----

----

I Information

Council

----

COUNCIL DECISION

of 18 December 2006

appointing members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture

(2006/C 320/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 85/385/EEC of 10 June 1985 setting up an Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture, and in particular Articles 3 and 4 thereof, (1)

Whereas Article 3 of the above Decision provides that the Committee shall consist of three experts from each Member State and one alternate for each of those experts; whereas Article 4 of the same Decision provides that the term of office of those experts and alternates shall be three years, and may end before expiry of the period of three years by virtue of the resignation or death of the member or his replacement by another person; in that event, the appointment of a new member is for the remainder of the term of office;

Whereas by its Decision 2006/C 68/03 of 9 March 2006 (2) the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture for a period of three years as from the date of the Decision;

Whereas the Governments of seven Member States have each submitted a list of candidates with a view to the appointment or replacement of members and alternate members,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The following shall be appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture from the date of this Decision until 9 March 2009:

A.   EXPERTS FROM THE PRACTISING PROFESSION

B.   EXPERTS FROM UNIVERSITIES OR EQUIVALENT TEACHING INSTITUTIONS IN THE FIELD OF ARCHITECTURE

C.   EXPERTS FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES OF THE MEMBER STATES

Done at Brussels, 18 December 2006.

For the Council

The President

J.-E. ENESTAM

----

(1)OJ L 223, 21.8.1985, p. 26.

(2)OJ C 68, 21.3.2006, p. 6.

----

----

Notice for the attention of those persons/groups/entities that have been included by Council Decision 2006/1008/EC of 21 December on the list of persons, groups and entities to which Regulation 2580/2001 applies

(2006/C 320/02)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons, groups or entities listed in the Annex to Council Decision 2006/1008/CE of 21 December. (1)

The Council of the European Union has determined that the persons, groups or entities that appear on the above-mentioned list are involved in terrorist acts within the meaning of the relevant EU legal instruments, and they have consequently been included, by the decision referred to above, on the list of persons, groups and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for under Council Regulation (EC) 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (2). This Regulation provides for a freezing of all funds, other financial assets and economic resources belonging to the persons, groups or entities concerned and that no funds, other financial assets and economic resources may be made available to them, whether directly or indirectly.

The attention of the persons, groups or entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as listed in the Annex to the Regulation, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 5 of the Regulation).

The persons, groups or entities concerned may submit a request to obtain the Council's statement of reasons for their inclusion on the above-mentioned list (unless the statement of reasons has already been communicated to them). They may also submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered.

Any such requests should be sent to the following address: Council of the European Union (Attn.: UNSCR 1373 designations), Rue de la Loi 175, B-1048 Brussels.

Attention is also drawn to the possibility for each person, group or entity concerned of challenging the Council's decision before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 230 (4) and (5) of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

----

(1)OJ L 379, 28.12.2006.

(2)OJ L 344 of 28.12.2001, p. 71.

----

----

COUNCIL DECISION

of 18 December 2006

appointing Italian, Maltese and Swedish members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

(2006/C 320/03)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (1), and in particular Articles 26 and 27 thereof,

Having regard to the lists of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The following are hereby appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for the term of office ending on 13 September 2008:

I.   GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES

II.   WORKERS' REPRESENTATIVES

III.   EMPLOYERS' REPRESENTATIVES

Done at Brussels, 18 December 2006.

For the Council

The President

J.-E. ENESTAM

----

(1)OJ L 257, 18.10.1968, p. 2.

(2)OJ C 242, 7.10.2006, p. 1.

----

Commission

----

Euro exchange rates (1)

27 December 2006

(2006/C 320/04)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----

----

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4209 — Thule/Schneeketten)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 320/05)

On 10 July 2006, the Commission of the European Communities received notification of a proposed concentration between Thule and Schneeketten. On 20 December 2006, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.

----

----

Notice of initiation of a reinvestigation pursuant to Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of the antidumping measures applicable to imports of certain finished polyester filament fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China

(2006/C 320/06)

The Commission has received a request pursuant to Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (‘the basic Regulation’) (1) to investigate whether the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of certain finished polyester filament fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China have had an effect on export prices, resale prices or subsequent selling prices in the Community

1.   Request for review

The request was lodged on 13 November 2006 by AIUFFASS (‘the applicant’) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 30 %, of the total Community production of certain finished polyester filament fabrics.

2.   Product

The product concerned is woven fabrics of synthetic filament yarn containing 85 % or more by weight of textured and/or non-textured polyester filament, dyed (including dyed white) or printed originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the product concerned’), currently classifiable within CN codes ex 5407 51 00, 5407 52 00, 5407 54 00, ex 5407 61 10, 5407 61 30, 5407 61 90 and ex 5407 69 10 and ex 5407 69 90.

These CN codes are given only for information.

3.   Existing measures

The measures currently in force are definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005 (2) on imports of certain finished polyester filament fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China.

4.   Grounds for the reinvestigation

The applicant has submitted sufficient evidence showing that following the imposition of the anti-dumping duties i on certain finished polyester filament fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China, export prices have decreased and there has been insufficient movement in resale prices or subsequent selling prices in the Community.

In fact, the evidence contained in the request shows that all of the above-mentioned prices of the product concerned have decreased significantly since the imposition of the anti-dumping measures, resulting in increased dumping which has impeded the intended remedial effects of the measures in force.

The applicant has provided evidence that imports of the product concerned from the People's Republic of China have continued to enter in significant quantities.

5.   Procedure

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that the request has been lodged by or on behalf of the Community industry and that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation, the Commission hereby initiates a reinvestigation in respect of certain finished polyester filament fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China, pursuant to Article 12 of the basic Regulation.

(a)   Sampling

In view of the apparent 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 formats indicated in point 7:

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:

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 wishes to inform parties that, in selecting the sample, preference will be given, to the extent possible, to limiting the sample to the parties selected in the sample in the investigation that lead to the imposition of the existing measures.

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 co-operate 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 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 request or which co-operated in the investigation leading to the measures subject to the present review, and to the authorities of the exporting country concerned.

In any event, all interested parties should contact the Commission forthwith by fax in order to find out whether they are listed in the request and, if necessary, request a questionnaire within the time limit set in point 6(a)(i), given that the time limit set in point 6(a)(ii) applies to all interested parties.

(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 must 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).

6   Time limits

(a)   General time limits

(i)   For parties to request a questionnaire

All interested parties who did not co-operate in the investigation leading to the imposition of the measures subject to the present review should request a questionnaire as soon as possible, but not later than 15 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

(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

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 labelled 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 labelled ‘FOR INSPECTION BY INTERESTED PARTIES’.

Commission address for correspondence:

8.   Non-co-operation

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, 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, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, of the facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially, and use of facts available is made, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

9.   Possibility to request a review under Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation

If any party to the proceeding considers that a review of the level of the measures is warranted so as to allow for the possibility to amend (i.e. increase or decrease) the level of the measures, that party may request a review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

Parties wishing to request such a review, which would be carried out independently of the absorption review mentioned in this notice, may contact the Commission at the address given above.

10.   Schedule of the reinvestigation

The reinvestigation will be concluded, according to Article 12(4) of the basic Regulation within 9 months of the date of 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 Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17.).

(2)OJ L 240,16.09.2005, p. 1

(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).

----

----

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

(2006/C 320/07)

This publication confers the right to object to the application pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. Statements of objection must reach the Commission within six months from the date of this publication.

SUMMARY

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

Application for registration according to Article 5 and Article 17(2)

‘MEJILLÓN DE GALICIA’ or ‘MEXILLÓN DE GALICIA’

EC No: ES/PDO/005/0156/10.10.2000

PDO ( X ) PGI ( )

This summary has been drawn up for information only. For full details, interested parties are invited to consult the full version of the product specification obtainable from the national authorities indicated in section 1 or from the European Commission (1).

1.   Responsible department in the Member State:

2.   Group:

3.   Type of product:

Class 1.7.: Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom

4.   Specification (summary of requirements under Article 4(2))

----

(1)  European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, Agricultural Product Quality Policy, B-1049 Brussels.

----

----

STATE AID

Commission notice pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty to other Member States and interested parties

State aid C 25/2006 (ex E 1/2006) — Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 — appropriate measures — Germany

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 320/08)

By the following letter dated 22 November 2006 the Commission informed Germany of its decision to close the procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

----

(1)OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.

(2)OJ C 194, 18.8.2006.

----

----

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

(2006/C 320/09)

This publication confers the right to object to the application pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. Statements of objection must reach the Commission within six months from the date of this publication.

SUMMARY

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

Application for registration according to Article 5 and Article 17(2)

‘CAFÉ DE COLOMBIA’

EC No: CO/PGI/0467/08.06.2005

PDO ( ) PGI ( X )

This summary has been drawn up for information purposes only. For full details, interested parties are invited to consult the full version of the product specification obtainable from the national authorities indicated in section 1 or from the European Commission (1).

1.   Responsible department in the Third Country:

2.   Applicant group:

3.   Type of product:

Class 1.8 (other products listed in Annex I to the Treaty): Coffee (Chapter 9 of Annex I to the Treaty).

4.   Specification (summary of requirements under Art.4 (2))

4.1.   Name: ‘Café de Colombia’.

4.2.   Description: ‘Café de Colombia’ is that coffee grown in the Columbian Coffee Growing Area defined in the specifications which satisfies the export standards laid down by the National Committee of Coffee Growers and which, when processed, has the following characteristics: mild, clean cup, of medium/high acidity and body and a full and pronounced aroma.

Only the Arabica species is grown in the Colombian Coffee Growing Area. The main coffee varieties or plants of the Arabica species cultivated in Colombia are known as Caturra, Típica, Borbón, Maragogipe, Tabi, Colón, San Bernardo and ‘Colombia’, now known as Castillo. Green and processed ‘Café de Colombia’ may consist of one or more of these types or varieties. Thus, only coffee presented to the consumer containing exclusively 100 % ‘Café de Colombia’, irrespective of its state (green or roasted), reproduces the abovementioned characteristics.

4.3.   Geographical area: The area is that located in the Republic of Colombia at 400 to 2 500 metres above sea level between the first parallel and 11°15' North and longitude 72° to 78° West.

In any event, it is to be noted that the geographical area does not encompass the whole territory of the Republic of Colombia.

4.4.   Proof of origin: Traceability of the product is carried out in the following stages:

Monitoring of producers. This is carried out using the Sistema de Información Cafetero (SICA) data base, and every single coffee plantation of the Colombian Coffee Growing Area and respective plots is supervised. This information-gathering system is part of the Plantation Administration data base.

Monitoring of parchment coffee and hulling. This is carried out by means of legal documents such as the ‘Guías de Tránsito’ and checking of purchases at the storage or hulling plants, which are subject to registration and operation requirements.

Monitoring of green coffee. Once it has gone through the hulling plants, which are duly registered in accordance with Decision No 1 of 2002 of the National Committee of Coffee Growers. The ‘Guías de Tránsito’, provided for in Colombian Decree 2685 of 1999, are still the legal document which must accompany each lot of coffee for export.

Monitoring of exports. Exporters are monitored, by means of the Guía de Tránsito, by both the customs authorities and ALMACAFÉ, the organisation entrusted to carry out such checks by the National Federation of Coffee Growers. There is also a register of exporters governed by Ministry of Foreign Trade Decision No 355 of 2002 for exporters who meet the conditions laid down in National Committee of Coffee Growers Decision No 3 of 2002. Likewise, ALMACAFÉ carries out final checks at port to ensure that the ‘Café de Colombia’ quality criteria are met.

Monitoring of roasted coffee. Roasting plants located in Colombia apply National Committee of Coffee Growers Decision No 1 of 2002 to the traceability of ‘Café de Colombia’. Roasted coffee is traced outside Colombia by means of best-practice agreements with foreign roasters and by various monitoring mechanisms such as the quality testing by checking and sampling from undertakings.

4.5.   Method of production: The product processing stages are: harvesting, beneficio and hulling:

Harvesting: fruit from the coffee plants is picked between 210 and 224 days after flowering, when it is ripening, ripe or overripe. It is selectively picked, essentially by hand, one bean at a time.

Beneficio: the process used for the coffee covered involves the use of water (‘wet process’) and is divided into the following stages: (1) pulp removal; (2) cleaning; (3) mucilage removal (fermentation); (4) washing, and (5) drying.

Hulling: the endocarp is separated from the dry parchment coffee in threshing machines to obtain green coffee, which is sorted by machine according to size, colour and density.

Roasting: not necessarily carried out in the geographical area, it consists in applying heat to green beans whose characteristics identify it as originating in the Colombian Coffee Growing Area, prior to preparing drinking coffee. This process brings out the organoleptic qualities (mild, clean cup, of medium/high acidity and body and a full and pronounced aroma) which are intrinsic to the green ‘Café de Colombia’ from the Colombian Coffee Growing Area.

4.6.   Link: The link is established by virtue of the following factors:

Geographical: the specific geographical location of the Colombian Coffee Growing Area, combined with climatic characteristics and the distinctive physical relief and soil, give ‘Café de Colombia’ its specific physical and organoleptic qualities.

Agroclimatic: the Colombian Coffee Growing Area is situated in an Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). This provides two harvesting possibilities or seasons a year and, together with the orography, gives rise to abundant and very distinctive rainfall. This rain in the Colombian Coffee Growing Area is also influenced by local circulations between the valleys and mountains. The fact that the ITCZ passes over the coffee-growing area twice, combined with the varied topography, means that there is an adequate quantity and distribution of rain throughout the year, with enough water to complete the crop's entire production cycle and guarantee year-round coffee harvests. For the abovementioned agroclimatic reasons, the Colombian Coffee Growing Area is characterised by the fact that it offers ‘fresh coffee throughout the year’.

Topographical: the Colombian Coffee Growing Area is situated on the slopes of the country's Andean mountain range, in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and the Serranía de la Macarena. The effects of the climate (above all precipitation and temperature) and the topography, through the action of the weather, produces specific parent material and soils in terms of mineralogical composition and physico-chemical properties respectively. This gives rise to soils with a high nutrient level: low in acid and which retain moisture.

Harvesting: the fact that there is more than one harvest every year means that there can be green and mature beans on the same coffee plantation. This defines one of the essential characteristics of ‘Café de Colombia’, namely essentially selective hand-picking of the coffee bean by bean.

Other factors: historical, traditional, cultural and social, plus the prestige attaching to ‘Café de Colombia’.

This means that ‘Café de Colombia’ is acknowledged to be a coffee of quality whose green beans are characterised by its fresh aroma and an average moisture content of 10 to 12 %, and such characteristics are governed, for the purpose of exportation, by National Committee of Coffee Growers Decision No 5 of 2002 on the presentation of roasted coffee.

In short, the Colombian Coffee Growing Area is characterised by its production of coffee beans that produce a clean cup drink, of medium/high acidity and body and a full and pronounced aroma. These features and quality can be achieved by using the Arabica species of coffee, provided that a great deal of care is taken in husbanding the crops. Consequently, the quality of Colombian coffee also depends on the following common factors: the wet method of processing coffee described earlier, selective harvesting involving a significant amount of manual work, cultivation by long-established and skilled coffee growers, and the use of careful selection and classification processes. All the attributes of ‘Café de Colombia’ are due to the special characteristics of the Republic of Colombia in terms of soil quality, the typical climate of the country, specifically in the mountainous areas of the tropics, the height above sea level of the Colombian Coffee Growing Area, the similarity of sowing and harvesting processes and procedures, and the requirements it has to satisfy in order to be sold on the international market. The coffee owes its reputation, fame and excellence throughout the world to the sum of these factors, which are typical of and exclusive to the Colombian Coffee Growing Area and ‘Café de Colombia’.

The prestige and the reputation of ‘Café de Colombia’ is worthy of special mention. Thus, numerous acknowledgements from consumers, supported by statistics, show the high prestige and the excellent reputation which ‘Café de Colombia’ has attained. This is due to the efforts made by Colombian coffee growers and their product. To that end, the specifications are accompanied by evidence of advertising campaigns (stretching back to the 1960s) promoting ‘Café de Colombia’. This activity has generated, since then, many mentions in articles and column inches on ‘Café de Colombia’ in which it is referred to as a coffee of high quality and prestige. Finally, the Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia has been unstinting in its efforts in pursuing, before the courts and the administrative authorities, the many attempts by others to appropriate and misuse the good name of ‘Café de Colombia’.

4.7.   Inspection body: 

ALMACAFE fulfils the requirements and technical specifications laid down in the norm ISO 65.

4.8.   Labelling: The labels have the following features: Title: ‘P.G.I. CAFÉ DE COLOMBIA’.

4.9.   National requirements: Colombian domestic legislation. Andean Community Decision No 486.

Registration as D.O. in Colombia: Supervisory Authority for Industry and Trade Decision No 4819 of 4 March 2005.

----

(1)  European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, Agricultural Product Quality Policy, B-1049 Brussels.

----

European Data Protection Supervisor

----

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the modified proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) 1030/2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals.

(2006/C 320/10)

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 received on 11 May 2006 from the Commission;

HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION:

1.   INTRODUCTION

On 13 June 2002, in an effort to harmonize the format of residence permits issued by Member States to third-country nationals, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals (1). In the sixth recital of the regulation, Member States and the European Commission agreed to consider at regular intervals and according to technological developments what changes should be made in order to enhance the security features built into permits. Biometric features were given as an illustrative example.

On 24 September 2003, the European Commission proposed a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 (2). This Regulation was proposed together with another proposal for a Council Regulation amending regulation (EC) 1683/95 laying down a uniform format for visas. The main goal of both proposals was to introduce biometric data (facial image and two fingerprint images of the holder) in these new uniform formats of residence permits and visas. Due to a number of technological uncertainties, the format of the residence permit (sticker or stand-alone card) was not defined. Following a consultation procedure, these proposals were submitted to the European Parliament.

On 10 March 2006, the European Commission submitted a modified proposal (hereafter ‘the proposal’) for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) 1030/2002. In this modified proposal, a stand-alone card was the format decided upon due to potential collisions between contact-less chips. A defined area (zone 16 according to the annex of the proposal) will also be offered to those Member States which intend to embed a contact chip in the residence permit dedicated to e-services.

The proposal for the residence permit is based on Article 63(3)(a) TEC. The EDPS stresses that a residence permit should not be considered to be a travel document. It is unfortunate that the 2003 proposal included proposals for the visa and residence permit in the same document as this may have raised some misunderstandings, although the aim was to adopt a coherent approach on biometric identifiers in the EU. The EDPS therefore welcomes the fact that the visa and the residence permit are no longer linked.

2.   ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSAL

2.1   General

The EDPS welcomes being consulted on the basis of Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. However, in view of the mandatory character of Article 28(2), the present opinion should be mentioned in the preamble of the text.

The proposal introduces the use of biometrics in the residence permit. The EDPS recognises the advantages of the use of biometrics, but stresses the major impact of the use of such data and suggests the insertion of stringent safeguards for any kinds of use of biometric data.

The EDPS welcomes the reasoning of the Council and of the Estonian government in particular to treat their citizens and third country residents equally, giving them access to e-services via ID-cards and residence permits (3). This sound statement also confirms the fact that the residence permit shall not be considered as a travel document per se.

2.2   Biometric features

As already underlined in several opinions of the EDPS (4) and of the Article 29 Working Party (5), the introduction and processing of biometric data for identity related documents need to be supported by particularly consistent and serious safeguards. Indeed biometric data are highly sensitive, due to some specific characteristics and present some risks in their implementation which have to be mitigated. In his opinion on the SIS II proposal previously mentioned, the EDPS has proposed a non exhaustive list of common obligations or requirements related to the specificity of such data as well as a common methodology and best practices for their implementation.

As biometric systems are neither accessible to all (6) nor completely accurate, readily available fallback procedures shall be implemented in order to respect the dignity of persons who could not provide readable fingerprints or could have been wrongly identified and to avoid transferring onto them the burden of the system imperfections.

The EDPS recommends that fallback procedures are developed and included in Article 2, paragraph 1 of the proposal. These procedures should neither decrease the security level of the residence permit nor stigmatize those individuals with unreadable fingerprints.

Article 4a of the proposal states that ‘Member states shall also include fingerprints in interoperable formats’. The EDPS recommends modifying this provision as follows so as to make it more accurate: ‘Member states shall also include two fingerprints in interoperable formats’. This clarification will reinforce the proportionality principle which shall be respected at all stages of this proposal.

According to the third recital of the proposal, the integration of biometric identifiers should follow the specifications set out in the ICAO document No 9303 on machine readable visas. As has already been stated, the residence permit is not a travel document. As underlined in the explanatory memorandum, the residence permit is usually considered to be an ID card for third country nationals. It is therefore logical that the same high security standards defined for national ID card should also be applied to the residence permit. The EDPS recommends therefore to delete the third recital and to define higher security specifications for the biometric features which will be stored in the residence permit. The reference made in the annex to the ICAO standards should also be replaced by high security specifications corresponding to the situations under which a residence permit is used.

2.3   Access and use of data

As a preliminary remark the EDPS welcomes the progress made by this latest proposal for respecting the principle of purpose limitation better. Indeed, according to the proposed modifications biometric features stored in residence permits shall only be used for verifying ‘the authenticity of the document and the identity of the holder by means of directly available comparable features’.

The first recital recalls the aim of the Amsterdam Treaty which among others is to confer the right of initiative to the European Commission in order to take the relevant measures on a harmonised immigration policy. It is therefore regrettable that the European Commission cannot use this opportunity in the proposal to clearly identify and define those authorities which have access to the data stored in the residence permit storage medium due to constitutional limitations. The EDPS recommends that the European Commission develop an appropriate procedure to create better harmonisation of the definition and the list of the competent authorities for carrying out checks on residence permits. This list of competent authorities is not only relevant for the Member State who issued the residence permit but also for the other Member States within the Schengen area where the third country resident might need to be identified.

This recommendation is even more important in view of a possible inclusion in the residence permit of an additional chip for e-services. This new element will no doubt increase the number of authorities which might have access to the residence permit. According to the EDPS, such a result is highly undesirable.

2.4   Comitology

Article 2 of the regulation lists the cases in which additional technical specifications for the uniform format for residence permits relating to the following shall be established in accordance with the comitology-procedure referred to in Article 7(2). The present proposal gives a further specification of the cases in which such decisions should be taken. These decisions will have a significant impact on the proper implementation of the principle of purpose limitation and the proportionality principle. The EDPS advises that decisions with a substantial impact on data protection such as access to and introduction of data, quality of data, technical compliance of storage medium, security measures for the protection of the biometric features, etc. should be made by way of Regulation, in accordance with co-decision procedure.

For all other cases with an impact on data protection, the EDPS should be given the possibility to advise on the choices made by this committee. The EDPS' advisory role should be included in Article 7 of the Regulation.

2.5   Electronic platform

As the residence permit is not a travel document, there is no consistent reason for following the ICAO standards and therefore to use a contact-less chip. This technology has not been proven to be safer than a contact chip and will only bring additional risks to the deployment of the residence permit.

According to the new proposed Article 4, the Member States could embed a second chip in the stand-alone card of the residence permit. This second chip would be a contact chip and be dedicated to e-services. The EDPS would like to specifically stress the inadequacy of such a proposal since it does not respect basic and elementary rules of security policy required for sensitive data.

This additional chip offers a full range of new applications and purposes for the residence permit card. The structure of the security protection profile of the first contact-less chip which will store biometric features can only be rigorously and properly defined in the light of the risks produced by the other purposes such as e-business and e-government applications. There is no guarantee indeed that these applications will not take place for example in a relatively unsafe environment for the contact-less chip. It would indeed be unfortunate if the use of this additional chip jeopardizes the security of the sensitive data stored in the primary chip. The EDPS strongly recommends therefore that the proposal defines the following elements:

3.   CONCLUSION

The EDPS welcomes this proposal which aims at better harmonising the EU immigration policy in general and the development of a uniform format for residence permit in particular.

The EDPS recognises the fact that the use of biometric features may improve protection of resident permits as well as fighting illegal immigration and illegal residence. However, the insertion of biometric data will contribute to these goals only if stringent safeguards for their use are implemented and only if their imperfections are mitigated with proper fallback procedures.

The EDPS recommends postponing the insertion of an additional chip for e-services purposes until complete impact assessment and risks assessment studies have been conducted and their results have been properly analysed.

Considering that while a residence permit is not a travel document it will be used in the Schengen area as an ID related document, the EDPS stresses the need for adopting highest security standards in line with the security specifications adopted by the Members States which are developing an e-ID card.

Concerning the residence permit development and implementation, technological choices with consistent impact on data protection should preferably be made by way of regulation, in accordance with the co-decision procedure. In other cases with an impact on data protection, the EDPS shall be given an advisory role included in Article 7 of the Regulation on the choices made by the committee foreseen by the proposal.

Done at Brussels on 16 October 2006

Peter HUSTINX

European Data Protection Supervisor

----

(1)OJ L 157, 15.6.2002, p. 1.

(2)  COM/2003/558 Final.

(3)  As described in the Explanatory Memorandum

(4)  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, OJ C 181, 23.7.2005, p. 13.

Opinion of 19 October 2005 on three Proposals regarding the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (COM (2005)230 final, COM (2005)236 final and COM (2005)237 final), OJ C 91, 19.4.2006, p. 38.

(5)  Opinion No 7/2004 on the inclusion of biometric elements in residence permits and visas taking account of the establishment of the European information system on visas (VIS) (Markt/11487/04/EN — WP 96) and Working document on biometrics (MARKT/10595/03/EN — WP 80).

(6)  Up to 5 % of people are estimated not to be able to enrol (because they have no readable fingerprints or no fingerprints at all).

----

III Notices

Commission

----

MEDIA 2007 — Development, distribution and promotion

Call for proposals — EACEA No 16/06

Implementation of a programme to encourage the development, distribution and promotion of European audiovisual works

Support for the development of production projects (‘MEDIA New Talent’, single projects and slate funding)

(2006/C 320/11)

1.   Objectives and description

The aim of MEDIA 2007 (Development) is to support the development of production projects for the European and international markets in the following genres: fiction, creative documentaries, animation and multimedia.

2.   Eligible applicants

Only independent companies whose main activity is audiovisual and/or multimedia production are eligible for support. Applicant companies must be established in one of the following countries: the Member States of the European Union, the EFTA and EEA countries participating in the MEDIA 2007 Programme (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) and Switzerland, subject to the conclusion of a new cooperation agreement with this country in the framework of the MEDIA Programme.

Applicant companies must also provide evidence that they have the previous experience of audiovisual production required in accordance with the guidelines.

3.   Budget

The total budget earmarked for the cofinancing of projects is estimated at EUR 13 million. Financial assistance from the Commission cannot exceed 50 % of the total eligible costs (60 % for projects highlighting Europe's cultural diversity). The maximum subsidy in the case of slate funding is EUR 150 000. For single projects it varies between EUR 10 000 and 80 000 depending on the genre.

4.   Deadline

Applications must be sent to the Executive Agency (EACEA) no later than:

5.   Detailed information

The complete guidelines together with the application forms are available on the website:

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/avpolicy/media/index_en.html.

Applications must comply with the requirements set out in the guidelines and be submitted using the form provided.

----

----

MEDIA 2007 — Development, distribution promotion and training

Call for proposals — EACEA No 18/06

Training

(2006/C 320/12)

1.   Objectives and Description

This call for proposals is based on the Decision No 1718/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a single multi-annual programme for Community measures in the field of Audiovisual for the period between 2007 and 2013

One of the measures to be implemented under this Decision involves improving the continuous vocational training of professionals in the audiovisual sector, so as to give them the know-how and skills needed to create competitive products on the European and other markets, in particular in the field of:

2.   Eligible Candidates

The present notification is addressed to European organisations; those registered in and controlled by nationals from the Member States of the European Union and countries of the European Economic Agreement participating in the MEDIA 2007 Programme (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway), as well as Switzerland, subject to the conclusion of a new cooperation agreement with this country in the framework of the MEDIA Programme.

This notice is addressed to candidates in one of the categories of establishment below whose activities contribute to the above-mentioned measures:

3.   Budget for projects

The maximum amount available under this call for proposals is EUR 4 340 000, provided funds are available under the 2007 exercise.

The financial support from the Commission cannot exceed 50 %/60 % of the total eligible costs.

The financial contribution will be awarded in the form of a grant.

The maximum duration of projects is 12 months.

4.   Deadline for submission of applications

Applications must be sent to the Executive Agency (EACEA) no later than 9 March 2007

5.   Full details

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

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/avpolicy/media/forma_en.html

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

----

----

NOTICE TO READERS

From 1 January 2007, the structure of the Official Journal will be modified in the direction of a clearer classification of the acts published which preserves, nevertheless, essential continuity.

The new structure, with examples illustrating its use in the classification of acts, can be consulted on the EUR-Lex site on the following address:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm

----