

General e-mail: el.teavitamine@mkm.ee

Website: http://www.mkm.ee

GREECE

| Ministry of Development |
| --- |
| General Secretariat of Industry |
| Mesogeion 119 |
| GR-101 92 Athens |
| Tel.: (30) 210 696 98 63 |
| Fax: (30) 210 696 91 06 |

Ministry of Development

General Secretariat of Industry

Mesogeion 119

GR-101 92 Athens

Tel.: (30) 210 696 98 63

Fax: (30) 210 696 91 06

| ELOT |
| --- |
| Acharnon 313 |
| GR-111 45 Athens |
| Ms Evangelia Alexandri |
| Tel.: (30) 210 212 03 01 |
| Fax: (30) 210 228 62 19 |
| E-mail: alex@elot.gr |
| General e-mail: 83189in@elot.gr |
| Website: http://www.elot.gr |

ELOT

Acharnon 313

GR-111 45 Athens

Ms Evangelia Alexandri

Tel.: (30) 210 212 03 01

Fax: (30) 210 228 62 19

E-mail: alex@elot.gr

General e-mail: 83189in@elot.gr

Website: http://www.elot.gr

SPAIN

| S.G. de Asuntos Industriales, Energéticos, de Transportes y Comunicaciones y de Medio Ambiente |
| --- |
| D.G. de Coordinación del Mercado Interior y otras PPCC |
| Secretaría de Estado para la Unión Europea |
| Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores y de Cooperación |
| Torres ‘Ágora’ |
| C/ Serrano Galvache, 26-4a |
| E-20033 Madrid |
| Mr Angel Silván Torregrosa |
| Tel.: (34) 91 379 83 32 |
| Ms Esther Pérez Peláez |
| Technical Advisor |
| E-mail: esther.perez@ue.mae.es |
| Tel.: (34) 91 379 84 64 |
| Fax: (34) 91 379 84 01 |
| General e-mail: d83-189@ue.mae.es |

S.G. de Asuntos Industriales, Energéticos, de Transportes y Comunicaciones y de Medio Ambiente

D.G. de Coordinación del Mercado Interior y otras PPCC

Secretaría de Estado para la Unión Europea

Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores y de Cooperación

Torres ‘Ágora’

C/ Serrano Galvache, 26-4a

E-20033 Madrid

Mr Angel Silván Torregrosa

Tel.: (34) 91 379 83 32

Ms Esther Pérez Peláez

Technical Advisor

E-mail: esther.perez@ue.mae.es

Tel.: (34) 91 379 84 64

Fax: (34) 91 379 84 01

General e-mail: d83-189@ue.mae.es

FRANCE

| Délégation interministérielle aux normes |
| --- |
| Direction générale de l'Industrie, des Technologies de l'information et des Postes (DiGITIP) |
| Service des politiques d'innovation et de compétitivité (SPIC) |
| Sous-direction de la normalisation, de la qualité et de la propriété industrielle (SQUALPI) |
| DiGITIP 5 |
| 12, rue Villiot |
| F-75572 Paris Cedex 12 |
| Ms Suzanne Piau |
| Tel.: (33) 1 53 44 97 04 |
| Fax: (33) 1 53 44 98 88 |
| E-mail: suzanne.piau@industrie.gouv.fr |
| Ms Françoise Ouvrard |
| Tel.: (33) 1 53 44 97 05 |
| Fax: (33) 1 53 44 98 88 |
| E-mail: francoise.ouvrard@industrie.gouv.fr |
| General e-mail: d9834.france@industrie.gouv.fr |

Délégation interministérielle aux normes

Direction générale de l'Industrie, des Technologies de l'information et des Postes (DiGITIP)

Service des politiques d'innovation et de compétitivité (SPIC)

Sous-direction de la normalisation, de la qualité et de la propriété industrielle (SQUALPI)

DiGITIP 5

12, rue Villiot

F-75572 Paris Cedex 12

Ms Suzanne Piau

Tel.: (33) 1 53 44 97 04

Fax: (33) 1 53 44 98 88

E-mail: suzanne.piau@industrie.gouv.fr

Ms Françoise Ouvrard

Tel.: (33) 1 53 44 97 05

Fax: (33) 1 53 44 98 88

E-mail: francoise.ouvrard@industrie.gouv.fr

General e-mail: d9834.france@industrie.gouv.fr

IRELAND

| NSAI |
| --- |
| Glasnevin |
| Dublin 9 |
| Ireland |
| Mr Tony Losty |
| Tel.: (353) 1 807 38 80 |
| Fax: (353) 1 807 38 38 |
| E-mail: tony.losty@nsai.ie |
| Website: http://www.nsai.ie |

NSAI

Glasnevin

Dublin 9

Ireland

Mr Tony Losty

Tel.: (353) 1 807 38 80

Fax: (353) 1 807 38 38

E-mail: tony.losty@nsai.ie

Website: http://www.nsai.ie

ITALY

| Ministero dello sviluppo economico |
| --- |
| Direzione Generale per lo sviluppo produttivo e la competitività |
| Ufficio F1 - Ispettorato tecnico dell'industria |
| Via Molise 2 |
| I-00187 Roma |
| Mr Vincenzo Correggia |
| Tel.: (39) 06 47 05 22 05 |
| Fax: (39) 06 47 88 78 05 |
| E-mail: vincenzo.correggia@attivitaproduttive.gov.it |
| Mr Enrico Castiglioni |
| Tel.: (39) 06 47 05 26 69 |
| Fax: (39) 06 47 88 78 05 |
| E-mail: enrico.castiglioni@attivitaproduttive.gov.it |
| General e-mail: ucn98.34.italia@attivitaproduttive.gov.it |
| Website: http://www.attivitaproduttive.gov.it |

Ministero dello sviluppo economico

Direzione Generale per lo sviluppo produttivo e la competitività

Ufficio F1 - Ispettorato tecnico dell'industria

Via Molise 2

I-00187 Roma

Mr Vincenzo Correggia

Tel.: (39) 06 47 05 22 05

Fax: (39) 06 47 88 78 05

E-mail: vincenzo.correggia@attivitaproduttive.gov.it

Mr Enrico Castiglioni

Tel.: (39) 06 47 05 26 69

Fax: (39) 06 47 88 78 05

E-mail: enrico.castiglioni@attivitaproduttive.gov.it

General e-mail: ucn98.34.italia@attivitaproduttive.gov.it

Website: http://www.attivitaproduttive.gov.it

CYPRUS

| Cyprus Organization for the Promotion of Quality |
| --- |
| Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism |
| 13-15, A. Araouzou street |
| CY-1421 Nicosia |
| Tel.: (357) 22 40 93 10 |
| Fax: (357) 22 75 41 03 |
| Mr Antonis Ioannou |
| Tel.: (357) 22 40 94 09 |
| Fax: (357) 22 75 41 03 |
| E-mail: aioannou@cys.mcit.gov.cy |
| General e-mail: dir9834@cys.mcit.gov.cy |
| Website: http://www.cys.mcit.gov.cy |

Cyprus Organization for the Promotion of Quality

Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism

13-15, A. Araouzou street

CY-1421 Nicosia

Tel.: (357) 22 40 93 10

Fax: (357) 22 75 41 03

Mr Antonis Ioannou

Tel.: (357) 22 40 94 09

Fax: (357) 22 75 41 03

E-mail: aioannou@cys.mcit.gov.cy

General e-mail: dir9834@cys.mcit.gov.cy

Website: http://www.cys.mcit.gov.cy

LATVIA

| Ministry of Economics of Republic of Latvia |
| --- |
| Trade Normative and SOLVIT Notification Division |
| SOLVIT Coordination Centre |
| 55, Brīvības Street |
| LV-1519 Riga |
| Reinis Berzins |
| Deputy Head of Trade Normative and SOLVIT Notification Division |
| Tel.: (371) 701 32 30 |
| Fax: (371) 728 08 82 |
| Zanda Liekna |
| Senior Officer of Division of EU Internal Market Coordination |
| Tel.: (371) 701 32 36 |
| Tel.: (371) 701 30 67 |
| Fax: (371) 728 08 82 |
| E-mail: zanda.liekna@em.gov.lv |
| General e-mail: notification@em.gov.lv |

Ministry of Economics of Republic of Latvia

Trade Normative and SOLVIT Notification Division

SOLVIT Coordination Centre

55, Brīvības Street

LV-1519 Riga

Reinis Berzins

Deputy Head of Trade Normative and SOLVIT Notification Division

Tel.: (371) 701 32 30

Fax: (371) 728 08 82

Zanda Liekna

Senior Officer of Division of EU Internal Market Coordination

Tel.: (371) 701 32 36

Tel.: (371) 701 30 67

Fax: (371) 728 08 82

E-mail: zanda.liekna@em.gov.lv

General e-mail: notification@em.gov.lv

LITHUANIA

| Lithuanian Standards Board |
| --- |
| T. Kosciuskos g. 30 |
| LT-01100 Vilnius |
| Ms Daiva Lesickiene |
| Tel.: (370) 5 270 93 47 |
| Fax: (370) 5 270 93 67 |
| E-mail: dir9834@lsd.lt |
| Website: http://www.lsd.lt |

Lithuanian Standards Board

T. Kosciuskos g. 30

LT-01100 Vilnius

Ms Daiva Lesickiene

Tel.: (370) 5 270 93 47

Fax: (370) 5 270 93 67

E-mail: dir9834@lsd.lt

Website: http://www.lsd.lt

LUXEMBURG

| SEE — Service de l'Energie de l'Etat |
| --- |
| 34, avenue de la Porte-Neuve B.P. 10 |
| L-2010 Luxembourg |
| Mr J.P. Hoffmann |
| Tel.: (352) 46 97 46 1 |
| Fax: (352) 22 25 24 |
| E-mail: see.direction@eg.etat.lu |
| Website: http://www.see.lu |

SEE — Service de l'Energie de l'Etat

34, avenue de la Porte-Neuve B.P. 10

L-2010 Luxembourg

Mr J.P. Hoffmann

Tel.: (352) 46 97 46 1

Fax: (352) 22 25 24

E-mail: see.direction@eg.etat.lu

Website: http://www.see.lu

HUNGARY

| Hungarian Notification Centre — |
| --- |
| Ministry of Economy and Transport |
| Industrial Department |
| Budapest |
| Honvéd u. 13-15. |
| H-1880 |
| Mr Zsolt Fazekas |
| Leading Councillor |
| E-mail: fazekas.zsolt@gkm.gov.hu |
| Tel.: (36) 1 374 28 73 |
| Fax: (36) 1 473 16 22 |
| E-mail: notification@gkm.gov.hu |
| Website: http://www.gkm.hu/dokk/main/gkm |

Hungarian Notification Centre —

Ministry of Economy and Transport

Industrial Department

Budapest

Honvéd u. 13-15.

H-1880

Mr Zsolt Fazekas

Leading Councillor

E-mail: fazekas.zsolt@gkm.gov.hu

Tel.: (36) 1 374 28 73

Fax: (36) 1 473 16 22

E-mail: notification@gkm.gov.hu

Website: http://www.gkm.hu/dokk/main/gkm

MALTA

| Malta Standards Authority |
| --- |
| Level 2 |
| Evans Building |
| Merchants Street |
| VLT 03 |
| MT-Valletta |
| Tel.: (356) 21 24 24 20 |
| Tel.: (356) 21 24 32 82 |
| Fax: (356) 21 24 24 06 |
| Ms Lorna Cachia |
| E-mail: lorna.cachia@msa.org.mt |
| General e-mail: notification@msa.org.mt |
| Website: http://www.msa.org.mt |

Malta Standards Authority

Level 2

Evans Building

Merchants Street

VLT 03

MT-Valletta

Tel.: (356) 21 24 24 20

Tel.: (356) 21 24 32 82

Fax: (356) 21 24 24 06

Ms Lorna Cachia

E-mail: lorna.cachia@msa.org.mt

General e-mail: notification@msa.org.mt

Website: http://www.msa.org.mt

NETHERLANDS

| Ministerie van Financiën |
| --- |
| Belastingsdienst/Douane Noord |
| Team bijzondere klantbehandeling |
| Centrale Dienst voor In-en uitvoer |
| Engelse Kamp 2 |
| Postbus 30003 |
| 9700 RD Groningen |
| Nederland |
| Mr Ebel van der Heide |
| Tel.: (31) 50 5 23 21 34 |
| Ms Hennie Boekema |
| Tel.: (31) 50 5 23 21 35 |
| Ms Tineke Elzer |
| Tel.: (31) 50 5 23 21 33 |
| Fax: (31) 50 5 23 21 59 |
| General e-mail: |
| Enquiry.Point@tiscali-business.nl |
| Enquiry.Point2@tiscali-business.nl |

Ministerie van Financiën

Belastingsdienst/Douane Noord

Team bijzondere klantbehandeling

Centrale Dienst voor In-en uitvoer

Engelse Kamp 2

Postbus 30003

9700 RD Groningen

Nederland

Mr Ebel van der Heide

Tel.: (31) 50 5 23 21 34

Ms Hennie Boekema

Tel.: (31) 50 5 23 21 35

Ms Tineke Elzer

Tel.: (31) 50 5 23 21 33

Fax: (31) 50 5 23 21 59

General e-mail:

Enquiry.Point@tiscali-business.nl

Enquiry.Point2@tiscali-business.nl

AUSTRIA

| Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit |
| --- |
| Abteilung C2/1 |
| Stubenring 1 |
| A-1010 Wien |
| Ms Brigitte Wikgolm |
| Tel.: (43) 1 711 00 58 96 |
| Fax: (43) 1 715 96 51 or (43) 1 712 06 80 |
| E-mail: not9834@bmwa.gv.at |
| Website: http://www.bmwa.gv.at |

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit

Abteilung C2/1

Stubenring 1

A-1010 Wien

Ms Brigitte Wikgolm

Tel.: (43) 1 711 00 58 96

Fax: (43) 1 715 96 51 or (43) 1 712 06 80

E-mail: not9834@bmwa.gv.at

Website: http://www.bmwa.gv.at

POLAND

| Ministry of Economy |
| --- |
| Department for Economic Regulations |
| Plac Trzech Krzyży 3/5 |
| PL-00-507 Warszawa |
| Ms Barbara H. Kozłowska |
| Tel.: (48) 22 693 54 07 |
| Fax: (48) 22 693 40 25 |
| E-mail: barbara.kozlowska@mg.gov.pl |
| Ms Agata Gągor |
| Tel.: (48) 22 693 56 90 |
| General e-mail: notyfikacja@mg.gov.pl |

Ministry of Economy

Department for Economic Regulations

Plac Trzech Krzyży 3/5

PL-00-507 Warszawa

Ms Barbara H. Kozłowska

Tel.: (48) 22 693 54 07

Fax: (48) 22 693 40 25

E-mail: barbara.kozlowska@mg.gov.pl

Ms Agata Gągor

Tel.: (48) 22 693 56 90

General e-mail: notyfikacja@mg.gov.pl

PORTUGAL

| Instituto Portugês da Qualidade |
| --- |
| Rua Antonio Gião, 2 |
| P-2829-513 Caparica |
| Ms Cândida Pires |
| Tel.: (351) 21 294 82 36 or 81 00 |
| Fax: (351) 21 294 82 23 |
| E-mail: c.pires@mail.ipq.pt |
| General e-mail: not9834@mail.ipq.pt |
| Website: http://www.ipq.pt |

Instituto Portugês da Qualidade

Rua Antonio Gião, 2

P-2829-513 Caparica

Ms Cândida Pires

Tel.: (351) 21 294 82 36 or 81 00

Fax: (351) 21 294 82 23

E-mail: c.pires@mail.ipq.pt

General e-mail: not9834@mail.ipq.pt

Website: http://www.ipq.pt

SLOVENIA

| SIST — Slovenian Institute for Standardization |
| --- |
| Contact point for 98/34/EC and WTO-TBT Enquiry Point |
| Šmartinska 140 |
| SLO-1000 Ljubljana |
| Ms Vesna Stražišar |
| Tel.: (386) 1 478 30 41 |
| Fax: (386) 1 478 30 98 |
| E-mail: contact@sist.si |

SIST — Slovenian Institute for Standardization

Contact point for 98/34/EC and WTO-TBT Enquiry Point

Šmartinska 140

SLO-1000 Ljubljana

Ms Vesna Stražišar

Tel.: (386) 1 478 30 41

Fax: (386) 1 478 30 98

E-mail: contact@sist.si

SLOVAKIA

| Ms Kvetoslava Steinlova |
| --- |
| Director of the Department of European Integration, |
| Office of Standards, Metrology and Testing of the Slovak Republic |
| Stefanovicova 3 |
| SK-814 39 Bratislava |
| Tel.: (421) 2 52 49 35 21 |
| Fax: (421) 2 52 49 10 50 |
| E-mail: steinlova@normoff.gov.sk |

Ms Kvetoslava Steinlova

Director of the Department of European Integration,

Office of Standards, Metrology and Testing of the Slovak Republic

Stefanovicova 3

SK-814 39 Bratislava

Tel.: (421) 2 52 49 35 21

Fax: (421) 2 52 49 10 50

E-mail: steinlova@normoff.gov.sk

FINLAND

| Kauppa- ja teollisuusministeriö |
| --- |
| (Ministry of Trade and Industry) |
| Visitor address: |
| Aleksanterinkatu 4 |
| FIN-00171 Helsinki |
| and |
| Katakatu 3 |
| FIN-00120 Helsinki |
| Postal address: |
| PO Box 32 |
| FIN-00023 Government |
| Ms Leila Orava |
| Tel.: (358) 9 1606 46 86 |
| Fax: (358) 9 1606 46 22 |
| E-mail: leila.orava@ktm.fi |
| Ms Katri Amper |
| Tel.: (358) 9 1606 46 48 |
| General e-mail: maaraykset.tekniset@ktm.fi |
| Website: http://www.ktm.fi |

Kauppa- ja teollisuusministeriö

(Ministry of Trade and Industry)

Visitor address:

Aleksanterinkatu 4

FIN-00171 Helsinki

and

Katakatu 3

FIN-00120 Helsinki

Postal address:

PO Box 32

FIN-00023 Government

Ms Leila Orava

Tel.: (358) 9 1606 46 86

Fax: (358) 9 1606 46 22

E-mail: leila.orava@ktm.fi

Ms Katri Amper

Tel.: (358) 9 1606 46 48

General e-mail: maaraykset.tekniset@ktm.fi

Website: http://www.ktm.fi

SWEDEN

| Kommerskollegium |
| --- |
| (National Board of Trade) |
| Box 6803 |
| Drottninggatan 89 |
| S–113 86 Stockholm |
| Ms Kerstin Carlsson |
| Tel.: (46) 86 90 48 82 or (46) 86 90 48 00 |
| Fax: (46) 8 690 48 40 or (46) 83 06 759 |
| E-mail: kerstin.carlsson@kommers.se |
| General e-mail: 9834@kommers.se |
| Website: http://www.kommers.se |

Kommerskollegium

(National Board of Trade)

Box 6803

Drottninggatan 89

S–113 86 Stockholm

Ms Kerstin Carlsson

Tel.: (46) 86 90 48 82 or (46) 86 90 48 00

Fax: (46) 8 690 48 40 or (46) 83 06 759

E-mail: kerstin.carlsson@kommers.se

General e-mail: 9834@kommers.se

Website: http://www.kommers.se

UNITED KINGDOM

| Department of Trade and Industry |
| --- |
| Standards and Technical Regulations Directorate 2 |
| 151 Buckingham Palace Road |
| London SW1 W 9SS |
| United Kingdom |
| Mr Philip Plumb |
| Tel.: (44) 2072151488 |
| Fax: (44) 2072151340 |
| E-mail: philip.plumb@dti.gsi.gov.uk |
| General e-mail: 9834@dti.gsi.gov.uk |
| Website: http://www.dti.gov.uk/strd |

Department of Trade and Industry

Standards and Technical Regulations Directorate 2

151 Buckingham Palace Road

London SW1 W 9SS

United Kingdom

Mr Philip Plumb

Tel.: (44) 2072151488

Fax: (44) 2072151340

E-mail: philip.plumb@dti.gsi.gov.uk

General e-mail: 9834@dti.gsi.gov.uk

Website: http://www.dti.gov.uk/strd

EFTA — ESA

| EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| --- |
| Rue Belliard 35 |
| B-1040 Bruxelles |
| Ms Adinda Batsleer |
| Tel.: (32) 2 286 18 61 |
| Fax: (32) 2 286 18 00 |
| E-mail: aba@eftasurv.int |
| Ms Tuija Ristiluoma |
| Tel.: (32) 2 286 18 71 |
| Fax: (32) 2 286 18 00 |
| E-mail: tri@eftasurv.int |
| General e-mail: DRAFTTECHREGESA@eftasurv.int |
| Website: http://www.eftasurv.int |

EFTA Surveillance Authority

Rue Belliard 35

B-1040 Bruxelles

Ms Adinda Batsleer

Tel.: (32) 2 286 18 61

Fax: (32) 2 286 18 00

E-mail: aba@eftasurv.int

Ms Tuija Ristiluoma

Tel.: (32) 2 286 18 71

Fax: (32) 2 286 18 00

E-mail: tri@eftasurv.int

General e-mail: DRAFTTECHREGESA@eftasurv.int

Website: http://www.eftasurv.int

| EFTA |
| --- |
| Goods Unit |
| EFTA Secretariat |
| Rue Joseph II 12-16 |
| B-1000 Bruxelles |
| Ms Kathleen Byrne |
| Tel.: (32) 2 286 17 49 |
| Fax: (32) 2 286 17 42 |
| E-mail: kathleen.byrne@efta.int |
| General e-mail: DRAFTTECHREGEFTA@efta.int |
| Website: http://www.efta.int |

EFTA

Goods Unit

EFTA Secretariat

Rue Joseph II 12-16

B-1000 Bruxelles

Ms Kathleen Byrne

Tel.: (32) 2 286 17 49

Fax: (32) 2 286 17 42

E-mail: kathleen.byrne@efta.int

General e-mail: DRAFTTECHREGEFTA@efta.int

Website: http://www.efta.int

TURKEY

| Undersecretariat of Foreign Trade |
| --- |
| General Directorate of Standardisation for Foreign Trade |
| Inönü Bulvari no 36 |
| TR-06510 |
| Emek — Ankara |
| Mr Mehmet Comert |
| Tel.: (90) 312 212 58 98 |
| Fax: (90) 312 212 87 68 |
| E-mail: comertm@dtm.gov.tr |
| Website: http://www.dtm.gov.tr |

Undersecretariat of Foreign Trade

General Directorate of Standardisation for Foreign Trade

Inönü Bulvari no 36

TR-06510

Emek — Ankara

Mr Mehmet Comert

Tel.: (90) 312 212 58 98

Fax: (90) 312 212 87 68

E-mail: comertm@dtm.gov.tr

Website: http://www.dtm.gov.tr

---

(1)  Year — registration number — Member State of origin.

(2)  Period during which the draft may not be adopted.

(3)  No standstill period since the Commission accepts the grounds of urgent adoption invoked by the notifying Member State.

(4)  No standstill period since the measure concerns technical specifications or other requirements or rules on services linked to fiscal or financial measures, pursuant to the third indent of the second paragraph of Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC.

(5)  Information procedure closed.

---

| 20.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/24

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4430 — Doosan/Mitsui Babcock)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 313/09)

On 11 December 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4430. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4430. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---

| 20.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/24

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4437 — Sun Group/Autobar Packaging)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 313/10)

On 1 December 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4437. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4437. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---

| 20.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/25

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4440 — GE/Disko/ASL)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 313/11)

On 12 December 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4440. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4440. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---

European Data Protection Supervisor

| 20.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/26

---

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between Member States (COM (2005) 690 final)

(2006/C 313/12)

THE EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular its Article 286,

Having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular its Article 8,

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 data, and in particular its Article 41.

Having regard to the request for an opinion in accordance with Article 28 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 sent to the EDPS on 19 January 2006.

HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION:

I.   PRELIMINARY REMARKS

| 1. | The Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between Member States was sent by the Commission to the EDPS for advice, in accordance with Article 28 (2) of Regulation 45/2001/EC. According to the EDPS, the present opinion should be mentioned in the preamble of the Framework Decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between Member States was sent by the Commission to the EDPS for advice, in accordance with Article 28 (2) of Regulation 45/2001/EC. According to the EDPS, the present opinion should be mentioned in the preamble of the Framework Decision.

| 2. | The present Framework Decision will repeal the Council Decision 2005/876/JHA of 21 November 2005 on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record (1), a decision with a limited time horizon and motivated by urgency. On 13 January 2005, the EDPS presented his opinion on the proposal for that Council Decision. (2) In this opinion some important issues for the exchange of information from criminal records were addressed, such as the necessity and the proportionality of the proposed instrument. The EDPS was critical of the scope of the legal instrument (its application is not limited to certain serious crimes) and on the safeguards of the data subject as foreseen in the proposal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The present Framework Decision will repeal the Council Decision 2005/876/JHA of 21 November 2005 on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record (1), a decision with a limited time horizon and motivated by urgency. On 13 January 2005, the EDPS presented his opinion on the proposal for that Council Decision. (2) In this opinion some important issues for the exchange of information from criminal records were addressed, such as the necessity and the proportionality of the proposed instrument. The EDPS was critical of the scope of the legal instrument (its application is not limited to certain serious crimes) and on the safeguards of the data subject as foreseen in the proposal.

| 3. | These elements will be addressed in the present opinion as well. This opinion will furthermore take into account that the present proposal is much more elaborated and envisages the establishment of a permanent system for the exchange of information, in an area where the laws of the Member States on criminal records show an enormous diversity. |
| --- | --- |

3.

These elements will be addressed in the present opinion as well. This opinion will furthermore take into account that the present proposal is much more elaborated and envisages the establishment of a permanent system for the exchange of information, in an area where the laws of the Member States on criminal records show an enormous diversity.

| 4. | This opinion will firstly address the context of the proposal. In a European Union without internal borders an effective combat of crime requires at least an intensive cooperation between the authorities of the Member States. However, significant obstacles for such cooperation exist, partly due to the fact that the combat of crime is primarily a competence of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

4.

This opinion will firstly address the context of the proposal. In a European Union without internal borders an effective combat of crime requires at least an intensive cooperation between the authorities of the Member States. However, significant obstacles for such cooperation exist, partly due to the fact that the combat of crime is primarily a competence of the Member States.

| 5. | Secondly, the EDPS will take into account that a framework for the exchange of information can be established according to several models with different impacts on data protection. This opinion will discuss the main elements of the proposal — in a general paragraph as well as article by article — and by doing so will scrutinize inter alia the following issues:






  — | The policy choices grounding the proposal. The proposal relates to criminal records of the nationals of Member States and does not provide for centralized databases on the European level, nor does it allow direct access by authorities of one Member State to databases in other Member States or cooperation through Eurojust. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Secondly, the EDPS will take into account that a framework for the exchange of information can be established according to several models with different impacts on data protection. This opinion will discuss the main elements of the proposal — in a general paragraph as well as article by article — and by doing so will scrutinize inter alia the following issues:

—

The policy choices grounding the proposal. The proposal relates to criminal records of the nationals of Member States and does not provide for centralized databases on the European level, nor does it allow direct access by authorities of one Member State to databases in other Member States or cooperation through Eurojust.

| — | The safeguards for data protection. Article 9 of the proposal provides for conditions for the use of personal data and addresses limitations on purpose and on further use. The proposal does not deal with its relation to the general rules on data protection in the third pillar, as foreseen in the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. |
| --- | --- |

—

The safeguards for data protection. Article 9 of the proposal provides for conditions for the use of personal data and addresses limitations on purpose and on further use. The proposal does not deal with its relation to the general rules on data protection in the third pillar, as foreseen in the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters.

| — | The division of responsibilities since — as will be discussed — at least three Member States might be involved. It must be clear which Member State is responsible for inter alia including data in the criminal records, keeping up to date of these data, the processing of these data and their further use. This is all the more important since — as will be emphasised under II — the legal framework in the Member States in this area is not harmonised. Within this context, it must also be clear as to how an adequate supervision on the use of personal data is secured. |
| --- | --- |

—

The division of responsibilities since — as will be discussed — at least three Member States might be involved. It must be clear which Member State is responsible for inter alia including data in the criminal records, keeping up to date of these data, the processing of these data and their further use. This is all the more important since — as will be emphasised under II — the legal framework in the Member States in this area is not harmonised. Within this context, it must also be clear as to how an adequate supervision on the use of personal data is secured.

II.   THE CONTEXT

| 6. | The European Council Declaration on Combating Terrorism of 25 and 26 March 2004 mentioned the establishment of a European register on convictions and qualifications as one of the legislative measures to further develop the legislative framework in view of the combat of terrorism. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The European Council Declaration on Combating Terrorism of 25 and 26 March 2004 mentioned the establishment of a European register on convictions and qualifications as one of the legislative measures to further develop the legislative framework in view of the combat of terrorism.

| 7. | In the Hague programme, the objective as well as the level of ambition seems to have changed. As to the objective, the Hague Programme links the proposal to information from national records of convictions and disqualifications, in particular of sex offenders. As to the ambition, a proposal was announced on enhancing the exchange of information from national criminal records (in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, under the heading of mutual recognition). |
| --- | --- |

7.

In the Hague programme, the objective as well as the level of ambition seems to have changed. As to the objective, the Hague Programme links the proposal to information from national records of convictions and disqualifications, in particular of sex offenders. As to the ambition, a proposal was announced on enhancing the exchange of information from national criminal records (in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, under the heading of mutual recognition).

| 8. | The proposal is one of many legal instruments aiming to improve the exchange of information between the authorities for law enforcement of the Member States. As foreseen in the EU-Treaty (in particular, its Articles 29-31), instruments for closer cooperation between the Member States play a central role in the third pillar. The third pillar thus provides in the first place a framework for mutual trust and mutual recognition and to a much more limited extent for harmonisation of national law. The proposal therefore relates to the objectives of Title VI of the EU Treaty. However, since essential competences stay within the hands of the Member States, the effectiveness of the new legal instrument — in a context of different levels of competences — needs specific attention. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The proposal is one of many legal instruments aiming to improve the exchange of information between the authorities for law enforcement of the Member States. As foreseen in the EU-Treaty (in particular, its Articles 29-31), instruments for closer cooperation between the Member States play a central role in the third pillar. The third pillar thus provides in the first place a framework for mutual trust and mutual recognition and to a much more limited extent for harmonisation of national law. The proposal therefore relates to the objectives of Title VI of the EU Treaty. However, since essential competences stay within the hands of the Member States, the effectiveness of the new legal instrument — in a context of different levels of competences — needs specific attention.

| 9. | The proposal must furthermore be assessed in the light of the existing legal framework on the exchange of information from criminal records. The main legal instrument is the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 1959. The proposal does not aim at a fundamental change of the system of exchange as is put in place by the Convention. On the contrary, it aims to make the existing system more efficient, inter alia by laying down the framework for computerised conviction-information exchange. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The proposal must furthermore be assessed in the light of the existing legal framework on the exchange of information from criminal records. The main legal instrument is the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 1959. The proposal does not aim at a fundamental change of the system of exchange as is put in place by the Convention. On the contrary, it aims to make the existing system more efficient, inter alia by laying down the framework for computerised conviction-information exchange.

| 10. | However, the obstacles for a really efficient exchange of information from criminal records between the Member States result from the differences in languages and in the technological and legal framework of the Member States. There is a clear lack of harmonisation of national laws on criminal records. Differences in national law exist when it comes to the convictions that have to be inserted in the criminal records, the time limits for keeping convictions in these records and the information from the criminal records that is to be supplied to third parties and the purposes for which information can be supplied. In this respect, reference can be made to the observations of the EDPS in his opinion on the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability (3). Additional measures are needed to ensure that information can effectively be found and accessed (see also points 50-54 of this opinion). |
| --- | --- |

10.

However, the obstacles for a really efficient exchange of information from criminal records between the Member States result from the differences in languages and in the technological and legal framework of the Member States. There is a clear lack of harmonisation of national laws on criminal records. Differences in national law exist when it comes to the convictions that have to be inserted in the criminal records, the time limits for keeping convictions in these records and the information from the criminal records that is to be supplied to third parties and the purposes for which information can be supplied. In this respect, reference can be made to the observations of the EDPS in his opinion on the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability (3). Additional measures are needed to ensure that information can effectively be found and accessed (see also points 50-54 of this opinion).

The general framework for the protection of personal data

| 11. | The proposal does not address the protection of personal data comprehensively. Only a few provisions specifically deal with data protection. This is perfectly understandable, since Recital 10 of the proposal explicitly refers to (the proposal for) the Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. Indeed, that framework decision would be applicable as a lex generalis to the processing operations carried out in the framework of exchanges of criminal records, while the more specific data protection provisions laid down in the present proposal should be considered as lex specialis. For example, the rules on access are more favourable to the data subject (see further, the comments on Article 9 in this opinion). |
| --- | --- |

11.

The proposal does not address the protection of personal data comprehensively. Only a few provisions specifically deal with data protection. This is perfectly understandable, since Recital 10 of the proposal explicitly refers to (the proposal for) the Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. Indeed, that framework decision would be applicable as a lex generalis to the processing operations carried out in the framework of exchanges of criminal records, while the more specific data protection provisions laid down in the present proposal should be considered as lex specialis. For example, the rules on access are more favourable to the data subject (see further, the comments on Article 9 in this opinion).

| 12. | The EDPS endorses this approach, as already underlined in previous opinions (4). Nonetheless, the proposal for a Council framework decision on the protection of personal data is still being discussed by the European Parliament and the Council and also fundamental issues — such as the field of application and safeguards for transfers to third countries — are far from being settled. This situation has important consequences for the evaluation of the current proposal. |
| --- | --- |

12.

The EDPS endorses this approach, as already underlined in previous opinions (4). Nonetheless, the proposal for a Council framework decision on the protection of personal data is still being discussed by the European Parliament and the Council and also fundamental issues — such as the field of application and safeguards for transfers to third countries — are far from being settled. This situation has important consequences for the evaluation of the current proposal.

| 13. | First of all, this means that the present proposal cannot in itself ensure a sufficient protection of personal data in the framework of the exchange of criminal records. The EDPS therefore underlines that the present Council Framework decision should not enter into force before the date of entry into force of the Council framework decision on the protection of personal data. A specific provision in one of the final articles of the present proposal should ensure this sequence. |
| --- | --- |

13.

First of all, this means that the present proposal cannot in itself ensure a sufficient protection of personal data in the framework of the exchange of criminal records. The EDPS therefore underlines that the present Council Framework decision should not enter into force before the date of entry into force of the Council framework decision on the protection of personal data. A specific provision in one of the final articles of the present proposal should ensure this sequence.

| 14. | Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to evaluate the data protection safeguards provided by the current proposal without having a clear and stable picture of the general rules on data protection in the third pillar. For example, this proposal also envisages transfers of personal data to third countries, but — assuming that general rules will be provided by the Council framework decision on the protection of personal data — it only lays down some more specific, though partial, safeguards (see further the comments on Article 7). In general, significant modifications of scope and substance of the latter Council Framework decision as a result of the negotiations in Council will directly affect the safeguards for data protection in the area of exchange of information from criminal records. The EDPS recommends that the Council carefully link the negotiations on the present proposal to the negotiations on the Council framework decision on the protection of personal data. |
| --- | --- |

14.

Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to evaluate the data protection safeguards provided by the current proposal without having a clear and stable picture of the general rules on data protection in the third pillar. For example, this proposal also envisages transfers of personal data to third countries, but — assuming that general rules will be provided by the Council framework decision on the protection of personal data — it only lays down some more specific, though partial, safeguards (see further the comments on Article 7). In general, significant modifications of scope and substance of the latter Council Framework decision as a result of the negotiations in Council will directly affect the safeguards for data protection in the area of exchange of information from criminal records. The EDPS recommends that the Council carefully link the negotiations on the present proposal to the negotiations on the Council framework decision on the protection of personal data.

III.   MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL

| 15. | In the first place, the proposal does not address convictions in the Member States of nationals of third countries. For obvious reasons, the proposed system cannot work in those cases, since third countries are not subject to the law of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

15.

In the first place, the proposal does not address convictions in the Member States of nationals of third countries. For obvious reasons, the proposed system cannot work in those cases, since third countries are not subject to the law of the European Union.

| 16. | The EDPS considers that to a certain extent existing legal instruments ensure the exchange of information on convicted third country nationals. In particular, the obligation to enter certain data of those persons in the Schengen Information System (5) ensures that information on certain convictions is available throughout the whole territory of the European Union. Also, the information system established by Article 7 of the Europol Convention envisages the exchange of data about inter alia convicted persons. However, the purposes of collection of personal data under these existing instruments are not the same as the purpose for including personal data in a criminal record. The use of the data collected under one of these existing instruments in the framework of criminal proceedings would thus not always be in conformity with the purpose limitation principle. |
| --- | --- |

16.

The EDPS considers that to a certain extent existing legal instruments ensure the exchange of information on convicted third country nationals. In particular, the obligation to enter certain data of those persons in the Schengen Information System (5) ensures that information on certain convictions is available throughout the whole territory of the European Union. Also, the information system established by Article 7 of the Europol Convention envisages the exchange of data about inter alia convicted persons. However, the purposes of collection of personal data under these existing instruments are not the same as the purpose for including personal data in a criminal record. The use of the data collected under one of these existing instruments in the framework of criminal proceedings would thus not always be in conformity with the purpose limitation principle.

| 17. | Furthermore, the existing instruments do not ensure that information from all criminal records can be exchanged, especially information on persons that does not fall within the definition of Articles 95 and 96 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement. Finally, the legal situation of those nationals is not clear. For example, according to Article 14 (4) the Decision on 21 November 2005 (6) which applies to third country nationals will be repealed. |
| --- | --- |

17.

Furthermore, the existing instruments do not ensure that information from all criminal records can be exchanged, especially information on persons that does not fall within the definition of Articles 95 and 96 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement. Finally, the legal situation of those nationals is not clear. For example, according to Article 14 (4) the Decision on 21 November 2005 (6) which applies to third country nationals will be repealed.

| 18. | For third country nationals, an alternative system might be needed. According to the explanatory memorandum, the Member States favoured the creation of an index of convicted persons for third country nationals. A proposal for the exchange of information on convictions of those nationals has been announced by the Commission for the fourth quarter of 2006. The EDPS will assess this proposal once it has been adopted. |
| --- | --- |

18.

For third country nationals, an alternative system might be needed. According to the explanatory memorandum, the Member States favoured the creation of an index of convicted persons for third country nationals. A proposal for the exchange of information on convictions of those nationals has been announced by the Commission for the fourth quarter of 2006. The EDPS will assess this proposal once it has been adopted.

| 19. | In the second place, the proposal does not entail the establishment of a European criminal record, nor of any other substantive databases on a European level. The main effects of the proposal — in terms of databases — are that the existing national criminal records have to be centralised, that information of nationals convicted in other Member States has to be added and that technical systems facilitating the information-exchange between the Member States will have to be built and developed. The EDPS welcomes that the proposal does not promote an unconditional interconnection of databases and thus a network of databases that would be difficult to supervise (7). |
| --- | --- |

19.

In the second place, the proposal does not entail the establishment of a European criminal record, nor of any other substantive databases on a European level. The main effects of the proposal — in terms of databases — are that the existing national criminal records have to be centralised, that information of nationals convicted in other Member States has to be added and that technical systems facilitating the information-exchange between the Member States will have to be built and developed. The EDPS welcomes that the proposal does not promote an unconditional interconnection of databases and thus a network of databases that would be difficult to supervise (7).

| 20. | The EDPS emphasises, in the third place, that the proposal seems to provide — generally spoken — an adequate and a priori effective system of information exchange and underlines in particular the following essential elements of the proposal. |
| --- | --- |

20.

The EDPS emphasises, in the third place, that the proposal seems to provide — generally spoken — an adequate and a priori effective system of information exchange and underlines in particular the following essential elements of the proposal.

| 21. | According to Article 4 (2) of the proposal, a Member State that hands down a conviction against a national of another Member State and enters this conviction in its criminal records shall inform the other Member State. Article 5 provides that the Member State of the person's nationality stores this information, in order to be able to retransmit this information on request of a (third) Member State, for the purpose of criminal proceedings or — under strict conditions — for other purposes. If such a request is made the Member State of the person's nationality shall provide certain information (articles 6 and 7). |
| --- | --- |

21.

According to Article 4 (2) of the proposal, a Member State that hands down a conviction against a national of another Member State and enters this conviction in its criminal records shall inform the other Member State. Article 5 provides that the Member State of the person's nationality stores this information, in order to be able to retransmit this information on request of a (third) Member State, for the purpose of criminal proceedings or — under strict conditions — for other purposes. If such a request is made the Member State of the person's nationality shall provide certain information (articles 6 and 7).

| 22. | The proposal contains additional provisions in order to make this system work, the most important of them being the obligation to designate a central authority (or, for certain purposes, more central authorities) responsible for transmitting and storing the information. In this context, the EDPS also points to Articles 10 and 11. Article 10 provides for a comprehensive language regime and Article 11 for a standardised way of exchanging information, which, after a transition period, will lead to the obligation to use a standardised format and to electronically transmit the data. The EDPS welcomes these essential provisions. A legal instrument promoting the exchange of information has to contain additional measures in order to ensure that information can be effectively found and accessed. |
| --- | --- |

22.

The proposal contains additional provisions in order to make this system work, the most important of them being the obligation to designate a central authority (or, for certain purposes, more central authorities) responsible for transmitting and storing the information. In this context, the EDPS also points to Articles 10 and 11. Article 10 provides for a comprehensive language regime and Article 11 for a standardised way of exchanging information, which, after a transition period, will lead to the obligation to use a standardised format and to electronically transmit the data. The EDPS welcomes these essential provisions. A legal instrument promoting the exchange of information has to contain additional measures in order to ensure that information can be effectively found and accessed.

| 23. | The EDPS furthermore emphasises that such a legal instrument needs clear definitions of the responsibilities of the different actors and for the establishment of the demarcation of the competences of the national and the European level. It must not put in place an excessive instrument for law enforcement but should seek to maintain the balance between the different interests at stake such as the interest of the data subject and public security. The possibilities for access to the data must be limited to strictly defined purposes. A legal instrument is otherwise not appropriate to its goal and therefore not in accordance with the principle of proportionality. In general terms, notwithstanding the comments in points 37-40, the proposal fulfils these conditions. |
| --- | --- |

23.

The EDPS furthermore emphasises that such a legal instrument needs clear definitions of the responsibilities of the different actors and for the establishment of the demarcation of the competences of the national and the European level. It must not put in place an excessive instrument for law enforcement but should seek to maintain the balance between the different interests at stake such as the interest of the data subject and public security. The possibilities for access to the data must be limited to strictly defined purposes. A legal instrument is otherwise not appropriate to its goal and therefore not in accordance with the principle of proportionality. In general terms, notwithstanding the comments in points 37-40, the proposal fulfils these conditions.

IV.   ARTICLE BY ARTICLE

Article 2: Definitions

| 24. | The proposal is not limited to convictions for serious crimes. It applies to all convictions transmitted to the national criminal record, in accordance with the law of the convicting Member State. The proposal extends to final decisions by administrative authorities. |
| --- | --- |

24.

The proposal is not limited to convictions for serious crimes. It applies to all convictions transmitted to the national criminal record, in accordance with the law of the convicting Member State. The proposal extends to final decisions by administrative authorities.

| 25. | This wide scope is due to the significant differences in the laws of the Member States on the convictions that are transferred to national criminal records. It is not the role of the EDPS to criticize these competences of the Member States as to what convictions they transfer to criminal records including decisions by administrative authorities in so far as they can be appealed before a criminal court. However, the EDPS recalls his opinion of 13 January 2005 (see point 2 of the present opinion) in which he has concluded to limit the exchange of information to convictions to certain serious crimes. Presently, the EDPS regrets that the Community legislator does not justify — neither in the explanatory memorandum, nor in any other official document — why the present proposal on the exchange of information could not be limited to more serious criminal offences. Such an explanation should clarify why this wide scope is necessary within a common area of freedom, security and justice and does not exceed the limits set by the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

25.

This wide scope is due to the significant differences in the laws of the Member States on the convictions that are transferred to national criminal records. It is not the role of the EDPS to criticize these competences of the Member States as to what convictions they transfer to criminal records including decisions by administrative authorities in so far as they can be appealed before a criminal court. However, the EDPS recalls his opinion of 13 January 2005 (see point 2 of the present opinion) in which he has concluded to limit the exchange of information to convictions to certain serious crimes. Presently, the EDPS regrets that the Community legislator does not justify — neither in the explanatory memorandum, nor in any other official document — why the present proposal on the exchange of information could not be limited to more serious criminal offences. Such an explanation should clarify why this wide scope is necessary within a common area of freedom, security and justice and does not exceed the limits set by the principle of proportionality.

Article 3: Central authority

| 26. | The designation of a central authority is important in this perspective. Although this entails a centralised database of convicted persons in each Member State, it also ensures a clear responsibility by a specialised authority on the processing of (information from) the criminal record and it makes it improbable that information about convictions of certain persons will be requested from the wrong authorities which in turn could lead to an unnecessary flow of personal data. Of course, it is a prerequisite that the tasks of the central authority are clearly defined (8). In general terms, the proposal seems to fulfil this point. It also opens up an opportunity for an effective and relatively simple control of the processing by national data protection authorities. According to the EDPS this control will not be substantively affected in case a Member State uses the possibility of Article 3 to designate more than one authority in a Member State. |
| --- | --- |

26.

The designation of a central authority is important in this perspective. Although this entails a centralised database of convicted persons in each Member State, it also ensures a clear responsibility by a specialised authority on the processing of (information from) the criminal record and it makes it improbable that information about convictions of certain persons will be requested from the wrong authorities which in turn could lead to an unnecessary flow of personal data. Of course, it is a prerequisite that the tasks of the central authority are clearly defined (8). In general terms, the proposal seems to fulfil this point. It also opens up an opportunity for an effective and relatively simple control of the processing by national data protection authorities. According to the EDPS this control will not be substantively affected in case a Member State uses the possibility of Article 3 to designate more than one authority in a Member State.

| 27. | In reaction to Article 3 (2), the EDPS suggests publishing the list of designated authorities in the Official Journal. This would enhance the transparency of the system. |
| --- | --- |

27.

In reaction to Article 3 (2), the EDPS suggests publishing the list of designated authorities in the Official Journal. This would enhance the transparency of the system.

| 28. | Furthermore the EDPS questions why the General Secretariat of the Council should inform Eurojust about the designation of authorities. The EDPS queries the function of this notification, especially since Eurojust plays no role at all in the system as provided for in this proposal. |
| --- | --- |

28.

Furthermore the EDPS questions why the General Secretariat of the Council should inform Eurojust about the designation of authorities. The EDPS queries the function of this notification, especially since Eurojust plays no role at all in the system as provided for in this proposal.

Articles 4 and 5: Obligation of the convicting Member State and the Member State of the person's nationality

| 29. | Articles 4 lays down the obligation for the convicting Member State to inform the Member State of the convicted person's nationality about any convictions. The central authority of the latter Member State shall then store this information pursuant to the obligation laid down in Article 5. |
| --- | --- |

29.

Articles 4 lays down the obligation for the convicting Member State to inform the Member State of the convicted person's nationality about any convictions. The central authority of the latter Member State shall then store this information pursuant to the obligation laid down in Article 5.

| 30. | As far as the storage period of criminal records is concerned, the proposal seems to apply the ‘State of conviction’ criterion. Indeed, the transmission of information on convictions will also include the length of time the conviction is to remain in the criminal records of the convicting Member State, according to that State's national legislation. Any further measures affecting the length of time information is to be kept, shall also be communicated. The receiving Member State should then delete the data accordingly. This mechanism also seems to apply when the receiving Member State's legislation only allows a shorter storage period. The same mechanism is laid down with regard to alteration or deletion of information contained in criminal records: the convicting Member State will inform about the changes and the Member State of the convicted person's nationality will have to update its registers accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

30.

As far as the storage period of criminal records is concerned, the proposal seems to apply the ‘State of conviction’ criterion. Indeed, the transmission of information on convictions will also include the length of time the conviction is to remain in the criminal records of the convicting Member State, according to that State's national legislation. Any further measures affecting the length of time information is to be kept, shall also be communicated. The receiving Member State should then delete the data accordingly. This mechanism also seems to apply when the receiving Member State's legislation only allows a shorter storage period. The same mechanism is laid down with regard to alteration or deletion of information contained in criminal records: the convicting Member State will inform about the changes and the Member State of the convicted person's nationality will have to update its registers accordingly.

| 31. | In other words, the ‘State of conviction’ can be considered to be the owner of the data. The Member State of nationality stores the data on behalf of that Member State. The EDPS recommends clarifying this concept of ‘ownership’ — which also leads to a clear division of responsibilities — in the text or in the recitals of the proposal. |
| --- | --- |

31.

In other words, the ‘State of conviction’ can be considered to be the owner of the data. The Member State of nationality stores the data on behalf of that Member State. The EDPS recommends clarifying this concept of ‘ownership’ — which also leads to a clear division of responsibilities — in the text or in the recitals of the proposal.

| 32. | The EDPS welcomes the mechanism in itself, since it guarantees accuracy by ensuring that personal data are swiftly updated and are not used if they are out of date (see also Article 5.3 of the proposal). Accuracy of criminal records is even more important in cases where the information is subject to numerous transfers and translations. |
| --- | --- |

32.

The EDPS welcomes the mechanism in itself, since it guarantees accuracy by ensuring that personal data are swiftly updated and are not used if they are out of date (see also Article 5.3 of the proposal). Accuracy of criminal records is even more important in cases where the information is subject to numerous transfers and translations.

| 33. | In order to ensure accuracy also in further transfers according to Article 7, the EDPS recommends establishing an obligation for the central authority of the convicted person's nationality to notify updates/cancellations to the central authorities of those other Member States or third countries that have requested information before it was updated or cancelled. Furthermore, the central authorities of the latter Member States should be obliged to update/delete information and prevented from using out of date information. These obligations should also facilitate a better supervision on the conditions for the use of personal data (see comments on Article 9). |
| --- | --- |

33.

In order to ensure accuracy also in further transfers according to Article 7, the EDPS recommends establishing an obligation for the central authority of the convicted person's nationality to notify updates/cancellations to the central authorities of those other Member States or third countries that have requested information before it was updated or cancelled. Furthermore, the central authorities of the latter Member States should be obliged to update/delete information and prevented from using out of date information. These obligations should also facilitate a better supervision on the conditions for the use of personal data (see comments on Article 9).

| 34. | Finally, Article 4 (2) addresses the specific position of nationals of several Member States. In those cases, the information on a conviction will be transmitted to each of these Member States. The need for this multiple transmission is clear. In those cases, the importance of mechanisms ensuring accuracy in all the databases is even more self-evident. |
| --- | --- |

34.

Finally, Article 4 (2) addresses the specific position of nationals of several Member States. In those cases, the information on a conviction will be transmitted to each of these Member States. The need for this multiple transmission is clear. In those cases, the importance of mechanisms ensuring accuracy in all the databases is even more self-evident.

Articles 6 and 7: Requests for conviction information, replies to those requests and transfer to third countries

| 35. | A clear division and definition of responsibilities is also needed in view of the involvement of a third requesting Member State. Articles 6 and 7 deal with these requests. |
| --- | --- |

35.

A clear division and definition of responsibilities is also needed in view of the involvement of a third requesting Member State. Articles 6 and 7 deal with these requests.

| 36. | Article 7 determines in which cases conviction information shall or might be sent to the central authority of the requesting Member State. It also establishes which information will be transmitted. In addition, it lays down the possibility to transmit conviction information to third countries. All these aspects should be carefully assessed. |
| --- | --- |

36.

Article 7 determines in which cases conviction information shall or might be sent to the central authority of the requesting Member State. It also establishes which information will be transmitted. In addition, it lays down the possibility to transmit conviction information to third countries. All these aspects should be carefully assessed.

| 37. | It should be noted that an obligation to transmit data is laid down only in the case where the request for criminal records is made for the purposes of criminal proceedings, according to a list of data laid down by Article 7(1). However, in cases where information extracted from criminal records is requested for other purposes, the Member State of the person's nationality shall respond in accordance with its national law. Furthermore, it shall ascertain whether this information could be transmitted to the requesting Member State according to the law of the convicting Member State (Article 7.2). |
| --- | --- |

37.

It should be noted that an obligation to transmit data is laid down only in the case where the request for criminal records is made for the purposes of criminal proceedings, according to a list of data laid down by Article 7(1). However, in cases where information extracted from criminal records is requested for other purposes, the Member State of the person's nationality shall respond in accordance with its national law. Furthermore, it shall ascertain whether this information could be transmitted to the requesting Member State according to the law of the convicting Member State (Article 7.2).

| 38. | The system is therefore rather complicated, since any request for purposes other than criminal proceedings shall be, at the end of the day, subject to three different parameters of lawfulness: the law of the requesting Member State, the law of the Member State of convicted person's nationality and the law of convicting Member State. This puzzle, which may well include not only criminal procedural law, but also applicable national data protection rules, will have to be solved by the central authority of the Member State of the convicted person's nationality, within the time limit (10 days) laid down by Article 8. |
| --- | --- |

38.

The system is therefore rather complicated, since any request for purposes other than criminal proceedings shall be, at the end of the day, subject to three different parameters of lawfulness: the law of the requesting Member State, the law of the Member State of convicted person's nationality and the law of convicting Member State. This puzzle, which may well include not only criminal procedural law, but also applicable national data protection rules, will have to be solved by the central authority of the Member State of the convicted person's nationality, within the time limit (10 days) laid down by Article 8.

| 39. | The EDPS wonders whether this system is the most practical and efficient. Indeed, the EDPS agrees that transmission of information should be limited in these cases, as has been highlighted by Recital 11 of the proposal. However, this limitation could probably be better achieved through a more precise limitation of the purposes for which information on criminal records may be transmitted and by limiting the group of persons that can request for this information, other than the data subject himself. According to the EDPS, others than the data subject himself should only be entitled to lawfully request this information under exceptional circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

39.

The EDPS wonders whether this system is the most practical and efficient. Indeed, the EDPS agrees that transmission of information should be limited in these cases, as has been highlighted by Recital 11 of the proposal. However, this limitation could probably be better achieved through a more precise limitation of the purposes for which information on criminal records may be transmitted and by limiting the group of persons that can request for this information, other than the data subject himself. According to the EDPS, others than the data subject himself should only be entitled to lawfully request this information under exceptional circumstances.

| 40. | Therefore, the EDPS recommends streamlining the mechanism and providing for a limited and more precise definition of purposes, other than criminal proceedings, for which information can be requested as well as for a limitation of the group of persons that may request this information. |
| --- | --- |

40.

Therefore, the EDPS recommends streamlining the mechanism and providing for a limited and more precise definition of purposes, other than criminal proceedings, for which information can be requested as well as for a limitation of the group of persons that may request this information.

| 41. | Article 6(2) deals with a specific issue. It lays down the possibility for the interested party to request information on his/her own criminal records to the central authority of a Member State, provided that the requesting party is or has been a resident or a national of the requesting or requested Member State. This provision must be seen in connection with the more general right of the data subject to access personal data relating to him, also with regard to the proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. |
| --- | --- |

41.

Article 6(2) deals with a specific issue. It lays down the possibility for the interested party to request information on his/her own criminal records to the central authority of a Member State, provided that the requesting party is or has been a resident or a national of the requesting or requested Member State. This provision must be seen in connection with the more general right of the data subject to access personal data relating to him, also with regard to the proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters.

| 42. | The EDPS welcomes this provision, to the extent that the proposal allows the data subject to exercise his or her right not only directly by addressing the central authority that controls the data, but also indirectly through the central authority where the interested party is resident. However, the more favourable provisions contained in this lex specialis may in no way restrict the basic rights of the data subject, nor create confusion for the data subject about his or her rights. With regard to this point, the EDPS suggests that the central authority of the place of residence, ‘shall’ — not ‘may’ — submit the request to the central authority of the other Member State. |
| --- | --- |

42.

The EDPS welcomes this provision, to the extent that the proposal allows the data subject to exercise his or her right not only directly by addressing the central authority that controls the data, but also indirectly through the central authority where the interested party is resident. However, the more favourable provisions contained in this lex specialis may in no way restrict the basic rights of the data subject, nor create confusion for the data subject about his or her rights. With regard to this point, the EDPS suggests that the central authority of the place of residence, ‘shall’ — not ‘may’ — submit the request to the central authority of the other Member State.

| 43. | Finally, the EDPS addresses Article 7 (3) that deals with information submitted by third countries and with the transmission of information to third countries. The provision contains specific safeguards aiming to ensure that the exchange with third countries can not undermine the safeguards for the exchange within the territory of the European Union itself. By itself the provision is satisfactory. |
| --- | --- |

43.

Finally, the EDPS addresses Article 7 (3) that deals with information submitted by third countries and with the transmission of information to third countries. The provision contains specific safeguards aiming to ensure that the exchange with third countries can not undermine the safeguards for the exchange within the territory of the European Union itself. By itself the provision is satisfactory.

| 44. | However, this provision should be evaluated in connection with Article 15 of the proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. Article 15 of the latter proposal is one of the main objects of debate within the Council and it is not self-evident that this article will be maintained in the final version of the Council Framework Decision. The EDPS underlines that, in case negotiations on the Council framework decision on the protection of personal data would exclude the rules concerning transfers of personal data to third countries from its field of application, more precise rules on transfers of personal data to third countries should be laid down in the current proposal, with a view to complying with basic data protection principles as well as with the Additional Protocol to Convention 108 regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows of the Council of Europe. |
| --- | --- |

44.

However, this provision should be evaluated in connection with Article 15 of the proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. Article 15 of the latter proposal is one of the main objects of debate within the Council and it is not self-evident that this article will be maintained in the final version of the Council Framework Decision. The EDPS underlines that, in case negotiations on the Council framework decision on the protection of personal data would exclude the rules concerning transfers of personal data to third countries from its field of application, more precise rules on transfers of personal data to third countries should be laid down in the current proposal, with a view to complying with basic data protection principles as well as with the Additional Protocol to Convention 108 regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows of the Council of Europe.

Article 9: Conditions for the use of personal data

| 45. | The exchange of information from criminal records will fall within the scope of the Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters once adopted. (9) The same applies to the criminal records themselves, provided that the field of application of that Council Framework Decision will not be limited to personal data that have been exchanged between the Member States. In accordance with the Council Framework Decision, the processing of personal data will be controlled by the national data protection authorities. |
| --- | --- |

45.

The exchange of information from criminal records will fall within the scope of the Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters once adopted. (9) The same applies to the criminal records themselves, provided that the field of application of that Council Framework Decision will not be limited to personal data that have been exchanged between the Member States. In accordance with the Council Framework Decision, the processing of personal data will be controlled by the national data protection authorities.

| 46. | The articles of the present proposal do not refer to the Council Framework Decision. There is no need for such a reference since the latter applies automatically. Article 9 provides for conditions for use of personal data. It must be seen as a lex specialis in relation to the general safeguards for data protection. Article 9 specifies the purposes for which the data may be used. Article 9 (1) provides for a clear basic rule. Data requested for the purpose of criminal proceedings may solely be used for the purposes of the particular proceedings they were requested for. Article 9 (2) contains a similar rule for data requested outside criminal proceedings. However, this provision needs clarification, since it assumes that data can only be asked for other legal (or quasi-) legal proceedings whereas Article 7 does not mention such a limitation. It should be clarified as to what other purposes are allowed under the Articles 7 and 9 (see also comments on Article 7). |
| --- | --- |

46.

The articles of the present proposal do not refer to the Council Framework Decision. There is no need for such a reference since the latter applies automatically. Article 9 provides for conditions for use of personal data. It must be seen as a lex specialis in relation to the general safeguards for data protection. Article 9 specifies the purposes for which the data may be used. Article 9 (1) provides for a clear basic rule. Data requested for the purpose of criminal proceedings may solely be used for the purposes of the particular proceedings they were requested for. Article 9 (2) contains a similar rule for data requested outside criminal proceedings. However, this provision needs clarification, since it assumes that data can only be asked for other legal (or quasi-) legal proceedings whereas Article 7 does not mention such a limitation. It should be clarified as to what other purposes are allowed under the Articles 7 and 9 (see also comments on Article 7).

| 47. | Article 9 (3) opens up the possibility for the use of the data by the requesting Member State for preventing an immediate and serious threat to public security. The EDPS agrees that in these exceptional situations the use of these data should be allowed. However, it should be guaranteed that the data protection authorities can control this exceptional use. The EDPS therefore recommends adding a provision to the proposal in this sense, for instance an obligation to notify the national data protection authority of this use. |
| --- | --- |

47.

Article 9 (3) opens up the possibility for the use of the data by the requesting Member State for preventing an immediate and serious threat to public security. The EDPS agrees that in these exceptional situations the use of these data should be allowed. However, it should be guaranteed that the data protection authorities can control this exceptional use. The EDPS therefore recommends adding a provision to the proposal in this sense, for instance an obligation to notify the national data protection authority of this use.

| 48. | As to supervision: the information is stored by the central authority of the Member State of the person's nationality. Supervision is done by the data protection authority of that Member State, in accordance with the Framework decision on data protection in the third pillar, once adopted and entered into force. However, the central authority of this Member State can not be held responsible for the quality of the data, since it is fully dependant on the information delivered by the convicting Member State. It is obvious that this has an impact on the effectiveness of the supervision. |
| --- | --- |

48.

As to supervision: the information is stored by the central authority of the Member State of the person's nationality. Supervision is done by the data protection authority of that Member State, in accordance with the Framework decision on data protection in the third pillar, once adopted and entered into force. However, the central authority of this Member State can not be held responsible for the quality of the data, since it is fully dependant on the information delivered by the convicting Member State. It is obvious that this has an impact on the effectiveness of the supervision.

| 49. | According to the EDPS, the proposal should not only address the cooperation between the central authorities but also the cooperation between the data protection authorities of the Member States. The EDPS recommends adding a provision to Article 9 in which the data protection authorities are encouraged to cooperate actively with each other (10) so as to enable an effective supervision on aspects of data protection, in particular on the quality of the data. |
| --- | --- |

49.

According to the EDPS, the proposal should not only address the cooperation between the central authorities but also the cooperation between the data protection authorities of the Member States. The EDPS recommends adding a provision to Article 9 in which the data protection authorities are encouraged to cooperate actively with each other (10) so as to enable an effective supervision on aspects of data protection, in particular on the quality of the data.

Articles 10 and 11: Languages and formats

| 50. | The EDPS welcomes these additional provisions since the effectiveness of the system for exchange of information between the Member States also serves the interests of data protection. |
| --- | --- |

50.

The EDPS welcomes these additional provisions since the effectiveness of the system for exchange of information between the Member States also serves the interests of data protection.

| 51. | An appropriate language regime is crucial for the effectiveness of the system. Although the EDPS is fully aware of the principle of equality of languages and of the sensitivity of specific language regimes within the framework of the European cooperation, he has concerns about the language regime as foreseen in Article 10 of the proposal. The basic rule as formulated in Article 10 is that the information will be exchanged in an official language of the requested Member state. This makes sense since legal texts and legal qualifications are not always unambiguous when translated. However, in a European Union with presently 25 Member States observing this basic rule would make the system unworkable. |
| --- | --- |

51.

An appropriate language regime is crucial for the effectiveness of the system. Although the EDPS is fully aware of the principle of equality of languages and of the sensitivity of specific language regimes within the framework of the European cooperation, he has concerns about the language regime as foreseen in Article 10 of the proposal. The basic rule as formulated in Article 10 is that the information will be exchanged in an official language of the requested Member state. This makes sense since legal texts and legal qualifications are not always unambiguous when translated. However, in a European Union with presently 25 Member States observing this basic rule would make the system unworkable.

| 52. | According to the third paragraph of Article 10 a Member State may indicate that it accepts other languages. It is obvious that this paragraph aims at encouraging the exchange in one or a few languages that are more widely known within the European Union. However, according to the EDPS this paragraph should be worded in a way that it effectively ensures a workable language regime, for instance by obliging the Member states to accept information in a language that is widely known within the territory of the European Union. This is — as implied before — a condition to make the system work. |
| --- | --- |

52.

According to the third paragraph of Article 10 a Member State may indicate that it accepts other languages. It is obvious that this paragraph aims at encouraging the exchange in one or a few languages that are more widely known within the European Union. However, according to the EDPS this paragraph should be worded in a way that it effectively ensures a workable language regime, for instance by obliging the Member states to accept information in a language that is widely known within the territory of the European Union. This is — as implied before — a condition to make the system work.

| 53. | The use of the standardised format can moreover contribute to the quality of the data. By using this format, ambiguity about the content of the information from the criminal record data can be precluded which leads to a higher quality of the data. Absence of ambiguity can also take away the risk that authorities of Member States ask for more information than strictly needed. |
| --- | --- |

53.

The use of the standardised format can moreover contribute to the quality of the data. By using this format, ambiguity about the content of the information from the criminal record data can be precluded which leads to a higher quality of the data. Absence of ambiguity can also take away the risk that authorities of Member States ask for more information than strictly needed.

| 54. | The EDPS regrets for these reasons that the compulsory use of the format can be postponed during a fairly long transition period. In the first place, the format (etc.) shall be set up by a comitology procedure -without any time limit for taking a decision on this issue. In the second place, the Member States have three years after the setting up of the format before they are obliged to use it (Article 11 (6)). The EDPS recommends:






  — | including the setting up of the format in the framework decision itself. |
| --- | --- | --- |

54.

The EDPS regrets for these reasons that the compulsory use of the format can be postponed during a fairly long transition period. In the first place, the format (etc.) shall be set up by a comitology procedure -without any time limit for taking a decision on this issue. In the second place, the Member States have three years after the setting up of the format before they are obliged to use it (Article 11 (6)). The EDPS recommends:

—

including the setting up of the format in the framework decision itself.

| — | establishing the technical specifications by a comitology procedure, within a clear time limit. |
| --- | --- |

—

establishing the technical specifications by a comitology procedure, within a clear time limit.

| — | abolishing the transition period for the implementation of the common format by the Member States, or if this would be not technically feasible, limiting the period to one year. |
| --- | --- |

—

abolishing the transition period for the implementation of the common format by the Member States, or if this would be not technically feasible, limiting the period to one year.

V.   CONCLUSION

| 55. | The EDPS welcomes the policy choices grounding the proposal. In general terms, the proposal takes into account the obstacles for a really efficient exchange of information from criminal records between the Member States resulting from the differences in languages and in the technological and legal framework of the Member States, in particular by:






  — | defining the convicting Member State as 'owner' of the data, responsible for their quality. |
| --- | --- | --- |

55.

The EDPS welcomes the policy choices grounding the proposal. In general terms, the proposal takes into account the obstacles for a really efficient exchange of information from criminal records between the Member States resulting from the differences in languages and in the technological and legal framework of the Member States, in particular by:

—

defining the convicting Member State as 'owner' of the data, responsible for their quality.

| — | providing for the designation of a central authority in each Member State. |
| --- | --- |

—

providing for the designation of a central authority in each Member State.

| — | providing for additional measures aiming to ensure that information can effectively be found and accessed. |
| --- | --- |

—

providing for additional measures aiming to ensure that information can effectively be found and accessed.

| 56. | The EDPS notices that the proposal for a Council framework decision on the protection of personal data is still being discussed by the European Parliament and the Council and also fundamental issues — such as the field of application and safeguards for transfers to third countries — are far from being settled. The EDPS recommends that:






  — | the present Council Framework decision should not enter into force before the date of entry into force of the Council framework decision on the protection of personal data. |
| --- | --- | --- |

56.

The EDPS notices that the proposal for a Council framework decision on the protection of personal data is still being discussed by the European Parliament and the Council and also fundamental issues — such as the field of application and safeguards for transfers to third countries — are far from being settled. The EDPS recommends that:

—

the present Council Framework decision should not enter into force before the date of entry into force of the Council framework decision on the protection of personal data.

| — | the Council should carefully link the negotiations on the present proposal to the negotiations on the Council framework decision on the protection of personal data. In case negotiations on the Council framework decision on the protection of personal data would exclude the rules concerning transfers of personal data to third countries from its field of application, more precise rules on transfers of personal data to third countries should be laid down in the current proposal, |
| --- | --- |

—

the Council should carefully link the negotiations on the present proposal to the negotiations on the Council framework decision on the protection of personal data. In case negotiations on the Council framework decision on the protection of personal data would exclude the rules concerning transfers of personal data to third countries from its field of application, more precise rules on transfers of personal data to third countries should be laid down in the current proposal,

| 57. | The EDPS recommends streamlining the mechanism and providing for a limited and more precise definition of purposes, other than criminal proceedings, for which information can be requested as well as for a limitation of the group of persons that may request this information. According to the EDPS, others than the data subject himself should only be entitled to lawfully request this information under exceptional circumstances. A provision should be added to the proposal allowing data protection authorities to control this exceptional use. |
| --- | --- |

57.

The EDPS recommends streamlining the mechanism and providing for a limited and more precise definition of purposes, other than criminal proceedings, for which information can be requested as well as for a limitation of the group of persons that may request this information. According to the EDPS, others than the data subject himself should only be entitled to lawfully request this information under exceptional circumstances. A provision should be added to the proposal allowing data protection authorities to control this exceptional use.

| 58. | The EDPS recommends clarifying the concept of ‘ownership’ in the text or in the recitals of the proposal, as well as establishing an obligation for the central authority of the convicted person's nationality to notify updates/cancellations to the central authorities of those other Member States or third countries that have requested information before it was updated or cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

58.

The EDPS recommends clarifying the concept of ‘ownership’ in the text or in the recitals of the proposal, as well as establishing an obligation for the central authority of the convicted person's nationality to notify updates/cancellations to the central authorities of those other Member States or third countries that have requested information before it was updated or cancelled.

| 59. | The EDPS requests the Community legislator to justify why the present proposal could not be limited to more serious criminal offences, inter alia in view of the limits set by the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

59.

The EDPS requests the Community legislator to justify why the present proposal could not be limited to more serious criminal offences, inter alia in view of the limits set by the principle of proportionality.

| 60. | The EDPS welcomes the additional provisions of Articles 10 and Article 11, provided that:






  — | Article 10 will be worded in a way that it effectively ensures a workable language regime |
| --- | --- | --- |

60.

The EDPS welcomes the additional provisions of Articles 10 and Article 11, provided that:

—

Article 10 will be worded in a way that it effectively ensures a workable language regime

| — | Article 11 will be modified so as to include the setting up of the format in the framework decision itself, to establish the technical specifications by a comitology procedure within a clear time limit and to abolish the transition period for the implementation of the common format by the Member States, or if this would be not technically feasible, to limit the period to one year. |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 11 will be modified so as to include the setting up of the format in the framework decision itself, to establish the technical specifications by a comitology procedure within a clear time limit and to abolish the transition period for the implementation of the common format by the Member States, or if this would be not technically feasible, to limit the period to one year.

| 61. | Further recommendations of the EDPS concern:






  — | Article 3 (2), why should the General Secretariat of the Council inform Eurojust about the designation of authorities? |
| --- | --- | --- |

61.

Further recommendations of the EDPS concern:

—

Article 3 (2), why should the General Secretariat of the Council inform Eurojust about the designation of authorities?

| — | Article 6(2), the central authority of the place of residence ‘shall’ — not ‘may’ — submit the request to the central authority of the other Member State. |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 6(2), the central authority of the place of residence ‘shall’ — not ‘may’ — submit the request to the central authority of the other Member State.

| — | Article 9, a provision should be added in which the data protection authorities are encouraged to cooperate actively with each other. |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 9, a provision should be added in which the data protection authorities are encouraged to cooperate actively with each other.

Done at Brussels on 29 May 2006.

Peter HUSTINX

European Data Protection Supervisor

---

(1)  OJ L 322, 9.12.2005, p. 33.

1

(2)  OJ C 58, 8.3.2005, p. 3.

2

(3)  Opinion of 28 February 2006 (OJ C 116, 17.5.2006, p. 8), more in particular Part III.

3

(4)  In particular the Opinion of 19 December 2005 on the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters (OJ C 47, 25.2.2006, p. 27) and Opinion of 20 January 2006 on the Proposal for a Council Decision concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by the authorities of Member States responsible for internal security and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences (OJ C 97, 25.4.2006, p. 6).

4

(5)  See notably Articles 95 and 96 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p. 19.

5

(6)  See point 2 of this opinion.

6

(7)  See on this also the opinion of the EDPS on the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability, cited in footnote 3.

7

(8)  See in the same sense the Opinion of 15 May 2006 on the Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (COM (2005)649 final).

8

(9)  See the opinion of the EDPS, cited in footnote 4.

9

(10)  As a model for such a provision, one could think of similar provisions included in the proposals for SIS II, albeit without a role for the EDPS.

10

---

| 20.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/36

---

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the draft Council Regulation (EC) laying down the form of the laissez-passer to be issued to members and servants of the institutions

(2006/C 313/13)

THE EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 286 thereof,

Having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Article 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 data,

Having regard to the request for an opinion pursuant to Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 received from the Commission on 31 July 2006;

HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION:

1.   PRELIMINARY REMARKS

| 1. | The Commission sent the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) the draft Council Regulation laying down the form of the laissez-passer to be issued to members and staff of the institutions under cover of a letter dated 26 July 2006. The EDPS interprets this letter as a request for an opinion pursuant to Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission sent the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) the draft Council Regulation laying down the form of the laissez-passer to be issued to members and staff of the institutions under cover of a letter dated 26 July 2006. The EDPS interprets this letter as a request for an opinion pursuant to Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

| 2. | The Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (PPI) of the European Communities, adopted on 8 April 1965 and annexed to the Treaty establishing a single Council and a single Commission of the European Communities, in particular Article 7 thereof, provides that the Council shall prescribe the form of Community laissez-passer (CLP), which shall be recognised as valid travel documents by the authorities of the Member States. This text constitutes the legal basis for the processing of the data (Article 5(a) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001). The Council, which is the competent institution in this area, considers that the CLP no longer meets, at the present time, the security standards required for this type of document and that a complete overhaul is required in order to comply with the minimum standards of the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) and those required of the European passport (in particular biometrics), using new technologies to guarantee the greatest possible protection against falsification. For reasons of technical expertise, the Board of Heads of Administration has asked the Commission to study this question. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (PPI) of the European Communities, adopted on 8 April 1965 and annexed to the Treaty establishing a single Council and a single Commission of the European Communities, in particular Article 7 thereof, provides that the Council shall prescribe the form of Community laissez-passer (CLP), which shall be recognised as valid travel documents by the authorities of the Member States. This text constitutes the legal basis for the processing of the data (Article 5(a) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001). The Council, which is the competent institution in this area, considers that the CLP no longer meets, at the present time, the security standards required for this type of document and that a complete overhaul is required in order to comply with the minimum standards of the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) and those required of the European passport (in particular biometrics), using new technologies to guarantee the greatest possible protection against falsification. For reasons of technical expertise, the Board of Heads of Administration has asked the Commission to study this question.

| 3. | The EDPS considers it important to give an opinion on the proposal for a new CLP, since it envisages the inclusion, in a storage medium, of biometric data in interoperable and machine-readable formats. This opinion is the EDPS's opportunity to express his views on this issue, as he has already done previously in his opinions on the VIS (1) and SIS II (2) programmes. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The EDPS considers it important to give an opinion on the proposal for a new CLP, since it envisages the inclusion, in a storage medium, of biometric data in interoperable and machine-readable formats. This opinion is the EDPS's opportunity to express his views on this issue, as he has already done previously in his opinions on the VIS (1) and SIS II (2) programmes.

| 4. | Biometric data are of a distinctive nature because they relate to a person's behavioural and physiological characteristics and can make it possible to identify that person with greater accuracy. In the EDPS's view, further processing falls within the scope of Article 27(1) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. Such processing must therefore be subject to prior checking by the EDPS, as it is likely to present risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects by virtue of the nature of the data. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Biometric data are of a distinctive nature because they relate to a person's behavioural and physiological characteristics and can make it possible to identify that person with greater accuracy. In the EDPS's view, further processing falls within the scope of Article 27(1) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. Such processing must therefore be subject to prior checking by the EDPS, as it is likely to present risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects by virtue of the nature of the data.

2.   ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSAL

2.1   General comments

| 5. | The EDPS is being consulted on the basis of Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. However, as that provision is binding, this opinion should be mentioned in the preamble to the text. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The EDPS is being consulted on the basis of Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. However, as that provision is binding, this opinion should be mentioned in the preamble to the text.

| 6. | The EDPS welcomes the fact that he is being consulted on the proposal for a new CLP, since the proposal forms one aspect of the policy for improving travel documents and enhancing their security with a view to making them more proof against falsification. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The EDPS welcomes the fact that he is being consulted on the proposal for a new CLP, since the proposal forms one aspect of the policy for improving travel documents and enhancing their security with a view to making them more proof against falsification.

2.2   Biometric data

| 7. | The proposal for a new CLP introduces the possibility of processing a new category of data which deserves special attention: biometric data. The EDPS recognises the importance of making the laissez-passer more secure in order to combat falsification and the fraudulent use of these documents. However, the introduction of biometrics and the corresponding processing of personal data must comply with a number of principles, the purpose of which is to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of persons, in particular their rights with regard to the processing of their personal data. It is essential to comply with these principles in respect of the processing of biometric data which, by their very nature, give information on a specific person, especially as certain biometric data can leave traces in persons' daily lives and can therefore be collected without their knowledge (fingerprints, in particular). |
| --- | --- |

7.

The proposal for a new CLP introduces the possibility of processing a new category of data which deserves special attention: biometric data. The EDPS recognises the importance of making the laissez-passer more secure in order to combat falsification and the fraudulent use of these documents. However, the introduction of biometrics and the corresponding processing of personal data must comply with a number of principles, the purpose of which is to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of persons, in particular their rights with regard to the processing of their personal data. It is essential to comply with these principles in respect of the processing of biometric data which, by their very nature, give information on a specific person, especially as certain biometric data can leave traces in persons' daily lives and can therefore be collected without their knowledge (fingerprints, in particular).

| 8. | Furthermore, there is a constantly increasing tendency to make use of biometric data in European Union information systems (VIS, SIS II, EURODAC, European passports, etc), without any concomitant close examination of the risks involved and the guarantees required. The Article 29 Working Party considered that data of this type [biometric] are of a special nature because they relate to a person's behavioural and physiological characteristics and can make it possible to identify him or her unambiguously (3). The use of biometric data must therefore be accompanied by the adoption of additional guarantees and enhanced checking procedures. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Furthermore, there is a constantly increasing tendency to make use of biometric data in European Union information systems (VIS, SIS II, EURODAC, European passports, etc), without any concomitant close examination of the risks involved and the guarantees required. The Article 29 Working Party considered that data of this type [biometric] are of a special nature because they relate to a person's behavioural and physiological characteristics and can make it possible to identify him or her unambiguously (3). The use of biometric data must therefore be accompanied by the adoption of additional guarantees and enhanced checking procedures.

| 9. | The EDPS has already proposed, in an earlier opinion (4), that a list of common basic requirements should be drawn up, taking into account the fact that biometric data are sensitive by definition. It should be possible to apply the list to any system of any kind which uses biometrics. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The EDPS has already proposed, in an earlier opinion (4), that a list of common basic requirements should be drawn up, taking into account the fact that biometric data are sensitive by definition. It should be possible to apply the list to any system of any kind which uses biometrics.

| 10. | In the same opinion, the EDPS stressed the importance of the enrolment phase for biometric systems. In the proposal as it stands, the origin of the biometric data and the manner in which they will be gathered are not described in detail. The enrolment phase is an essential step and it is not sufficient to define it by means of annexes; it directly affects the outcome of the procedure, i.e. the number of false rejections or false acceptances which might ensue. |
| --- | --- |

10.

In the same opinion, the EDPS stressed the importance of the enrolment phase for biometric systems. In the proposal as it stands, the origin of the biometric data and the manner in which they will be gathered are not described in detail. The enrolment phase is an essential step and it is not sufficient to define it by means of annexes; it directly affects the outcome of the procedure, i.e. the number of false rejections or false acceptances which might ensue.

| 11. | For example, the EDPS recommends that easily accessible fallback procedures (of a technical nature and relating to the right of access) should be established and implemented during the enrolment phase, so that the dignity of persons unable to provide fingerprints acceptable to the system is respected. |
| --- | --- |

11.

For example, the EDPS recommends that easily accessible fallback procedures (of a technical nature and relating to the right of access) should be established and implemented during the enrolment phase, so that the dignity of persons unable to provide fingerprints acceptable to the system is respected.

| 12. | Article 2 of the proposal for a Regulation states that the storage medium shall contain the personal data entered in the laissez-passer, a digitised facial image and fingerprints stored in interoperable formats. Article 4 of the proposal states that the biometrics of the CLP shall be used only to check the authenticity of the document and the identity of the holder by means of comparable features directly available. In the light of these two articles, the EDPS wishes to make the following comments:






  — | On 28 February 2005, the European Commission adopted a ‘Decision establishing the technical specifications on the standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States’. On 28 June 2006 it also adopted a ‘Decision establishing the technical specifications on the standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States’; this Decision laid down additional technical specifications for the storage and protection of the fingerprints required. The EDPS recommends that these documents should be referred to in the Regulation as they concern the technical aspects of the biometric data, in particular the form of the fingerprints and the facial image. |
| --- | --- | --- |

12.

Article 2 of the proposal for a Regulation states that the storage medium shall contain the personal data entered in the laissez-passer, a digitised facial image and fingerprints stored in interoperable formats. Article 4 of the proposal states that the biometrics of the CLP shall be used only to check the authenticity of the document and the identity of the holder by means of comparable features directly available. In the light of these two articles, the EDPS wishes to make the following comments:

—

On 28 February 2005, the European Commission adopted a ‘Decision establishing the technical specifications on the standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States’. On 28 June 2006 it also adopted a ‘Decision establishing the technical specifications on the standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States’; this Decision laid down additional technical specifications for the storage and protection of the fingerprints required. The EDPS recommends that these documents should be referred to in the Regulation as they concern the technical aspects of the biometric data, in particular the form of the fingerprints and the facial image.

| — | As the CLP are intended to be used in third countries, interoperability between the European systems and those of third countries must be guaranteed. The EDPS has already broached this issue in his opinion on the VIS system (5). He would emphasise once again that the interoperability of systems must not breach the purpose limitation principle of the processing of data, and that any proposal in that area must be submitted to him. |
| --- | --- |

—

As the CLP are intended to be used in third countries, interoperability between the European systems and those of third countries must be guaranteed. The EDPS has already broached this issue in his opinion on the VIS system (5). He would emphasise once again that the interoperability of systems must not breach the purpose limitation principle of the processing of data, and that any proposal in that area must be submitted to him.

| — | The proposal remains vague as to the possibility of storing fingerprints in an institutional database which thus becomes a register of the CLP issued. The Article 29 Working Party emphasises in its opinion 3/2005 (6) its opposition to the storage of biometric and other data of all the holders of a passport within the EU in a central database of European passports and travel documents. The EDPS feels that the same situation applies in the case of the CLP. The purpose of a CLP is to authenticate persons in third countries when they cross the border. Creating and setting up a central database containing personal data, in particular biometric data, of all persons authorised to receive a CLP is not justified, would violate the basic principle of proportionality, and should therefore be avoided. This issue should be distinguished from the processing of CLP application forms which are administered by the department responsible for issuing the CLP; we will return to this question later. |
| --- | --- |

—

The proposal remains vague as to the possibility of storing fingerprints in an institutional database which thus becomes a register of the CLP issued. The Article 29 Working Party emphasises in its opinion 3/2005 (6) its opposition to the storage of biometric and other data of all the holders of a passport within the EU in a central database of European passports and travel documents. The EDPS feels that the same situation applies in the case of the CLP. The purpose of a CLP is to authenticate persons in third countries when they cross the border. Creating and setting up a central database containing personal data, in particular biometric data, of all persons authorised to receive a CLP is not justified, would violate the basic principle of proportionality, and should therefore be avoided. This issue should be distinguished from the processing of CLP application forms which are administered by the department responsible for issuing the CLP; we will return to this question later.

| 13. | As regards the security of the CLP, the machine-readable data page is in conformity with ICAO document 9303 Part 1 (machine-readable passports), and its mode of issue is in accordance with the specifications applicable to machine-readable passports laid down there, and with the minimum security standards laid down in Regulation No 2252/2004. |
| --- | --- |

13.

As regards the security of the CLP, the machine-readable data page is in conformity with ICAO document 9303 Part 1 (machine-readable passports), and its mode of issue is in accordance with the specifications applicable to machine-readable passports laid down there, and with the minimum security standards laid down in Regulation No 2252/2004.

2.3   Technical medium

| 14. | Article 2(2) of the proposal for a Regulation lays down that the CLP shall contain a storage medium [...]. The storage medium shall have sufficient capacity to guarantee the integrity, authenticity and confidentiality of the data. This wording is in line with a Resolution of the European Parliament of 2 December 2004 (7) and this position is also supported by the Article 29 Working Party (8). |
| --- | --- |

14.

Article 2(2) of the proposal for a Regulation lays down that the CLP shall contain a storage medium [...]. The storage medium shall have sufficient capacity to guarantee the integrity, authenticity and confidentiality of the data. This wording is in line with a Resolution of the European Parliament of 2 December 2004 (7) and this position is also supported by the Article 29 Working Party (8).

| 15. | In order to comply with the decisions applicable to travel document security at European level, a basic access control is compulsory for all data stored in the chip, which means that all readers will also have to be equipped with a scanner which will deduce from the data entered in the passport the key required to open and read the chip. Furthermore, extended access control is compulsory for fingerprints. This system uses encryption which requires careful management of the access keys. |
| --- | --- |

15.

In order to comply with the decisions applicable to travel document security at European level, a basic access control is compulsory for all data stored in the chip, which means that all readers will also have to be equipped with a scanner which will deduce from the data entered in the passport the key required to open and read the chip. Furthermore, extended access control is compulsory for fingerprints. This system uses encryption which requires careful management of the access keys.

2.4   Purpose and proportionality

| 16. | The introduction of biometric identifiers and the corresponding processing of personal data must comply with a number of principles aimed at protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of persons, particularly their rights with regard to the processing of their personal data. It is essential to comply with these principles in respect of the processing of biometric data which, by their very nature, give information on a specific person, especially as certain biometric data can leave traces in persons' daily lives and can therefore be collected without their knowledge (fingerprints, in particular). |
| --- | --- |

16.

The introduction of biometric identifiers and the corresponding processing of personal data must comply with a number of principles aimed at protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of persons, particularly their rights with regard to the processing of their personal data. It is essential to comply with these principles in respect of the processing of biometric data which, by their very nature, give information on a specific person, especially as certain biometric data can leave traces in persons' daily lives and can therefore be collected without their knowledge (fingerprints, in particular).

| 17. | The EDPS would therefore point out that, in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 95/46/EC, personal data must be collected only for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes, and not further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes. Furthermore, such data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were collected or for which they are further processed (principle of purpose). |
| --- | --- |

17.

The EDPS would therefore point out that, in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 95/46/EC, personal data must be collected only for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes, and not further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes. Furthermore, such data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were collected or for which they are further processed (principle of purpose).

| 18. | The principles of purpose (personal data should be collected and processed for specified and explicit purposes and their subsequent use may only be authorised in accordance with very strict conditions) and of proportionality (the processing of personal data is authorised only to the extent necessary and insofar as no other means involving a lesser breach of privacy is as effective) must be complied with when biometric data are processed. As already mentioned above, setting up a central database containing the personal data and, in particular, biometric data, of all persons authorised to receive a CLP would breach the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

18.

The principles of purpose (personal data should be collected and processed for specified and explicit purposes and their subsequent use may only be authorised in accordance with very strict conditions) and of proportionality (the processing of personal data is authorised only to the extent necessary and insofar as no other means involving a lesser breach of privacy is as effective) must be complied with when biometric data are processed. As already mentioned above, setting up a central database containing the personal data and, in particular, biometric data, of all persons authorised to receive a CLP would breach the principle of proportionality.

2.5   Information and access

| 19. | The proposal for a Regulation contains a reference to the right to information (right of access, verification, rectification or deletion of data) of the persons to whom a laissez-passer is issued. However, the EDPS would like a reference to Article 33 of Regulation No 45/2001 on the right of Community staff to seek remedies to be added to recital 6 of the proposal. |
| --- | --- |

19.

The proposal for a Regulation contains a reference to the right to information (right of access, verification, rectification or deletion of data) of the persons to whom a laissez-passer is issued. However, the EDPS would like a reference to Article 33 of Regulation No 45/2001 on the right of Community staff to seek remedies to be added to recital 6 of the proposal.

| 20. | The designation of the authorities and bodies authorised to consult the data present on the storage medium of the documents is governed by the relevant provisions of Community law, European Union law, or international agreements. The EDPS recommends that the authorities to whom this Regulation is addressed and the rights of access which are granted should be specified. It must also be guaranteed, in the interests of security of processing, that only the competent authorities may have access to the data stored on the chip. |
| --- | --- |

20.

The designation of the authorities and bodies authorised to consult the data present on the storage medium of the documents is governed by the relevant provisions of Community law, European Union law, or international agreements. The EDPS recommends that the authorities to whom this Regulation is addressed and the rights of access which are granted should be specified. It must also be guaranteed, in the interests of security of processing, that only the competent authorities may have access to the data stored on the chip.

| 21. | There is no answer at present to other questions that arise where a CLP is checked in a third country: what data on the storage medium will third countries have access to? Furthermore, are protection measures taken to ensure that third countries do not retain the data which they have access to? At the very least, the questions concerning access to this information remain problematical. |
| --- | --- |

21.

There is no answer at present to other questions that arise where a CLP is checked in a third country: what data on the storage medium will third countries have access to? Furthermore, are protection measures taken to ensure that third countries do not retain the data which they have access to? At the very least, the questions concerning access to this information remain problematical.

3.   OTHER COMMENTS

3.1   Issue of the CLP

| 22. | The rules for issuing CLP, as laid down in Article 3 of the proposal, specify that CLP shall be issued by each institution, perhaps through a specialised body. However, one or more institutions may entrust to one of them the task of issuing their laissez-passer. It is also envisaged that the Commission should — following a call for tenders — designate a body to be responsible for printing blank CLP — and perhaps for personalising them by adding the personal data of the holder. Because of the special nature of the processing to be carried out and the necessary protection requirements associated with it, the rules governing the choice of the body responsible for processing will have to take special account of the principles laid down in Regulation No 45/2001 as regards the security and confidentiality of the data (Articles 21, 22 and 23 of the Regulation). |
| --- | --- |

22.

The rules for issuing CLP, as laid down in Article 3 of the proposal, specify that CLP shall be issued by each institution, perhaps through a specialised body. However, one or more institutions may entrust to one of them the task of issuing their laissez-passer. It is also envisaged that the Commission should — following a call for tenders — designate a body to be responsible for printing blank CLP — and perhaps for personalising them by adding the personal data of the holder. Because of the special nature of the processing to be carried out and the necessary protection requirements associated with it, the rules governing the choice of the body responsible for processing will have to take special account of the principles laid down in Regulation No 45/2001 as regards the security and confidentiality of the data (Articles 21, 22 and 23 of the Regulation).

| 23. | Without prejudice to the EDPS's opinion in the context of the prior checking procedure, which will follow notification (9) by the data protection officer of the institution(s) responsible for the future processing of CLP, the EDPS wishes to set down, at this point, a number of general ideas as regards future processing. |
| --- | --- |

23.

Without prejudice to the EDPS's opinion in the context of the prior checking procedure, which will follow notification (9) by the data protection officer of the institution(s) responsible for the future processing of CLP, the EDPS wishes to set down, at this point, a number of general ideas as regards future processing.

3.2   The form

| 24. | The documentation submitted for consultation does not contain any information about the form which persons interested in having a CLP (or authorised to have one) must fill in. However, in a case he dealt with previously, the EDPS reached the conclusion that the personal data processed when the old-style CLP are issued are not data relating to health, and that such data as might be linked to health (under the heading ‘distinguishing marks’) were not compulsory. Furthermore, the data subject's consent, defined in Article 2(h) of Regulation No 45/2001, applies. For this reason and so that he can form an exact picture of the procedure envisaged, the EDPS recommends that a copy of the CLP form should be attached to the dossier submitted for the procedure laid down in Article 27 of Regulation No 45/2001, and also any other document which facilitates the analysis of the case. |
| --- | --- |

24.

The documentation submitted for consultation does not contain any information about the form which persons interested in having a CLP (or authorised to have one) must fill in. However, in a case he dealt with previously, the EDPS reached the conclusion that the personal data processed when the old-style CLP are issued are not data relating to health, and that such data as might be linked to health (under the heading ‘distinguishing marks’) were not compulsory. Furthermore, the data subject's consent, defined in Article 2(h) of Regulation No 45/2001, applies. For this reason and so that he can form an exact picture of the procedure envisaged, the EDPS recommends that a copy of the CLP form should be attached to the dossier submitted for the procedure laid down in Article 27 of Regulation No 45/2001, and also any other document which facilitates the analysis of the case.

3.3   Data quality

| 25. | Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation No 45/2001 lays down that the data must be ‘adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed’. The data processed in the context of the procedure under consideration may be regarded as of significant magnitude (at least as regards the biometric data), which means that it is difficult to establish a priori and without knowledge of the specific case, whether they are ‘adequate, relevant and not excessive’. It is therefore important that the persons who will process the data in the context of the various procedures are correctly informed of the obligation to comply with the principle laid down in Article 4(1)(c), and that they process the data in the light of that principle. In the context of the procedure laid down in Article 27 of Regulation No 45/2001, the EDPS will recommend drafting principles of conduct so that such persons are correctly informed of their obligations. He will also ask for specific training programmes to be set up on the issues associated with the processing of sensitive data. |
| --- | --- |

25.

Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation No 45/2001 lays down that the data must be ‘adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed’. The data processed in the context of the procedure under consideration may be regarded as of significant magnitude (at least as regards the biometric data), which means that it is difficult to establish a priori and without knowledge of the specific case, whether they are ‘adequate, relevant and not excessive’. It is therefore important that the persons who will process the data in the context of the various procedures are correctly informed of the obligation to comply with the principle laid down in Article 4(1)(c), and that they process the data in the light of that principle. In the context of the procedure laid down in Article 27 of Regulation No 45/2001, the EDPS will recommend drafting principles of conduct so that such persons are correctly informed of their obligations. He will also ask for specific training programmes to be set up on the issues associated with the processing of sensitive data.

| 26. | In addition, the data must be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date (Article 4(1)(d)). It is not possible, from the information submitted, to check whether the accuracy of the data will be guaranteed. Similarly, it is not possible at present to check that the procedure or the system will, in itself, fully guarantee the quality of the data. As stated in the preceding point, only an analysis under the Article 27 procedure will allow a check to be made that adequate protection measures have been put in place. |
| --- | --- |

26.

In addition, the data must be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date (Article 4(1)(d)). It is not possible, from the information submitted, to check whether the accuracy of the data will be guaranteed. Similarly, it is not possible at present to check that the procedure or the system will, in itself, fully guarantee the quality of the data. As stated in the preceding point, only an analysis under the Article 27 procedure will allow a check to be made that adequate protection measures have been put in place.

3.4   Data retention

| 27. | The text states that the new laissez-passer would be valid for 5 years. However, it does not say how long the data relating to each application should be kept. Regulation No 45/2001 states that that data shall be ‘kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected or for which they are further processed’ (Article 4(1)(e)). As stated above, the retention of biometric data in a database must be avoided. The EDPS therefore recommends separating the processing of the biometric data from the processing of the data provided on the CLP application forms. The latter may be kept as part of the normal procedure for processing CLP applications. |
| --- | --- |

27.

The text states that the new laissez-passer would be valid for 5 years. However, it does not say how long the data relating to each application should be kept. Regulation No 45/2001 states that that data shall be ‘kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected or for which they are further processed’ (Article 4(1)(e)). As stated above, the retention of biometric data in a database must be avoided. The EDPS therefore recommends separating the processing of the biometric data from the processing of the data provided on the CLP application forms. The latter may be kept as part of the normal procedure for processing CLP applications.

4.   RECOMMENDATIONS

| 28. | The EDPS welcomes the fact that he has been consulted on the Community laissez-passer. Nevertheless, the comments set out below should be taken into account:






  — | This opinion should be mentioned in the preamble to the Regulation, before the recitals (‘Having regard to the opinion ...’ ) |
| --- | --- | --- |

28.

The EDPS welcomes the fact that he has been consulted on the Community laissez-passer. Nevertheless, the comments set out below should be taken into account:

—

This opinion should be mentioned in the preamble to the Regulation, before the recitals (‘Having regard to the opinion ...’ )

| — | Easily accessible fallback procedures must be implemented during the enrolment phase for the biometric data. |
| --- | --- |

—

Easily accessible fallback procedures must be implemented during the enrolment phase for the biometric data.

| — | The Commission Decisions of 28 February 2005 and 28 June 2006‘establishing the technical specifications on the standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States’ must be mentioned where they address the technical aspects of the CLP. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission Decisions of 28 February 2005 and 28 June 2006‘establishing the technical specifications on the standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States’ must be mentioned where they address the technical aspects of the CLP.

| — | The biometric data must not be stored in a central database. |
| --- | --- |

—

The biometric data must not be stored in a central database.

| — | The content and format of the biometric data envisaged and the guarantees attached to the introduction of biometric data into the CLP must be described more precisely. |
| --- | --- |

—

The content and format of the biometric data envisaged and the guarantees attached to the introduction of biometric data into the CLP must be described more precisely.

| — | Interoperability of the systems may not be introduced if it breaches the principle of limitation of the purposes of the processing of the data and any proposal in this area should be submitted to the EDPS. |
| --- | --- |

—

Interoperability of the systems may not be introduced if it breaches the principle of limitation of the purposes of the processing of the data and any proposal in this area should be submitted to the EDPS.

| — | The principles of purpose and proportionality must be given particular attention in the processing of biometric data. |
| --- | --- |

—

The principles of purpose and proportionality must be given particular attention in the processing of biometric data.

| — | In order to draw the attention of members and servants of the institutions to this issue, the reference to Article 33 of Regulation No 45/2001 on the right of Community staff to seek remedies should be added to recital 6 of the proposal. |
| --- | --- |

—

In order to draw the attention of members and servants of the institutions to this issue, the reference to Article 33 of Regulation No 45/2001 on the right of Community staff to seek remedies should be added to recital 6 of the proposal.

| — | The EDPS wishes the proposal to specify that a limitative list be drawn up of the competent authorities that will have access to the data, also defining the rights of access they will be granted. |
| --- | --- |

—

The EDPS wishes the proposal to specify that a limitative list be drawn up of the competent authorities that will have access to the data, also defining the rights of access they will be granted.

| — | The criteria for selecting the body referred to in Article 3 of the proposal must be carefully defined, in the light of the special nature of biometric data. |
| --- | --- |

—

The criteria for selecting the body referred to in Article 3 of the proposal must be carefully defined, in the light of the special nature of biometric data.

| — | The procedure for issuing the Community laissez-passer must be subject to prior checking by the European Data Protection Supervisor, pursuant to Article 27(1) of Regulation No 45/2001. |
| --- | --- |

—

The procedure for issuing the Community laissez-passer must be subject to prior checking by the European Data Protection Supervisor, pursuant to Article 27(1) of Regulation No 45/2001.

| — | The CLP application form should be provided so that data protection issues can be considered in the context of prior checking, and also any other document which facilitates the analysis of the case. |
| --- | --- |

—

The CLP application form should be provided so that data protection issues can be considered in the context of prior checking, and also any other document which facilitates the analysis of the case.

| — | The drawing up of principles of conduct should be recommended so that the persons responsible for processing the data are correctly informed of their obligations. Specific training programmes on issues relating to the processing of sensitive data should also be contemplated. |
| --- | --- |

—

The drawing up of principles of conduct should be recommended so that the persons responsible for processing the data are correctly informed of their obligations. Specific training programmes on issues relating to the processing of sensitive data should also be contemplated.

| — | It must be ensured that procedures are in place to guarantee data quality. |
| --- | --- |

—

It must be ensured that procedures are in place to guarantee data quality.

Done at Brussels, 13 October 2006.

Peter HUSTINX

European Data Protection Supervisor

---

(1)  Opinion of 23 March 2005 on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short stay visas (COM(2004) 835 final), OJ C 181.

1

(2)  Opinion of 19 October 2005 on three proposals on the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (COM (2005) 230 final, COM (2005) 236 final and COM (2005) 237 final), OJ C 91.

2

(3)  Working document on biometrics (MARKT/12168/02/FR — WP 80)

3

(4)  Opinion of 19 October 2005 on three proposals on the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (COM (2005) 230 final, COM (2005) 236 final and COM (2005) 237 final), OJ C 91.

4

(5)  See above page C 181/26.

5

(6)  Opinion 3/2005 on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States.

6

(7)  European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal, submitted by the Commission, for a Council Regulation on standards for security features and biometrics in EU citizens' passports (COM(2004)0116 — C5-0101/2004 — 2004/0039(CNS)),

7

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52004AP0073(01):EN:HTML

(8)  Letter of 18 August 2004 from the Chairman of the Article 29 Working Party to the President of the European Parliament, the Chairman of the LIBE Committee, the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union, the President of the European Commission, the Director of DG Enterprise and the Director-General of DG Justice and Home Affairs (not published).

8

(9)  On the basis of Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

9

---

III Notices

Commission

| 20.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/42

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — DG EAC/61/06

LIFELONG LEARNING PROGRAMME

(2006/C 313/14)

1.   Objectives and description

This call for proposals is based on the decision establishing the Lifelong Learning programme which was adopted by the European Parliament and Council on 15 November 2006 (Decision No 1720/2006/EC) (1). The programme covers the 2007 to 2013 period. The specific objectives of the Life Long Learning programme are listed in article 1.3 of the Decision.

2.   Eligible applicants

The Lifelong Learning programme applies to all types and levels of education and vocational education and training and it is accessible to all the entities listed in Article 4 of the Decision.

Applicants must be established in one of the following countries (2):

| — | the 27 countries of the European Union (as of 1.1.2007), |
| --- | --- |

—

the 27 countries of the European Union (as of 1.1.2007),

| — | the EFTA and EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway (3), |
| --- | --- |

—

the EFTA and EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway (3),

| — | candidate countries: Turkey (4). |
| --- | --- |

—

candidate countries: Turkey (4).

3.   Budget and duration of projects

The total budget earmarked for this call is estimated at EUR 784 million.

The level of grants awarded as well as the duration of projects is likely to vary considerably, depending on factors such as the type of project and the number of countries involved.

4.   Deadline for the submission of applications

The main deadlines are:

| Erasmus University Charter | 28 February 2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Jean Monnet programme | 15 March 2007 |
| Comenius, Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci, Grundtvig | 30 March 2007 |
| Transversal Programme and Accompanying Measures | 30 April 2007 |

Erasmus University Charter

28 February 2007

Jean Monnet programme

15 March 2007

Comenius, Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci, Grundtvig

30 March 2007

Transversal Programme and Accompanying Measures

30 April 2007

5.   Full details

The full text of the call for proposals, together with application forms and guidelines for applicants, can be found at the following Internet address:

http://ec.europa.eu//dgs/education_culture/newprog/index_en.html

Applications must comply with all terms of the full text and be submitted on the forms provided.

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:327:SOM:EN:HTML

(2)  Except for the Jean Monnet programme that is open to higher education institutions in the whole world

(3)  Subject to the entry into force of the relevant EEA Joint Committee decision

(4)  Subject to the entry into force of the Memorandum of understanding

---

Corrigenda

| 20.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/44

---

Corrigendum to Common position (EC) No 27/2006 adopted by the Council on 25 September 2006, with a view to the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013)

(
  OJ C 301E, 12.12.2006, p. 1
  )

(2006/C 313/15)

Page 6, Article 6(4)

For:

‘4.   The fields of research set out in paragraph 2 shall be reviewed for the second phase of this programme (2010-2013) in the light of scientific advances.’;

Read:

Read:

‘4.   The fields of research set out above shall be reviewed for the second phase of this programme (2010-2013) in the light of scientific advances.’.

---

| 20.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/44

---

Corrigendum to the Draft Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on efficiency and equity in education and training

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 298 of 8 December 2006
  )

(2006/C 313/16)

In the Contents on the cover page, and on page 3, in the title:

for:

‘Draft Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on efficiency and equity in education and training’,

read:

read:

‘Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on efficiency and equity in education and training’.

---