# Official Journal C 91/19 A

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 91 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4919 April 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 91

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4919 April 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 091/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 091/2 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2006/C 091/3 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2006/C 091/4 | State aid — Portugal — Aid C 4/2006 (ex N 180/2005) — Aid to Djebel, S.A. — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (
  1
  ) | 25 |
| 2006/C 091/5 | State aid — France — State aid No C 9/2006 (ex NN 85/2005) — Fund for the prevention of risks to fishing — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (
  1
  ) | 30 |
| 2006/C 091/6 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4114 — Lottomatica/GTECH) (
  1
  ) | 35 |
| 2006/C 091/7 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4121 — Allianz Group/Sofinim/United Broadcast Facilities) (
  1
  ) | 36 |
| 2006/C 091/8 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4172 — Barclays/Tuja) (
  1
  ) | 36 |
| 2006/C 091/9 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4130 — ENI/Grupo Amorim/CGD/GALP) (
  1
  ) | 37 |
| 2006/C 091/0 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4087 — Eiffage/Macquarie/APRR) (
  1
  ) | 37 |
| | European Data Protection Supervisor |
| 2006/C 091/1 | Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor | 38 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 091/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 091/2

Euro exchange rates

2

2006/C 091/3

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (
  1
  )

1

3

2006/C 091/4

State aid — Portugal — Aid C 4/2006 (ex N 180/2005) — Aid to Djebel, S.A. — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (
  1
  )

1

25

2006/C 091/5

State aid — France — State aid No C 9/2006 (ex NN 85/2005) — Fund for the prevention of risks to fishing — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (
  1
  )

1

30

2006/C 091/6

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4114 — Lottomatica/GTECH) (
  1
  )

1

35

2006/C 091/7

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4121 — Allianz Group/Sofinim/United Broadcast Facilities) (
  1
  )

1

36

2006/C 091/8

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4172 — Barclays/Tuja) (
  1
  )

1

36

2006/C 091/9

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4130 — ENI/Grupo Amorim/CGD/GALP) (
  1
  )

1

37

2006/C 091/0

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4087 — Eiffage/Macquarie/APRR) (
  1
  )

1

37

European Data Protection Supervisor

2006/C 091/1

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor

38

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

I Information

Commission

| 19.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

18 April 2006

(2006/C 91/01)

1 euro=

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2252 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 144,53 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4621 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6915 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3068 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5645 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 93,15 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,854 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5762 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,565 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 266,67 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,696 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9268 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,4876 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,6 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,48 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6464 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,66 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4029 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,5029 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9576 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9626 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 168,6 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,4234 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,8188 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3048 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 005,36 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5008 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,037 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,778 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,482 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2252

JPY

Japanese yen

144,53

DKK

Danish krone

7,4621

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6915

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3068

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5645

ISK

Iceland króna

93,15

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,854

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5762

CZK

Czech koruna

28,565

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

266,67

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,696

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9268

RON

Romanian leu

3,4876

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,6

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,48

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6464

AUD

Australian dollar

1,66

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4029

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,5029

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9576

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9626

KRW

South Korean won

1 168,6

ZAR

South African rand

7,4234

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,8188

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3048

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 005,36

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5008

PHP

Philippine peso

63,037

RUB

Russian rouble

33,778

THB

Thai baht

46,482

---

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 19.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

13 April 2006

(2006/C 91/02)

1 euro=

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2094 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 143,48 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4624 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6903 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,326 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5705 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 92,25 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8562 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5764 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,645 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 267,73 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9476 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,4904 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,61 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,49 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,635 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6634 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3885 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3822 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9605 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9444 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 162,96 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,4242 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7052 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3075 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 10 869,48 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4397 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,982 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,516 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,127 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2094

JPY

Japanese yen

143,48

DKK

Danish krone

7,4624

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6903

SEK

Swedish krona

9,326

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5705

ISK

Iceland króna

92,25

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8562

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5764

CZK

Czech koruna

28,645

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

267,73

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9476

RON

Romanian leu

3,4904

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,61

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,49

TRY

Turkish lira

1,635

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6634

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3885

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3822

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9605

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9444

KRW

South Korean won

1 162,96

ZAR

South African rand

7,4242

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7052

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3075

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

10 869,48

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4397

PHP

Philippine peso

61,982

RUB

Russian rouble

33,516

THB

Thai baht

46,127

---

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 19.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/3

---

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment

(2006/C 91/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

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

| ESO (1) | Reference and title of the harmonised standard
  (and reference document) | First publication OJ | Reference of superseded standard | Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of superseded standard
  Note 1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CEN | EN 132:1998
  Respiratory protective devices — Definitions of terms and pictograms | 4.6.1999 | EN 132:1990 | Date Expired
  (30.6.1999) |
| CEN | EN 133:2001
  Respiratory protective devices — Classification | 10.8.2002 | EN 133:1990 | Date Expired
  (10.8.2002) |
| CEN | EN 134:1998
  Respiratory protective devices — Nomenclature of components | 13.6.1998 | EN 134:1990 | Date Expired
  (31.7.1998) |
| CEN | EN 135:1998
  Respiratory protective devices — List of equivalent terms | 4.6.1999 | EN 135:1990 | Date Expired
  (30.6.1999) |
| CEN | EN 136:1998
  Respiratory protective devices — Full face masks — Requirements, testing, marking | 13.6.1998 | EN 136:1989
  EN 136-10:1992 | Date Expired
  (31.7.1998) |
| EN 136:1998/AC:1999 | | | |
| CEN | EN 137:1993
  Respiratory protective devices — Self-contained open-circuit compressed air breathing apparatus — Requirements, testing, marking | 23.12.1993 | EN 137:1986 | Date Expired
  (23.12.1993) |
| EN 137:1993/AC:1993 | | | |
| CEN | EN 138:1994
  Respiratory protective devices — Fresh air hose breathing apparatus for use with full face mask, half mask or mouthpiece assembly — Requirements, testing, marking | 16.12.1994 | — | |
| CEN | EN 140:1998
  Respiratory protective devices — Half masks and quarter masks — Requirements, testing, marking | 6.11.1998 | EN 140:1989 | Date Expired
  (31.3.1999) |
| EN 140:1998/AC:1999 | | | |
| CEN | EN 142:2002
  Respiratory protective devices — Mouthpiece assemblies — Requirements, testing, marking | 10.4.2003 | EN 142:1989 | Date Expired
  (10.4.2003) |
| CEN | EN 143:2000
  Respiratory protective devices — Particle filters — Requirements, testing, marking | 24.1.2001 | EN 143:1990 | Date Expired
  (24.1.2001) |
| Warning: As regards particle filters the filtering efficiency of which is exclusively or partially achieved by the use of materials based on nonwoven electrically-charged fibres, this publication does not concern clauses 8.7.2.4, last sentence, 8.7.3.4, last sentence, and 10 of the standard, in respect of which there shall be no presumption of conformity with the basic health and safety requirements of Directive 89/686/EEC. This warning shall also be taken into account in the application of the following harmonised standards: EN 149:2001;EN 405:2001; EN 1827:1999; EN 12083:1998; EN 12941:1998; EN 12941:1998/A1:2003; EN 12942:1998; EN 12942:1998/A1:2002; EN 13274-7:2002. |
| CEN | EN 144-1:2000
  Respiratory protective devices — Gas cylinder valves — Part 1: Thread connections for insert connector | 24.1.2001 | EN 144-1:1991 | Date Expired
  (24.1.2001) |
| EN 144-1:2000/A1:2003 | 21.2.2004 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (31.10.2003) |
| EN 144-1:2000/A2:2005 | 6.10.2005 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (31.12.2005) |
| CEN | EN 144-2:1998
  Respiratory protective devices — Gas cylinder valves — Part 2: Outlet connections | 4.6.1999 | — | |
| CEN | EN 144-3:2003
  Respiratory protective devices — Gas cylinder valves — Part 3: Outlet connections for diving gases Nitrox and oxygen | 21.2.2004 | — | |
| CEN | EN 145:1997
  Respiratory protective devices — Self-contained closed-circuit breathing apparatus compressed oxygen or compressed oxygen-nitrogen type — Requirements, testing, marking | 19.2.1998 | EN 145:1988
  EN 145-2:1992 | Date Expired
  (28.2.1998) |
| EN 145:1997/A1:2000 | 24.1.2001 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (24.1.2001) |
| CEN | EN 148-1:1999
  Respiratory protective devices — Threads for facepieces — Part 1: Standard thread connection | 4.6.1999 | EN 148-1:1987 | Date Expired
  (31.8.1999) |
| CEN | EN 148-2:1999
  Respiratory protective devices — Threads for facepieces — Part 2: Centre thread connection | 4.6.1999 | EN 148-2:1987 | Date Expired
  (31.8.1999) |
| CEN | EN 148-3:1999
  Respiratory protective devices — Threads for facepieces — Part 3: Tread connection M 45 x 3 | 4.6.1999 | EN 148-3:1992 | Date Expired
  (31.8.1999) |
| CEN | EN 149:2001
  Respiratory protective devices — Filtering half masks to protect against particles — Requirements, testing, marking | 21.12.2001 | EN 149:1991 | Date Expired
  (21.12.2001) |
| CEN | EN 165:2005
  Personal eye-protection — Vocabulary | This is the first publication | EN 165:1995 | 31.5.2006 |
| CEN | EN 166:2001
  Personal eye-protection — Specifications | 10.8.2002 | EN 166:1995 | Date Expired
  (10.08.2002) |
| CEN | EN 167:2001
  Personal eye-protection — Optical test methods | 10.8.2002 | EN 167:1995 | Date Expired
  (10.08.2002) |
| CEN | EN 168:2001
  Personal eye-protection — Non-optical test methods | 10.8.2002 | EN 168:1995 | Date Expired
  (10.08.2002) |
| CEN | EN 169:2002
  Personal eye-protection — Filters for welding and related techniques — Transmittance requirements and recommended use | 28.8.2003 | EN 169:1992 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN 170:2002
  Personal eye-protection — Ultraviolet filters — Transmittance requirements and recommended use | 28.8.2003 | EN 170:1992 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN 171:2002
  Personal eye-protection — Infrared filters — Transmittance requirements and recommended use | 10.4.2003 | EN 171:1992 | Date Expired
  (10.4.2003) |
| CEN | EN 172:1994
  Personal eye protection — Sunglare filters for industrial use | 15.5.1996 | — | |
| EN 172:1994/A1:2000 | 4.7.2000 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (31.10.2000) |
| EN 172:1994/A2:2001 | 10.8.2002 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (10.8.2005) |
| CEN | EN 174:2001
  Personal eye-protection — Ski goggles for downhill skiing | 21.12.2001 | EN 174:1996 | Date Expired
  (21.12.2001) |
| CEN | EN 175:1997
  Personal protection — Equipment for eye and face protection during welding and allied processes | 19.2.1998 | — | |
| CEN | EN 207:1998
  Personal eye-protection — Filters and eye-protectors against laser radiation (laser eye-protectors) | 21.11.1998 | EN 207:1993 | Date Expired
  (31.3.1999) |
| EN 207:1998/A1:2002 | 28.8.2003 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN 208:1998
  Personal eye-protection — Eye-protectors for adjustment work on lasers and laser systems (laser adjustment eye-protectors) | 21.11.1998 | EN 208:1993 | Date Expired
  (31.3.1999) |
| EN 208:1998/A1:2002 | 28.8.2003 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN 250:2000
  Respiratory equipment — Open-circuit self-contained compressed air diving apparatus — Requirements, testing, marking | 8.6.2000 | EN 250:1993 | Date Expired
  (19.7.2000) |
| CEN | EN 269:1994
  Respiratory protective devices — Powered fresh air hose breathing apparatus incorporating a hood — Requirements, testing, marking | 16.12.1994 | — | |
| CEN | EN 340:2003
  Protective clothing — General requirements | 6.10.2005 | EN 340:1993 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN 341:1992
  Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Descender devices | 23.12.1993 | — | |
| EN 341:1992/A1:1996 | 6.11.1998 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (6.11.1998) |
| EN 341:1992/AC:1993 | | | |
| CEN | EN 342:2004
  Protective clothing — Ensembles and garments for protection against cold | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 343:2003
  Protective clothing — Protection against rain | 21.2.2004 | — | |
| CEN | EN 348:1992
  Protective clothing — Test method: Determination of behaviour of materials on impact of small splashes of molten metal | 23.12.1993 | — | |
| EN 348:1992/AC:1993 | | | |
| CEN | EN 352-1:2002
  Hearing protectors — General requirements — Part 1: Ear-Muffs | 28.8.2003 | EN 352-1:1993 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN 352-2:2002
  Hearing protectors — General requirements — Part 2: Ear-plugs | 28.8.2003 | EN 352-2:1993 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN 352-3:2002
  Hearing protectors — General requirements — Part 3: Ear-muffs attached to an industrial safety helmet | 28.8.2003 | EN 352-3:1996 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN 352-4:2001
  Hearing protectors — Safety requirements and testing — Part 4: Level-dependent ear-muffs | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| EN 352-4:2001/A1:2005 | This is the first publication | Note 3 | 30.4.2006 |
| CEN | EN 352-5:2002
  Hearing protectors — Safety requirements and testing — Part 5: Active noise reduction ear-muffs | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 352-6:2002
  Hearing protectors — Safety requirements and testing — Part 6: Ear-muffs with electrical audio input | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 352-7:2002
  Hearing protectors — Safety requirements and testing — Part 7: Level-dependent ear-plugs | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 353-1:2002
  Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Part 1: Guided type fall arresters including a rigid anchor line | 28.8.2003 | EN 353-1:1992 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN 353-2:2002
  Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Part 2: Guided type fall arresters including a flexible anchor line | 28.8.2003 | EN 353-2:1992 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN 354:2002
  Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Lanyards | 28.8.2003 | EN 354:1992 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN 355:2002
  Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Energy absorbers | 28.8.2003 | EN 355:1992 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN 358:1999
  Personal protective equipment for work positioning and prevention of falls from a height — Belts for work positioning and restraint and work positioning lanyards | 21.12.2001 | EN 358:1992 | Date Expired
  (21.12.2001) |
| CEN | EN 360:2002
  Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Retractable type fall arresters | 28.8.2003 | EN 360:1992 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN 361:2002
  Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Full body harnesses | 28.8.2003 | EN 361:1992 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN 362:2004
  Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Connectors | 6.10.2005 | EN 362:1992 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN 363:2002
  Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Fall arrest systems | 28.8.2003 | EN 363:1992 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN 364:1992
  Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Test methods | 23.12.1993 | — | |
| EN 364:1992/AC:1993 | | | |
| CEN | EN 365:2004
  Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — General requirements for instructions for use, maintenance, periodic examination, repair, marking and packaging | 6.10.2005 | EN 365:1992 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN 367:1992
  Protective clothing — Protection against heat and fire — Method of determining heat transmission on exposure to flame | 23.12.1993 | — | |
| EN 367:1992/AC:1992 | | | |
| CEN | EN 373:1993
  Protective clothing — Assessment of resistance of materials to molten metal splash | 23.12.1993 | — | |
| CEN | EN 374-1:2003
  Protective gloves against chemicals and micro-organisms — Part 1: Terminology and performance requirements | 6.10.2005 | EN 374-1:1994 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN 374-2:2003
  Protective gloves against chemicals and micro-organisms — Part 2: Determination of resistance to penetration | 6.10.2005 | EN 374-2:1994 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN 374-3:2003
  Protective gloves against chemicals and micro-organisms — Part 3: Determination of resistance to permeation by chemicals | 6.10.2005 | EN 374-3:1994 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN 379:2003
  Personal eye-protection — Automatic welding filters | 6.10.2005 | EN 379:1994 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN 381-1:1993
  Protective clothing for users of hand-held chainsaws — Part 1: Test rig for testing resistance to cutting by a chainsaw | 23.12.1993 | — | |
| CEN | EN 381-2:1995
  Protective clothing for users of hand-held chain saws — Part 2: Test methods for leg protectors | 12.1.1996 | — | |
| CEN | EN 381-3:1996
  Protective clothing for users of hand-held chain-saws — Part 3: Test methods for footwear | 10.10.1996 | — | |
| CEN | EN 381-4:1999
  Protective clothing for users of hand-held chainsaws — Part 4: Test methods for chainsaw protective gloves | 16.3.2000 | — | |
| CEN | EN 381-5:1995
  Protective clothing for users of hand-held chain saws — Part 5: Requirements for leg protectors | 12.1.1996 | — | |
| CEN | EN 381-7:1999
  Protective clothing for users of hand-held chainsaws — Part 7: Requirements for chainsaw protective gloves | 16.3.2000 | — | |
| CEN | EN 381-8:1997
  Protective clothing for users of hand-held chain saws — Part 8: Test methods for chain saw protective gaiters | 18.10.1997 | — | |
| CEN | EN 381-9:1997
  Protective clothing for users of hand-held chain saws — Part 9: Requirements for chain saw protective gaiters | 18.10.1997 | — | |
| CEN | EN 381-10:2002
  Protective clothing for users of hand-held chainsaws — Part 10: Test method for upper body protectors | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 381-11:2002
  Protective clothing for users of hand-held chainsaws — Part 11: Requirements for upper body protectors | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 388:2003
  Protective gloves against mechanical risks | 6.10.2005 | EN 388:1994 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN 393:1993
  Lifejackets and personal buoyancy aids — Buoyancy aids — 50 N | 16.12.1994 | — | |
| EN 393:1993/A1:1998 | 6.11.1998 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (6.11.1998) |
| EN 393:1993/AC:1995 | | | |
| CEN | EN 394:1993
  Lifejackets and personal buoyancy aids — Additional items | 16.12.1994 | — | |
| CEN | EN 395:1993
  Lifejackets and personal buoyancy aids — Lifejackets — 100 N | 16.12.1994 | — | |
| EN 395:1993/A1:1998 | 6.11.1998 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (6.11.1998) |
| EN 395:1993/AC:1995 | | | |
| CEN | EN 396:1993
  Lifejackets and personal buoyancy aids — Lifejackets — 150 N | 16.12.1994 | — | |
| EN 396:1993/A1:1998 | 6.11.1998 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (6.11.1998) |
| EN 396:1993/AC:1995 | | | |
| CEN | EN 397:1995
  Industrial safety helmets | 12.1.1996 | — | |
| EN 397:1995/A1:2000 | 24.1.2001 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (24.1.2001) |
| CEN | EN 399:1993
  Lifejackets and personal buoyancy aids — Lifejackets — 275 N | 16.12.1994 | — | |
| EN 399:1993/A1:1998 | 6.11.1998 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (6.11.1998) |
| EN 399:1993/AC:1995 | | | |
| CEN | EN 402:2003
  Respiratory protective devices — Lung governed demand self-contained open-circuit compressed air breathing apparatus with full face mask or mouthpiece assembly for escape — Requirements, testing, marking | 21.2.2004 | EN 402:1993 | Date Expired
  (21.2.2004) |
| CEN | EN 403:2004
  Respiratory protective devices for self-rescue — Filtering devices with hood for escape from fire — Requirements, testing, marking | 6.10.2005 | EN 403:1993 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN 404:2005
  Respiratory protective devices for self-rescue — Filter self-rescuer from carbon monoxide with mouthpiece assembly | 6.10.2005 | EN 404:1993 | Date expired
  (2.12.2005) |
| CEN | EN 405:2001
  Respiratory protective devices — Valved filtering half masks to protect against gases or gases and particles — Requirements, testing, marking | 10.8.2002 | EN 405:1992 | Date Expired
  (10.8.2002) |
| CEN | EN 407:2004
  Protective gloves against thermal risks (heat and/or fire) | 6.10.2005 | EN 407:1994 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN 420:2003
  Protective gloves — General requirements and test methods
  Note 4 | 2.12.2005 | EN 420:1994 | Date expired
  (2.12.2005) |
| CEN | EN 421:1994
  Protective gloves against ionizing radiation and radioactive contamination | 16.12.1994 | — | |
| CEN | EN 443:1997
  Helmets for firefighters | 19.2.1998 | — | |
| CEN | EN 458:2004
  Hearing protectors — Recommendations for selection, use, care and maintenance — Guidance document | 6.10.2005 | EN 458:1993 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN 463:1994
  Protective clothing — Protection against liquid chemicals — Test method: Determination of resistance to penetration by a jet of liquid (Jet Test) | 16.12.1994 | — | |
| CEN | EN 464:1994
  Protective clothing — Protection against liquid and gaseous chemicals, including aerosols and solid particles — Test method: Determination of leak-tightness of gas-tight suits (Internal pressure test) | 16.12.1994 | — | |
| CEN | EN 468:1994
  Protective clothing — Protection against liquid chemicals — Test method: Determination of resistance to penetration by spray (Spray Test) | 16.12.1994 | — | |
| CEN | EN 469:2005
  Protective clothing for firefighters — Performance requirements for protective clothing for firefighting | This is the first publication | EN 469:1995 | 30.6.2005 |
| CEN | EN 470-1:1995
  Protective clothing for use in welding and allied processes — Part 1: General requirements | 12.1.1996 | — | |
| EN 470-1:1995/A1:1998 | 13.6.1998 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (31.8.1998) |
| CEN | EN 471:2003
  High-visibility warning clothing for professional use — Test methods and requirements | 6.10.2005 | EN 471:1994 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN 510:1993
  Specification for protective clothing for use where there is a risk of entanglement with moving parts | 16.12.1994 | — | |
| CEN | EN 511:1994
  Protective gloves against cold | 16.3.2000 | — | |
| CEN | EN 530:1994
  Abrasion resistance of protective clothing material — Test methods | 30.8.1995 | — | |
| EN 530:1994/AC:1995 | | | |
| CEN | EN 531:1995
  Protective clothing for industrial workers exposed to heat (excluding firefighters' and welders' clothing) | 6.11.1998 | — | |
| EN 531:1995/A1:1998 | 4.6.1999 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (4.6.1999) |
| CEN | EN 533:1997
  Protective clothing — Protection against heat and flame — Limited flame spread materials and material assemblies | 14.6.1997 | — | |
| CEN | EN 564:1997
  Mountaineering equipment — Accessory cord — Safety requirements and test methods | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| CEN | EN 565:1997
  Mountaineering equipment — Tape — Safety requirements and test methods | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| CEN | EN 566:1997
  Mountaineering equipment — Slings — Safety requirements and test methods | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| CEN | EN 567:1997
  Mountaineering equipment — Rope clamps — Safety requirements and test methods | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| CEN | EN 568:1997
  Mountaineering equipment — Ice anchors — Safety requirements and test methods | 14.6.1997 | — | |
| CEN | EN 569:1997
  Mountaineering equipment — Pitons — Safety requirements and test methods | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| CEN | EN 659:2003
  Protective gloves for firefighters | 21.2.2004 | EN 659:1996 | Date Expired
  (21.2.2004) |
| CEN | EN 702:1994
  Protective clothing — Protection against heat and flame — Test method: Determination of the contact heat transmission through protective clothing or its materials | 12.1.1996 | — | |
| CEN | EN 795:1996
  Protection against falls from a height — Anchor devices — Requirements and testing | 12.2.2000 | — | |
| Warning: This publication does not concern the equipment described in classes A (structural anchors), C (anchor devices employing horizontal flexible lines) and D (anchor devices employing horizontal rigid anchor rails) referred to in paragraphs 3.13.1, 3.13.3, 3.13.4, 4.3.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.4, 5.2.5, 5.3.2 (in respect of class A1), 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 6 (in respect of classes A, C and D), Annex A (paragraphs A.2, A.3, A.5 and A.6), Annex B, and Annex ZA (in respect of classes A, C and D), in respect of which there shall be no presumption of conformity with the provisions of Directive 89/686/EEC. |
| | EN 795:1996/A1:2000 | 24.1.2001 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (30.4.2001) |
| CEN | EN 812:1997
  Industrial bump caps | 19.2.1998 | — | |
| EN 812:1997/A1:2001 | 10.8.2002 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (10.8.2002) |
| CEN | EN 813:1997
  Personal protective equipment for prevention of falls from a height — Sit harnesses | 14.6.1997 | — | |
| CEN | EN 863:1995
  Protective clothing — Mechanical properties — Test method: Puncture resistance | 15.5.1996 | — | |
| CEN | EN 892:2004
  Mountaineering equipment — Dynamic mountaineering ropes — Safety requirements and test methods | 6.10.2005 | EN 892:1996 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN 893:1999
  Mountaineering equipment — Crampons — Safety requirements and test methods | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| CEN | EN 943-1:2002
  Protective clothing against liquid and gaseous chemicals, including liquid aerosols and solid particles — Part 1: Performance requirements for ventilated and non-ventilated ‘gas-tight’ (Type 1) and ‘non-gas-tight’ (Type 2) chemical protective suits | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 943-2:2002
  Protective clothing against liquid and gaseous chemicals, including liquid aerosols and solid particles — Part 2: Performance requirements for ‘gas-tight’ (Type 1) chemical protective suits for emergency teams (ET) | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| CEN | EN 958:1996
  Mountaineering equipment — Energy absorbing systems for use in klettersteig (via ferrata) climbing — Safety requirements and test methods | 14.6.1997 | — | |
| CEN | EN 960:1994
  Headforms for use in the testing of protective helmets | 15.5.1996 | — | |
| EN 960:1994/A1:1998 | 6.11.1998 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (6.11.1998) |
| CEN | EN 966:1996
  Helmets for airborne sports | 10.10.1996 | — | |
| EN 966:1996/A1:2000 | 4.7.2000 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (30.9.2000) |
| CEN | EN 1073-1:1998
  Protective clothing against radioactive contamination — Part 1: Requirements and test methods for ventilated protective clothing against particulate radioactive contamination | 6.11.1998 | — | |
| CEN | EN 1073-2:2002
  Protective clothing against radioactive contamination — Part 2: Requirements and test methods for non-ventilated protective clothing against particulate radioactive contamination | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 1077:1996
  Helmets for alpine skiers | 10.10.1996 | — | |
| CEN | EN 1078:1997
  Helmets for pedal cyclists and for users of skateboards and roller skates | 14.6.1997 | — | |
| EN 1078:1997/A1:2005 | This is the first publication | Note 3 | 30.6.2006 |
| CEN | EN 1080:1997
  Impact protection helmets for young children | 14.6.1997 | — | |
| EN 1080:1997/A1:2002 | 28.8.2003 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| EN 1080:1997/A2:2005 | This is the first publication | Note 3 | 30.6.2006 |
| CEN | EN 1082-1:1996
  Protective clothing — Gloves and arm guards protecting against cuts and stabs by hand knives — Part 1: Chain mail gloves and arm guards | 14.6.1997 | — | |
| CEN | EN 1082-2:2000
  Protective clothing — Gloves and arm guards protecting against cuts and stabs by hand knives — Part 2: Gloves and arm guards made of material other than chain mail | 21.12.2001 | — | |
| CEN | EN 1082-3:2000
  Protective clothing — Gloves and arm guards protecting against cuts and stabs by hand knives — Part 3: Impact cut test for fabric, leather and other materials | 21.12.2001 | — | |
| CEN | EN 1095:1998
  Deck safety harness and safety line for use on recreational craft — Safety requirements and test methods | 6.11.1998 | — | |
| CEN | EN 1146:2005
  Respiratory protective devices — Self-contained open-circuit compressed air breathing apparatus incorporating a hood for escape — Requirements, testing, marking | This is the first publication | EN 1146:1997 | 30.04.2006 |
| CEN | EN 1149-1:1995
  Protective clothing — Electrostatic properties — Part 1: Surface resistivity (Test methods and requirements) | 10.10.1996 | — | |
| CEN | EN 1149-2:1997
  Protective clothing — Electrostatic properties — Part 2: Test method for measurement of the electrical resistance through a material (vertical resistance) | 19.2.1998 | — | |
| CEN | EN 1149-3:2004
  Protective clothing — Electrostatic properties — Part 3: Test methods for measurement of charge decay | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 1150:1999
  Protective clothing — Visibility clothing for non-professional use — Test methods and requirements | 4.6.1999 | — | |
| CEN | EN 1384:1996
  Helmets for equestrian activities | 14.6.1997 | — | |
| EN 1384:1996/A1:2001 | 10.8.2002 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (10.8.2002) |
| CEN | EN 1385:1997
  Helmets for canoeing and white water sports | 13.6.1998 | — | |
| EN 1385:1997/A1:2005 | 6.10.2005 | Note 3 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN 1486:1996
  Protective clothing for firefighters — Test methods and requirements for reflective clothing for specialized fire fighting | 3.12.1996 | — | |
| CEN | EN 1621-1:1997
  Motorcyclists' protective clothing against mechanical impact — Part 1: Requirements and test methods for impact protectors | 13.6.1998 | — | |
| CEN | EN 1621-2:2003
  Motorcyclists' protective clothing against mechanical impact — Part 2: Motorcyclists' back protectors — Requirements and test methods | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 1731:1997
  Mesh type eye and face protectors for industrial and non-industrial use against mechanical hazards and/or heat | 14.6.1997 | — | |
| EN 1731:1997/A1:1997 | 13.6.1998 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (30.6.1998) |
| CEN | EN 1809:1997
  Diving accessories — Buoyancy compensators — Functional and safety requirements, test methods | 13.6.1998 | — | |
| CEN | EN 1827:1999
  Respiratory protective devices — Half masks without inhalation valves and with separable filters to protect against gases or gases and particles or particles only — Requirements, testing, marking | 24.2.2001 | — | |
| CEN | EN 1836:2005
  Personal eye-equipment — Sunglasses and sunglare filters for general use and filters for direct observation of the sun | 2.12.2005 | EN 1836:1997 | Date Expired
  (31.3.2006) |
| CEN | EN 1868:1997
  Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — List of equivalent terms | 18.10.1997 | — | |
| CEN | EN 1891:1998
  Personal protective equipment for the prevention of falls from a height — Low stretch kernmantel ropes | 6.11.1998 | — | |
| CEN | EN 1938:1998
  Personal eye protection — Goggles for motorcycle and moped users | 4.6.1999 | — | |
| CEN | EN ISO 4869-2:1995
  Acoustics — Hearing protectors — Part 2: Estimation of effective A-weighted sound pressure levels when hearing protectors are worn (ISO 4869-2:1994) | 15.5.1996 | — | |
| CEN | EN ISO 4869-4:2000
  Acoustics — Hearing protectors — Part 4: Measurement of effective sound pressure levels for level-dependent sound-restoration ear-muffs (ISO/TR 4869-4:1998) | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN ISO 6529:2001
  Protective clothing — Protection against chemicals — Determination of resistance of protective clothing materials to permeation by liquids and gases (ISO 6529:2001) | 6.10.2005 | EN 369:1993 | Date Expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN ISO 6530:2005
  Protective clothing — Protection against liquid chemicals — Test method for resistance of materials to penetration by liquids (ISO 6530:2005) | 6.10.2005 | EN 368:1992 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN ISO 6942:2002
  Protective clothing — Protection against heat and fire — Method of test: Evaluation of materials and material assemblies when exposed to a source of radiant heat (ISO 6942:2002) | 28.8.2003 | EN 366:1993 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN ISO 10256:2003
  Head and face protection for use in ice hockey (ISO 10256:2003) | 6.10.2005 | EN 967:1996 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN ISO 10819:1996
  Mechanical vibration and shock — Hand-arm vibration — Method for the measurement and evaluation of the vibration transmissibility of gloves at the palm of the hand (ISO 10819:1996) | 3.12.1996 | — | |
| CEN | EN 12083:1998
  Respiratory protective devices — Filters with breathing hoses, (Non-mask mounted filters) — Particle filters, gas filters, and combined filters — Requirements, testing, marking | 4.7.2000 | — | |
| EN 12083:1998/AC:2000 | | | |
| CEN | EN 12270:1998
  Mountaineering equipment — Chocks — Safety requirements and test methods | 16.3.2000 | — | |
| CEN | EN 12275:1998
  Mountaineering equipment — Connectors — Safety requirements and test methods | 16.3.2000 | — | |
| CEN | EN 12276:1998
  Mountaineering equipment — Frictional anchors — Safety requirements and test methods | 24.2.2001 | — | |
| EN 12276:1998/AC:2000 | | | |
| CEN | EN 12277:1998
  Mountaineering equipment — Harnesses — Safety requirements and test methods | 6.11.1998 | — | |
| CEN | EN 12278:1998
  Mountaineering equipment — Pulleys — Safety requirements and test methods | 6.11.1998 | — | |
| CEN | EN 12477:2001
  Protective gloves for welders | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| EN 12477:2001/A1:2005 | 6.10.2005 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (31.12.2005) |
| CEN | EN 12492:2000
  Mountaineering equipment — Helmets for mountaineers — Safety requirements and for test methods | 21.12.2001 | — | |
| EN 12492:2000/A1:2002 | 28.8.2003 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN 12568:1998
  Foot and leg protectors — Requirements and test methods for toecaps and metal penetration resistant inserts | 6.11.1998 | — | |
| CEN | EN 12628:1999
  Diving accessories — Combined buoyancy and rescue devices — Functional and safety requirements, test methods | 4.7.2000 | — | |
| EN 12628:1999/AC:2000 | | | |
| CEN | EN 12941:1998
  Respiratory protective devices — Powered filtering devices incorporating a helmet or a hood — Requirements, testing, marking | 4.6.1999 | EN 146:1991 | Date Expired
  (4.6.1999) |
| EN 12941:1998/A1:2003 | 6.10.2005 | Note 3 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN 12942:1998
  Respiratory protective devices — Power assisted filtering devices incorporating full face masks, half masks or quarter masks — Requirements, testing, marking | 4.6.1999 | EN 147:1991 | Date Expired
  (4.6.1999) |
| EN 12942:1998/A1:2002 | 28.8.2003 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN 13034:2005
  Protective clothing against liquid chemicals — Performance requirements for chemical protective clothing offering limited protective performance against liquid chemicals (Type 6 and Type PB [6] equipment) | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13061:2001
  Protective clothing — Shin guards for association football players — Requirements and test methods | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13087-1:2000
  Protective helmets — Test methods — Part 1: Conditions and conditioning | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| EN 13087-1:2000/A1:2001 | 10.8.2002 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (10.8.2002) |
| CEN | EN 13087-2:2000
  Protective helmets — Test methods — Part 2: Shock absorption | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| EN 13087-2:2000/A1:2001 | 10.8.2002 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (10.8.2002) |
| CEN | EN 13087-3:2000
  Protective helmets — Test methods — Part 3: Resistance to penetration | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| EN 13087-3:2000/A1:2001 | 10.8.2002 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (10.8.2002) |
| CEN | EN 13087-4:2000
  Protective helmets — Test methods — Part 4: Retention system effectiveness | 21.12.2001 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13087-5:2000
  Protective helmets — Test methods — Part 5: Retention system strength | 24.2.2001 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13087-6:2000
  Protective helmets — Test methods — Part 6: Field of vision | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| EN 13087-6:2000/A1:2001 | 10.8.2002 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (10.8.2002) |
| CEN | EN 13087-7:2000
  Protective helmets — Test methods — Part 7: Flame resistance | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| EN 13087-7:2000/A1:2001 | 10.8.2002 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (10.8.2002) |
| CEN | EN 13087-8:2000
  Protective helmets — Test methods — Part 8: Electrical properties | 21.12.2001 | — | |
| EN 13087-8:2000/A1:2005 | 6.10.2005 | Note 3 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN 13087-10:2000
  Protective helmets — Test methods — Part 10: Resistance to radiant heat | 21.12.2001 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13138-1:2003
  Buoyant aids for swimming instruction — Part 1: Safety requirements and test methods for buoyant aids to be worn | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13158:2000
  Protective clothing — Protective jackets, body and shoulder protectors for horse riders — Requirements and test methods | 24.2.2001 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13178:2000
  Personal eye-protection — Eye protectors for snowmobile users | 21.12.2001 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13274-1:2001
  Respiratory protective devices — Methods of test — Part 1: Determination of inward leakage and total inward leakage | 21.12.2001 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13274-2:2001
  Respiratory protective devices — Methods of test — Part 2: Practical performance tests | 21.12.2001 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13274-3:2001
  Respiratory protective devices — Methods of test — Part 3: Determination of breathing resistance | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13274-4:2001
  Respiratory protective devices — Methods of test — Part 4: Flame tests | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13274-5:2001
  Respiratory protective devices — Methods of test — Part 5: Climatic conditions | 21.12.2001 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13274-6:2001
  Respiratory protective devices — Methods of test — Part 6: Determination of carbon dioxide content of the inhalation air | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13274-7:2002
  Respiratory protective devices — Methods of test — Part 7: Determination of particle filter penetration | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13274-8:2002
  Respiratory protective devices — Methods of test — Part 8: Determination of dolomite dust clogging | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13277-1:2000
  Protective equipment for martial arts — Part 1: General requirements and test methods | 24.2.2001 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13277-2:2000
  Protective equipment for martial arts — Part 2: Additional requirements and test methods for instep protectors, shin protectors and forearm protectors | 24.2.2001 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13277-3:2000
  Protective equipment for martial arts — Part 3: Additional requirements and test methods for trunk protectors | 24.2.2001 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13277-4:2001
  Protective equipment for martial arts — Part 4: Additional requirements and test methods for head protectors | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13277-5:2002
  Protective equipment for martial arts — Part 5: Additional requirements and test methods for genital protectors and abdominal protectors | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13277-6:2003
  Protective equipment for martial arts — Part 6: Additional requirements and test methods for breast protectors for females | 21.2.2004 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13287:2004
  Personal protective equipment — Footwear — Test method for slip resistance | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13356:2001
  Visibility accessories for non-professional use — Test methods and requirements | 21.12.2001 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13484:2001
  Helmets for users of luges | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13546:2002
  Protective clothing — Hand, arm, chest, abdomen, leg, foot and genital protectors for field hockey goal keepers, and shin protectors for field players — Requirements and test methods | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13567:2002
  Protective clothing — Hand, arm, chest, abdomen, leg, genital and face protectors for fencers — Requirements and test methods | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13594:2002
  Protective gloves for professional motorcycle riders — Requirements and test methods | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13595-1:2002
  Protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders — Jackets, trousers and one piece or divided suits — Part 1: General requirements | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13595-2:2002
  Protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders — Jackets, trousers and one-piece or divided suits — Part 2: Test method for determination of impact abrasion resistance | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13595-3:2002
  Protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders — Jackets, trousers and one-piece or divided suits — Part 3: Test method for determination of burst strength | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13595-4:2002
  Protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders — Jackets, trousers and one-piece or divided suits — Part 4: Test method for determination of impact cut resistance | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13634:2002
  Protective footwear for professional motorcycle riders — Requirements and test methods | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13781:2001
  Protective helmets for drivers and passengers of snowmobiles and bobsleighs | 10.8.2002 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13794:2002
  Respiratory protective devices — Self-contained closed-circuit breathing apparatus for escape — Requirements, testing, marking | 28.8.2003 | EN 1061:1996
  EN 400:1993
  EN 401:1993 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN 13819-1:2002
  Hearing protectors — Testing — Part 1: Physical test methods | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13819-2:2002
  Hearing protectors — Testing — Part 2: Acoustic test methods | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13911:2004
  Protective clothing for firefighters — Requirements and test methods for fire hoods for firefighters | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 13949:2003
  Respiratory equipment — Open-circuit self-contained diving apparatus for use with compressed Nitrox and oxygen — Requirements, testing, marking | 21.2.2004 | — | |
| CEN | EN ISO 13982-1:2004
  Protective clothing for use against solid particulates — Part 1: Performance requirements for chemical protective clothing providing protection to the full body against airborne solid particulates (type 5 clothing) (ISO 13982-1:2004) | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN ISO 13982-2:2004
  Protective clothing for use against solid particulates — Part 2: Test method of determination of inward leakage of aerosols of fine particles into suits (ISO 13982-2:2004) | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN ISO 13995:2000
  Protective clothing — Mechanical properties — Test method for the determination of the resistance to puncture and dynamic tearing of materials (ISO 13995:2000) | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN ISO 13997:1999
  Protective clothing — Mechanical properties — Determination of resistance to cutting by sharp objects (ISO 13997:1999) | 4.7.2000 | — | |
| EN ISO 13997:1999/AC:2000 | | | |
| CEN | EN ISO 13998:2003
  Protective clothing — Aprons, trousers and vests protecting against cuts and stabs by hand knives (ISO 13998:2003) | 28.8.2003 | EN 412:1993 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN 14021:2003
  Stone shields for off-road motorcycling suited to protect riders against stones and debris — Requirements and test methods | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 14052:2005
  High performance industrial helmets | This is the first publication | — | |
| CEN | EN 14058:2004
  Protective clothing — Garments for protection against cool environments | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 14120:2003
  Protective clothing — Wrist, palm, knee and elbow protectors for users of roller sports equipment — Requirements and test methods | 21.2.2004 | — | |
| CEN | EN 14126:2003
  Protective clothing — Performance requirements and tests methods for protective clothing against infective agents | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 14143:2003
  Respiratory equipment — Self-contained re-breathing diving apparatus | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 14225-1:2005
  Diving suits — Part 1: Wet suits — Requirements and test methods | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 14225-2:2005
  Diving suits — Part 2: Dry suits — Requirements and test methods | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 14225-3:2005
  Diving suits — Part 3: Actively heated or cooled suits (systems) — Requirements and test methods | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 14225-4:2005
  Diving suits — Part 4: One atmosphere suits (ADS) — Human factors requirements and test methods | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 14325:2004
  Protective clothing against chemicals — Test methods and performance classification of chemical protective clothing materials, seams, joins and assemblages | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 14328:2005
  Protective clothing — Gloves and armguards protecting against cuts by powered knives — Requirements and test methods | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 14360:2004
  Protective clothing against rain — Test method for ready made garments — Impact from above with high energy droplets | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 14387:2004
  Respiratory protective devices — Gas filter(s) and combined filter(s) — Requirements, testing, marking | 6.10.2005 | EN 141:2000
  EN 371:1992
  EN 372:1992 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN 14404:2004
  Personal protective equipment — Knee protectors for work in the kneeling position | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 14435:2004
  Respiratory protective devices — Self-contained open-circuit compressed air breathing apparatus with half mask designed to be used with positive pressure only — Requirements, testing, marking | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 14458:2004
  Personal eye-equipment — Faceshields and visors for use with firefighters' and high performance industrial safety helmets used by firefighters, ambulance and emergency services | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN ISO 14460:1999
  Protective clothing for automobile racing drivers — Protection against heat and flame — Performance requirements and test methods (ISO 14460:1999) | 16.3.2000 | — | |
| EN ISO 14460:1999/A1:2002 | 10.8.2002 | Note 3 | Date Expired
  (30.9.2002) |
| EN ISO 14460:1999/AC:1999 | | | |
| CEN | EN 14529:2005
  Respiratory protective devices — Self-contained open-circuit compressed air breathing apparatus with half mask designed to include a positive pressure lung governed demand valve for escape purposes only | This is the first publication | — | |
| CEN | EN 14572:2005
  High Performance Helmets for Equestrian Activities | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN 14593-1:2005
  Respiratory protective devices — Compressed air line breathing apparatus with demand valve — Part 1: Apparatus with a full face mask — Requirements, testing, marking | 6.10.2005 | EN 139:1994 | Date Expired
  (2.12.2005) |
| CEN | EN 14593-2:2005
  Respiratory protective devices — Compressed air line breathing apparatus with demand valve — Part 2: Apparatus with a half mask at positive pressure — Requirements, testing, marking | 6.10.2005 | EN 139:1994 | Date Expired
  (2.12.2005) |
| EN 14593-2:2005 /AC:2005 | | | |
| CEN | EN 14594:2005
  Respiratory protective devices — Continuous flow compressed air line breathing apparatus — Requirements, testing, marking | 6.10.2005 | EN 271:1995
  EN 12419:1999
  EN 139:1994
  EN 1835:1999
  EN 270:1994 | Date Expired
  (2.12.2005) |
| EN 14594:2005 /AC:2005 | | | |
| CEN | EN 14605:2005
  Protective clothing against liquid chemicals — Performance requirements for clothing with liquid-tight (Type 3) or spray-tight (Type 4) connections, including items providing protection to parts of the body only (Types PB [3] and PB [4]) | 6.10.2005 | EN 467:1995
  EN 466:1995
  EN 465:1995 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN ISO 14877:2002
  Protective clothing for abrasive blasting operations using granular abrasives (ISO 14877:2002) | 28.8.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN ISO 15025:2002
  Protective clothing — Protection against heat and flame — Method of test for limited flame spread (ISO 15025:2000) | 28.8.2003 | EN 532:1994 | Date Expired
  (28.8.2003) |
| CEN | EN ISO 15027-1:2002
  Immersion suits — Part 1: Constant wear suits, requirements including safety (ISO 15027-1:2002) | 10.4.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN ISO 15027-2:2002
  Immersion suits — Part 2: Abandonment suits, requirements including safety (ISO 15027-2:2002) | 10.4.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN ISO 15027-3:2002
  Immersion suits — Part 3: Test methods (ISO 15027-3:2002) | 10.4.2003 | — | |
| CEN | EN ISO 15831:2004
  Clothing — Physiological effects — Measurement of thermal insulation by means of a thermal manikin (ISO 15831:2004) | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN ISO 17249:2004
  Safety footwear with resistance to chain saw cutting — (ISO 17249:2004) | 6.10.2005 | — | |
| CEN | EN ISO 20344:2004
  Personal protective equipment — Test methods for footwear (ISO 20344:2004) | 6.10.2005 | EN 344:1992
  EN 344-2:1996 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN ISO 20345:2004
  Personal protective equipment — Safety footwear — (ISO 20345:2004) | 6.10.2005 | EN 345:1992
  EN 345-2:1996 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN ISO 20346:2004
  Personal protective equipment — Protective footwear (ISO 20346:2004) | 6.10.2005 | EN 346-2:1996
  EN 346:1992 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN ISO 20347:2004
  Personal protective equipment — Occupational footwear — (ISO 20347:2004) | 6.10.2005 | EN 347:1992
  EN 347-2:1996 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| CEN | EN 24869-1:1992
  Acoustics — Hearing protectors — Subjective method for the measurement of sound attenuation (ISO 4869-1:1990) | 16.12.1994 | — | |
| CEN | EN 24869-3:1993
  Acoustics — Hearing protectors — Part 3: Simplified method for the measurement of insertion loss of ear-muff type protectors for quality inspection purposes (ISO/TR 4869-3:1989) | 16.12.1994 | — | |
| CENELEC | EN 50237:1997
  Gloves and mitts with mechanical protection for electrical purposes | 4.6.1999 | — | |
| CENELEC | EN 50286:1999
  Electrical insulating protective clothing for low-voltage installations | 16.3.2000 | — | |
| CENELEC | EN 50321:1999
  Electrically insulating footwear for working on low voltage installations | 16.3.2000 | — | |
| CENELEC | EN 50365:2002
  Electrically insulating helmets for use on low voltage installations | 10.4.2003 | — | |
| CENELEC | EN 60743:2001
  Live working — Terminology for tools, equipment and devices (IEC 60743:2001) | 10.4.2003 | EN 60743:1996
  Note 2.1 | Date expired
  (1.12.2004) |
| CENELEC | EN 60895:2003
  Live working — Conductive clothing for use at nominal voltage up to 800 kV a.c. and ± 600 kV d.c. (IEC 60895:2002 (Modified)) | 6.10.2005 | EN 60895:1996
  Note 2.1 | 1.7.2006 |
| CENELEC | EN 60903:2003
  Live working — Gloves of insulating material (IEC 60903:2002 (Modified)) | 6.10.2005 | EN 60903:1992
  and its amendment + EN 50237:1997
  Note 2.1 | 1.7.2006 |
| CENELEC | EN 60984:1992
  Sleeves of insulating material for live working (IEC 60984:1990 (Modified)) | 4.6.1999 | — | |
| EN 60984:1992/A1:2002 (IEC 60984:1990/A1:2002) | 10.4.2003 | Note 3 | Date expired
  (6.10.2005) |
| EN 60984:1992/A11:1997 | 4.6.1999 | Note 3 | Date expired
  (4.6.1999) |

ESO (1)

Reference and title of the harmonised standard

(and reference document)

First publication OJ

Reference of superseded standard

Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of superseded standard

Note 1

CEN

EN 132:1998

Respiratory protective devices — Definitions of terms and pictograms

4.6.1999

EN 132:1990

Date Expired

(30.6.1999)

CEN

EN 133:2001

Respiratory protective devices — Classification

10.8.2002

EN 133:1990

Date Expired

(10.8.2002)

CEN

EN 134:1998

Respiratory protective devices — Nomenclature of components

13.6.1998

EN 134:1990

Date Expired

(31.7.1998)

CEN

EN 135:1998

Respiratory protective devices — List of equivalent terms

4.6.1999

EN 135:1990

Date Expired

(30.6.1999)

CEN

EN 136:1998

Respiratory protective devices — Full face masks — Requirements, testing, marking

13.6.1998

EN 136:1989

EN 136-10:1992

Date Expired

(31.7.1998)

EN 136:1998/AC:1999

CEN

EN 137:1993

Respiratory protective devices — Self-contained open-circuit compressed air breathing apparatus — Requirements, testing, marking

23.12.1993

EN 137:1986

Date Expired

(23.12.1993)

EN 137:1993/AC:1993

CEN

EN 138:1994

Respiratory protective devices — Fresh air hose breathing apparatus for use with full face mask, half mask or mouthpiece assembly — Requirements, testing, marking

16.12.1994

—

CEN

EN 140:1998

Respiratory protective devices — Half masks and quarter masks — Requirements, testing, marking

6.11.1998

EN 140:1989

Date Expired

(31.3.1999)

EN 140:1998/AC:1999

CEN

EN 142:2002

Respiratory protective devices — Mouthpiece assemblies — Requirements, testing, marking

10.4.2003

EN 142:1989

Date Expired

(10.4.2003)

CEN

EN 143:2000

Respiratory protective devices — Particle filters — Requirements, testing, marking

24.1.2001

EN 143:1990

Date Expired

(24.1.2001)

Warning: As regards particle filters the filtering efficiency of which is exclusively or partially achieved by the use of materials based on nonwoven electrically-charged fibres, this publication does not concern clauses 8.7.2.4, last sentence, 8.7.3.4, last sentence, and 10 of the standard, in respect of which there shall be no presumption of conformity with the basic health and safety requirements of Directive 89/686/EEC. This warning shall also be taken into account in the application of the following harmonised standards: EN 149:2001;EN 405:2001; EN 1827:1999; EN 12083:1998; EN 12941:1998; EN 12941:1998/A1:2003; EN 12942:1998; EN 12942:1998/A1:2002; EN 13274-7:2002.

CEN

EN 144-1:2000

Respiratory protective devices — Gas cylinder valves — Part 1: Thread connections for insert connector

24.1.2001

EN 144-1:1991

Date Expired

(24.1.2001)

EN 144-1:2000/A1:2003

21.2.2004

Note 3

Date Expired

(31.10.2003)

EN 144-1:2000/A2:2005

6.10.2005

Note 3

Date Expired

(31.12.2005)

CEN

EN 144-2:1998

Respiratory protective devices — Gas cylinder valves — Part 2: Outlet connections

4.6.1999

—

CEN

EN 144-3:2003

Respiratory protective devices — Gas cylinder valves — Part 3: Outlet connections for diving gases Nitrox and oxygen

21.2.2004

—

CEN

EN 145:1997

Respiratory protective devices — Self-contained closed-circuit breathing apparatus compressed oxygen or compressed oxygen-nitrogen type — Requirements, testing, marking

19.2.1998

EN 145:1988

EN 145-2:1992

Date Expired

(28.2.1998)

EN 145:1997/A1:2000

24.1.2001

Note 3

Date Expired

(24.1.2001)

CEN

EN 148-1:1999

Respiratory protective devices — Threads for facepieces — Part 1: Standard thread connection

4.6.1999

EN 148-1:1987

Date Expired

(31.8.1999)

CEN

EN 148-2:1999

Respiratory protective devices — Threads for facepieces — Part 2: Centre thread connection

4.6.1999

EN 148-2:1987

Date Expired

(31.8.1999)

CEN

EN 148-3:1999

Respiratory protective devices — Threads for facepieces — Part 3: Tread connection M 45 x 3

4.6.1999

EN 148-3:1992

Date Expired

(31.8.1999)

CEN

EN 149:2001

Respiratory protective devices — Filtering half masks to protect against particles — Requirements, testing, marking

21.12.2001

EN 149:1991

Date Expired

(21.12.2001)

CEN

EN 165:2005

Personal eye-protection — Vocabulary

This is the first publication

EN 165:1995

31.5.2006

CEN

EN 166:2001

Personal eye-protection — Specifications

10.8.2002

EN 166:1995

Date Expired

(10.08.2002)

CEN

EN 167:2001

Personal eye-protection — Optical test methods

10.8.2002

EN 167:1995

Date Expired

(10.08.2002)

CEN

EN 168:2001

Personal eye-protection — Non-optical test methods

10.8.2002

EN 168:1995

Date Expired

(10.08.2002)

CEN

EN 169:2002

Personal eye-protection — Filters for welding and related techniques — Transmittance requirements and recommended use

28.8.2003

EN 169:1992

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN 170:2002

Personal eye-protection — Ultraviolet filters — Transmittance requirements and recommended use

28.8.2003

EN 170:1992

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN 171:2002

Personal eye-protection — Infrared filters — Transmittance requirements and recommended use

10.4.2003

EN 171:1992

Date Expired

(10.4.2003)

CEN

EN 172:1994

Personal eye protection — Sunglare filters for industrial use

15.5.1996

—

EN 172:1994/A1:2000

4.7.2000

Note 3

Date Expired

(31.10.2000)

EN 172:1994/A2:2001

10.8.2002

Note 3

Date Expired

(10.8.2005)

CEN

EN 174:2001

Personal eye-protection — Ski goggles for downhill skiing

21.12.2001

EN 174:1996

Date Expired

(21.12.2001)

CEN

EN 175:1997

Personal protection — Equipment for eye and face protection during welding and allied processes

19.2.1998

—

CEN

EN 207:1998

Personal eye-protection — Filters and eye-protectors against laser radiation (laser eye-protectors)

21.11.1998

EN 207:1993

Date Expired

(31.3.1999)

EN 207:1998/A1:2002

28.8.2003

Note 3

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN 208:1998

Personal eye-protection — Eye-protectors for adjustment work on lasers and laser systems (laser adjustment eye-protectors)

21.11.1998

EN 208:1993

Date Expired

(31.3.1999)

EN 208:1998/A1:2002

28.8.2003

Note 3

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN 250:2000

Respiratory equipment — Open-circuit self-contained compressed air diving apparatus — Requirements, testing, marking

8.6.2000

EN 250:1993

Date Expired

(19.7.2000)

CEN

EN 269:1994

Respiratory protective devices — Powered fresh air hose breathing apparatus incorporating a hood — Requirements, testing, marking

16.12.1994

—

CEN

EN 340:2003

Protective clothing — General requirements

6.10.2005

EN 340:1993

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN 341:1992

Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Descender devices

23.12.1993

—

EN 341:1992/A1:1996

6.11.1998

Note 3

Date Expired

(6.11.1998)

EN 341:1992/AC:1993

CEN

EN 342:2004

Protective clothing — Ensembles and garments for protection against cold

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 343:2003

Protective clothing — Protection against rain

21.2.2004

—

CEN

EN 348:1992

Protective clothing — Test method: Determination of behaviour of materials on impact of small splashes of molten metal

23.12.1993

—

EN 348:1992/AC:1993

CEN

EN 352-1:2002

Hearing protectors — General requirements — Part 1: Ear-Muffs

28.8.2003

EN 352-1:1993

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN 352-2:2002

Hearing protectors — General requirements — Part 2: Ear-plugs

28.8.2003

EN 352-2:1993

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN 352-3:2002

Hearing protectors — General requirements — Part 3: Ear-muffs attached to an industrial safety helmet

28.8.2003

EN 352-3:1996

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN 352-4:2001

Hearing protectors — Safety requirements and testing — Part 4: Level-dependent ear-muffs

10.8.2002

—

EN 352-4:2001/A1:2005

This is the first publication

Note 3

30.4.2006

CEN

EN 352-5:2002

Hearing protectors — Safety requirements and testing — Part 5: Active noise reduction ear-muffs

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 352-6:2002

Hearing protectors — Safety requirements and testing — Part 6: Ear-muffs with electrical audio input

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 352-7:2002

Hearing protectors — Safety requirements and testing — Part 7: Level-dependent ear-plugs

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 353-1:2002

Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Part 1: Guided type fall arresters including a rigid anchor line

28.8.2003

EN 353-1:1992

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN 353-2:2002

Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Part 2: Guided type fall arresters including a flexible anchor line

28.8.2003

EN 353-2:1992

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN 354:2002

Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Lanyards

28.8.2003

EN 354:1992

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN 355:2002

Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Energy absorbers

28.8.2003

EN 355:1992

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN 358:1999

Personal protective equipment for work positioning and prevention of falls from a height — Belts for work positioning and restraint and work positioning lanyards

21.12.2001

EN 358:1992

Date Expired

(21.12.2001)

CEN

EN 360:2002

Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Retractable type fall arresters

28.8.2003

EN 360:1992

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN 361:2002

Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Full body harnesses

28.8.2003

EN 361:1992

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN 362:2004

Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Connectors

6.10.2005

EN 362:1992

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN 363:2002

Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Fall arrest systems

28.8.2003

EN 363:1992

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN 364:1992

Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — Test methods

23.12.1993

—

EN 364:1992/AC:1993

CEN

EN 365:2004

Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — General requirements for instructions for use, maintenance, periodic examination, repair, marking and packaging

6.10.2005

EN 365:1992

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN 367:1992

Protective clothing — Protection against heat and fire — Method of determining heat transmission on exposure to flame

23.12.1993

—

EN 367:1992/AC:1992

CEN

EN 373:1993

Protective clothing — Assessment of resistance of materials to molten metal splash

23.12.1993

—

CEN

EN 374-1:2003

Protective gloves against chemicals and micro-organisms — Part 1: Terminology and performance requirements

6.10.2005

EN 374-1:1994

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN 374-2:2003

Protective gloves against chemicals and micro-organisms — Part 2: Determination of resistance to penetration

6.10.2005

EN 374-2:1994

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN 374-3:2003

Protective gloves against chemicals and micro-organisms — Part 3: Determination of resistance to permeation by chemicals

6.10.2005

EN 374-3:1994

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN 379:2003

Personal eye-protection — Automatic welding filters

6.10.2005

EN 379:1994

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN 381-1:1993

Protective clothing for users of hand-held chainsaws — Part 1: Test rig for testing resistance to cutting by a chainsaw

23.12.1993

—

CEN

EN 381-2:1995

Protective clothing for users of hand-held chain saws — Part 2: Test methods for leg protectors

12.1.1996

—

CEN

EN 381-3:1996

Protective clothing for users of hand-held chain-saws — Part 3: Test methods for footwear

10.10.1996

—

CEN

EN 381-4:1999

Protective clothing for users of hand-held chainsaws — Part 4: Test methods for chainsaw protective gloves

16.3.2000

—

CEN

EN 381-5:1995

Protective clothing for users of hand-held chain saws — Part 5: Requirements for leg protectors

12.1.1996

—

CEN

EN 381-7:1999

Protective clothing for users of hand-held chainsaws — Part 7: Requirements for chainsaw protective gloves

16.3.2000

—

CEN

EN 381-8:1997

Protective clothing for users of hand-held chain saws — Part 8: Test methods for chain saw protective gaiters

18.10.1997

—

CEN

EN 381-9:1997

Protective clothing for users of hand-held chain saws — Part 9: Requirements for chain saw protective gaiters

18.10.1997

—

CEN

EN 381-10:2002

Protective clothing for users of hand-held chainsaws — Part 10: Test method for upper body protectors

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 381-11:2002

Protective clothing for users of hand-held chainsaws — Part 11: Requirements for upper body protectors

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 388:2003

Protective gloves against mechanical risks

6.10.2005

EN 388:1994

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN 393:1993

Lifejackets and personal buoyancy aids — Buoyancy aids — 50 N

16.12.1994

—

EN 393:1993/A1:1998

6.11.1998

Note 3

Date Expired

(6.11.1998)

EN 393:1993/AC:1995

CEN

EN 394:1993

Lifejackets and personal buoyancy aids — Additional items

16.12.1994

—

CEN

EN 395:1993

Lifejackets and personal buoyancy aids — Lifejackets — 100 N

16.12.1994

—

EN 395:1993/A1:1998

6.11.1998

Note 3

Date Expired

(6.11.1998)

EN 395:1993/AC:1995

CEN

EN 396:1993

Lifejackets and personal buoyancy aids — Lifejackets — 150 N

16.12.1994

—

EN 396:1993/A1:1998

6.11.1998

Note 3

Date Expired

(6.11.1998)

EN 396:1993/AC:1995

CEN

EN 397:1995

Industrial safety helmets

12.1.1996

—

EN 397:1995/A1:2000

24.1.2001

Note 3

Date Expired

(24.1.2001)

CEN

EN 399:1993

Lifejackets and personal buoyancy aids — Lifejackets — 275 N

16.12.1994

—

EN 399:1993/A1:1998

6.11.1998

Note 3

Date Expired

(6.11.1998)

EN 399:1993/AC:1995

CEN

EN 402:2003

Respiratory protective devices — Lung governed demand self-contained open-circuit compressed air breathing apparatus with full face mask or mouthpiece assembly for escape — Requirements, testing, marking

21.2.2004

EN 402:1993

Date Expired

(21.2.2004)

CEN

EN 403:2004

Respiratory protective devices for self-rescue — Filtering devices with hood for escape from fire — Requirements, testing, marking

6.10.2005

EN 403:1993

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN 404:2005

Respiratory protective devices for self-rescue — Filter self-rescuer from carbon monoxide with mouthpiece assembly

6.10.2005

EN 404:1993

Date expired

(2.12.2005)

CEN

EN 405:2001

Respiratory protective devices — Valved filtering half masks to protect against gases or gases and particles — Requirements, testing, marking

10.8.2002

EN 405:1992

Date Expired

(10.8.2002)

CEN

EN 407:2004

Protective gloves against thermal risks (heat and/or fire)

6.10.2005

EN 407:1994

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN 420:2003

Protective gloves — General requirements and test methods

Note 4

2.12.2005

EN 420:1994

Date expired

(2.12.2005)

CEN

EN 421:1994

Protective gloves against ionizing radiation and radioactive contamination

16.12.1994

—

CEN

EN 443:1997

Helmets for firefighters

19.2.1998

—

CEN

EN 458:2004

Hearing protectors — Recommendations for selection, use, care and maintenance — Guidance document

6.10.2005

EN 458:1993

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN 463:1994

Protective clothing — Protection against liquid chemicals — Test method: Determination of resistance to penetration by a jet of liquid (Jet Test)

16.12.1994

—

CEN

EN 464:1994

Protective clothing — Protection against liquid and gaseous chemicals, including aerosols and solid particles — Test method: Determination of leak-tightness of gas-tight suits (Internal pressure test)

16.12.1994

—

CEN

EN 468:1994

Protective clothing — Protection against liquid chemicals — Test method: Determination of resistance to penetration by spray (Spray Test)

16.12.1994

—

CEN

EN 469:2005

Protective clothing for firefighters — Performance requirements for protective clothing for firefighting

This is the first publication

EN 469:1995

30.6.2005

CEN

EN 470-1:1995

Protective clothing for use in welding and allied processes — Part 1: General requirements

12.1.1996

—

EN 470-1:1995/A1:1998

13.6.1998

Note 3

Date Expired

(31.8.1998)

CEN

EN 471:2003

High-visibility warning clothing for professional use — Test methods and requirements

6.10.2005

EN 471:1994

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN 510:1993

Specification for protective clothing for use where there is a risk of entanglement with moving parts

16.12.1994

—

CEN

EN 511:1994

Protective gloves against cold

16.3.2000

—

CEN

EN 530:1994

Abrasion resistance of protective clothing material — Test methods

30.8.1995

—

EN 530:1994/AC:1995

CEN

EN 531:1995

Protective clothing for industrial workers exposed to heat (excluding firefighters' and welders' clothing)

6.11.1998

—

EN 531:1995/A1:1998

4.6.1999

Note 3

Date Expired

(4.6.1999)

CEN

EN 533:1997

Protective clothing — Protection against heat and flame — Limited flame spread materials and material assemblies

14.6.1997

—

CEN

EN 564:1997

Mountaineering equipment — Accessory cord — Safety requirements and test methods

10.8.2002

—

CEN

EN 565:1997

Mountaineering equipment — Tape — Safety requirements and test methods

10.8.2002

—

CEN

EN 566:1997

Mountaineering equipment — Slings — Safety requirements and test methods

10.8.2002

—

CEN

EN 567:1997

Mountaineering equipment — Rope clamps — Safety requirements and test methods

10.8.2002

—

CEN

EN 568:1997

Mountaineering equipment — Ice anchors — Safety requirements and test methods

14.6.1997

—

CEN

EN 569:1997

Mountaineering equipment — Pitons — Safety requirements and test methods

10.8.2002

—

CEN

EN 659:2003

Protective gloves for firefighters

21.2.2004

EN 659:1996

Date Expired

(21.2.2004)

CEN

EN 702:1994

Protective clothing — Protection against heat and flame — Test method: Determination of the contact heat transmission through protective clothing or its materials

12.1.1996

—

CEN

EN 795:1996

Protection against falls from a height — Anchor devices — Requirements and testing

12.2.2000

—

Warning: This publication does not concern the equipment described in classes A (structural anchors), C (anchor devices employing horizontal flexible lines) and D (anchor devices employing horizontal rigid anchor rails) referred to in paragraphs 3.13.1, 3.13.3, 3.13.4, 4.3.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.4, 5.2.5, 5.3.2 (in respect of class A1), 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 6 (in respect of classes A, C and D), Annex A (paragraphs A.2, A.3, A.5 and A.6), Annex B, and Annex ZA (in respect of classes A, C and D), in respect of which there shall be no presumption of conformity with the provisions of Directive 89/686/EEC.

EN 795:1996/A1:2000

24.1.2001

Note 3

Date Expired

(30.4.2001)

CEN

EN 812:1997

Industrial bump caps

19.2.1998

—

EN 812:1997/A1:2001

10.8.2002

Note 3

Date Expired

(10.8.2002)

CEN

EN 813:1997

Personal protective equipment for prevention of falls from a height — Sit harnesses

14.6.1997

—

CEN

EN 863:1995

Protective clothing — Mechanical properties — Test method: Puncture resistance

15.5.1996

—

CEN

EN 892:2004

Mountaineering equipment — Dynamic mountaineering ropes — Safety requirements and test methods

6.10.2005

EN 892:1996

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN 893:1999

Mountaineering equipment — Crampons — Safety requirements and test methods

10.8.2002

—

CEN

EN 943-1:2002

Protective clothing against liquid and gaseous chemicals, including liquid aerosols and solid particles — Part 1: Performance requirements for ventilated and non-ventilated ‘gas-tight’ (Type 1) and ‘non-gas-tight’ (Type 2) chemical protective suits

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 943-2:2002

Protective clothing against liquid and gaseous chemicals, including liquid aerosols and solid particles — Part 2: Performance requirements for ‘gas-tight’ (Type 1) chemical protective suits for emergency teams (ET)

10.8.2002

—

CEN

EN 958:1996

Mountaineering equipment — Energy absorbing systems for use in klettersteig (via ferrata) climbing — Safety requirements and test methods

14.6.1997

—

CEN

EN 960:1994

Headforms for use in the testing of protective helmets

15.5.1996

—

EN 960:1994/A1:1998

6.11.1998

Note 3

Date Expired

(6.11.1998)

CEN

EN 966:1996

Helmets for airborne sports

10.10.1996

—

EN 966:1996/A1:2000

4.7.2000

Note 3

Date Expired

(30.9.2000)

CEN

EN 1073-1:1998

Protective clothing against radioactive contamination — Part 1: Requirements and test methods for ventilated protective clothing against particulate radioactive contamination

6.11.1998

—

CEN

EN 1073-2:2002

Protective clothing against radioactive contamination — Part 2: Requirements and test methods for non-ventilated protective clothing against particulate radioactive contamination

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 1077:1996

Helmets for alpine skiers

10.10.1996

—

CEN

EN 1078:1997

Helmets for pedal cyclists and for users of skateboards and roller skates

14.6.1997

—

EN 1078:1997/A1:2005

This is the first publication

Note 3

30.6.2006

CEN

EN 1080:1997

Impact protection helmets for young children

14.6.1997

—

EN 1080:1997/A1:2002

28.8.2003

Note 3

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

EN 1080:1997/A2:2005

This is the first publication

Note 3

30.6.2006

CEN

EN 1082-1:1996

Protective clothing — Gloves and arm guards protecting against cuts and stabs by hand knives — Part 1: Chain mail gloves and arm guards

14.6.1997

—

CEN

EN 1082-2:2000

Protective clothing — Gloves and arm guards protecting against cuts and stabs by hand knives — Part 2: Gloves and arm guards made of material other than chain mail

21.12.2001

—

CEN

EN 1082-3:2000

Protective clothing — Gloves and arm guards protecting against cuts and stabs by hand knives — Part 3: Impact cut test for fabric, leather and other materials

21.12.2001

—

CEN

EN 1095:1998

Deck safety harness and safety line for use on recreational craft — Safety requirements and test methods

6.11.1998

—

CEN

EN 1146:2005

Respiratory protective devices — Self-contained open-circuit compressed air breathing apparatus incorporating a hood for escape — Requirements, testing, marking

This is the first publication

EN 1146:1997

30.04.2006

CEN

EN 1149-1:1995

Protective clothing — Electrostatic properties — Part 1: Surface resistivity (Test methods and requirements)

10.10.1996

—

CEN

EN 1149-2:1997

Protective clothing — Electrostatic properties — Part 2: Test method for measurement of the electrical resistance through a material (vertical resistance)

19.2.1998

—

CEN

EN 1149-3:2004

Protective clothing — Electrostatic properties — Part 3: Test methods for measurement of charge decay

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 1150:1999

Protective clothing — Visibility clothing for non-professional use — Test methods and requirements

4.6.1999

—

CEN

EN 1384:1996

Helmets for equestrian activities

14.6.1997

—

EN 1384:1996/A1:2001

10.8.2002

Note 3

Date Expired

(10.8.2002)

CEN

EN 1385:1997

Helmets for canoeing and white water sports

13.6.1998

—

EN 1385:1997/A1:2005

6.10.2005

Note 3

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN 1486:1996

Protective clothing for firefighters — Test methods and requirements for reflective clothing for specialized fire fighting

3.12.1996

—

CEN

EN 1621-1:1997

Motorcyclists' protective clothing against mechanical impact — Part 1: Requirements and test methods for impact protectors

13.6.1998

—

CEN

EN 1621-2:2003

Motorcyclists' protective clothing against mechanical impact — Part 2: Motorcyclists' back protectors — Requirements and test methods

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 1731:1997

Mesh type eye and face protectors for industrial and non-industrial use against mechanical hazards and/or heat

14.6.1997

—

EN 1731:1997/A1:1997

13.6.1998

Note 3

Date Expired

(30.6.1998)

CEN

EN 1809:1997

Diving accessories — Buoyancy compensators — Functional and safety requirements, test methods

13.6.1998

—

CEN

EN 1827:1999

Respiratory protective devices — Half masks without inhalation valves and with separable filters to protect against gases or gases and particles or particles only — Requirements, testing, marking

24.2.2001

—

CEN

EN 1836:2005

Personal eye-equipment — Sunglasses and sunglare filters for general use and filters for direct observation of the sun

2.12.2005

EN 1836:1997

Date Expired

(31.3.2006)

CEN

EN 1868:1997

Personal protective equipment against falls from a height — List of equivalent terms

18.10.1997

—

CEN

EN 1891:1998

Personal protective equipment for the prevention of falls from a height — Low stretch kernmantel ropes

6.11.1998

—

CEN

EN 1938:1998

Personal eye protection — Goggles for motorcycle and moped users

4.6.1999

—

CEN

EN ISO 4869-2:1995

Acoustics — Hearing protectors — Part 2: Estimation of effective A-weighted sound pressure levels when hearing protectors are worn (ISO 4869-2:1994)

15.5.1996

—

CEN

EN ISO 4869-4:2000

Acoustics — Hearing protectors — Part 4: Measurement of effective sound pressure levels for level-dependent sound-restoration ear-muffs (ISO/TR 4869-4:1998)

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN ISO 6529:2001

Protective clothing — Protection against chemicals — Determination of resistance of protective clothing materials to permeation by liquids and gases (ISO 6529:2001)

6.10.2005

EN 369:1993

Date Expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN ISO 6530:2005

Protective clothing — Protection against liquid chemicals — Test method for resistance of materials to penetration by liquids (ISO 6530:2005)

6.10.2005

EN 368:1992

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN ISO 6942:2002

Protective clothing — Protection against heat and fire — Method of test: Evaluation of materials and material assemblies when exposed to a source of radiant heat (ISO 6942:2002)

28.8.2003

EN 366:1993

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN ISO 10256:2003

Head and face protection for use in ice hockey (ISO 10256:2003)

6.10.2005

EN 967:1996

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN ISO 10819:1996

Mechanical vibration and shock — Hand-arm vibration — Method for the measurement and evaluation of the vibration transmissibility of gloves at the palm of the hand (ISO 10819:1996)

3.12.1996

—

CEN

EN 12083:1998

Respiratory protective devices — Filters with breathing hoses, (Non-mask mounted filters) — Particle filters, gas filters, and combined filters — Requirements, testing, marking

4.7.2000

—

EN 12083:1998/AC:2000

CEN

EN 12270:1998

Mountaineering equipment — Chocks — Safety requirements and test methods

16.3.2000

—

CEN

EN 12275:1998

Mountaineering equipment — Connectors — Safety requirements and test methods

16.3.2000

—

CEN

EN 12276:1998

Mountaineering equipment — Frictional anchors — Safety requirements and test methods

24.2.2001

—

EN 12276:1998/AC:2000

CEN

EN 12277:1998

Mountaineering equipment — Harnesses — Safety requirements and test methods

6.11.1998

—

CEN

EN 12278:1998

Mountaineering equipment — Pulleys — Safety requirements and test methods

6.11.1998

—

CEN

EN 12477:2001

Protective gloves for welders

10.8.2002

—

EN 12477:2001/A1:2005

6.10.2005

Note 3

Date Expired

(31.12.2005)

CEN

EN 12492:2000

Mountaineering equipment — Helmets for mountaineers — Safety requirements and for test methods

21.12.2001

—

EN 12492:2000/A1:2002

28.8.2003

Note 3

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN 12568:1998

Foot and leg protectors — Requirements and test methods for toecaps and metal penetration resistant inserts

6.11.1998

—

CEN

EN 12628:1999

Diving accessories — Combined buoyancy and rescue devices — Functional and safety requirements, test methods

4.7.2000

—

EN 12628:1999/AC:2000

CEN

EN 12941:1998

Respiratory protective devices — Powered filtering devices incorporating a helmet or a hood — Requirements, testing, marking

4.6.1999

EN 146:1991

Date Expired

(4.6.1999)

EN 12941:1998/A1:2003

6.10.2005

Note 3

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN 12942:1998

Respiratory protective devices — Power assisted filtering devices incorporating full face masks, half masks or quarter masks — Requirements, testing, marking

4.6.1999

EN 147:1991

Date Expired

(4.6.1999)

EN 12942:1998/A1:2002

28.8.2003

Note 3

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN 13034:2005

Protective clothing against liquid chemicals — Performance requirements for chemical protective clothing offering limited protective performance against liquid chemicals (Type 6 and Type PB [6] equipment)

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 13061:2001

Protective clothing — Shin guards for association football players — Requirements and test methods

10.8.2002

—

CEN

EN 13087-1:2000

Protective helmets — Test methods — Part 1: Conditions and conditioning

10.8.2002

—

EN 13087-1:2000/A1:2001

10.8.2002

Note 3

Date Expired

(10.8.2002)

CEN

EN 13087-2:2000

Protective helmets — Test methods — Part 2: Shock absorption

10.8.2002

—

EN 13087-2:2000/A1:2001

10.8.2002

Note 3

Date Expired

(10.8.2002)

CEN

EN 13087-3:2000

Protective helmets — Test methods — Part 3: Resistance to penetration

10.8.2002

—

EN 13087-3:2000/A1:2001

10.8.2002

Note 3

Date Expired

(10.8.2002)

CEN

EN 13087-4:2000

Protective helmets — Test methods — Part 4: Retention system effectiveness

21.12.2001

—

CEN

EN 13087-5:2000

Protective helmets — Test methods — Part 5: Retention system strength

24.2.2001

—

CEN

EN 13087-6:2000

Protective helmets — Test methods — Part 6: Field of vision

10.8.2002

—

EN 13087-6:2000/A1:2001

10.8.2002

Note 3

Date Expired

(10.8.2002)

CEN

EN 13087-7:2000

Protective helmets — Test methods — Part 7: Flame resistance

10.8.2002

—

EN 13087-7:2000/A1:2001

10.8.2002

Note 3

Date Expired

(10.8.2002)

CEN

EN 13087-8:2000

Protective helmets — Test methods — Part 8: Electrical properties

21.12.2001

—

EN 13087-8:2000/A1:2005

6.10.2005

Note 3

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN 13087-10:2000

Protective helmets — Test methods — Part 10: Resistance to radiant heat

21.12.2001

—

CEN

EN 13138-1:2003

Buoyant aids for swimming instruction — Part 1: Safety requirements and test methods for buoyant aids to be worn

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 13158:2000

Protective clothing — Protective jackets, body and shoulder protectors for horse riders — Requirements and test methods

24.2.2001

—

CEN

EN 13178:2000

Personal eye-protection — Eye protectors for snowmobile users

21.12.2001

—

CEN

EN 13274-1:2001

Respiratory protective devices — Methods of test — Part 1: Determination of inward leakage and total inward leakage

21.12.2001

—

CEN

EN 13274-2:2001

Respiratory protective devices — Methods of test — Part 2: Practical performance tests

21.12.2001

—

CEN

EN 13274-3:2001

Respiratory protective devices — Methods of test — Part 3: Determination of breathing resistance

10.8.2002

—

CEN

EN 13274-4:2001

Respiratory protective devices — Methods of test — Part 4: Flame tests

10.8.2002

—

CEN

EN 13274-5:2001

Respiratory protective devices — Methods of test — Part 5: Climatic conditions

21.12.2001

—

CEN

EN 13274-6:2001

Respiratory protective devices — Methods of test — Part 6: Determination of carbon dioxide content of the inhalation air

10.8.2002

—

CEN

EN 13274-7:2002

Respiratory protective devices — Methods of test — Part 7: Determination of particle filter penetration

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 13274-8:2002

Respiratory protective devices — Methods of test — Part 8: Determination of dolomite dust clogging

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 13277-1:2000

Protective equipment for martial arts — Part 1: General requirements and test methods

24.2.2001

—

CEN

EN 13277-2:2000

Protective equipment for martial arts — Part 2: Additional requirements and test methods for instep protectors, shin protectors and forearm protectors

24.2.2001

—

CEN

EN 13277-3:2000

Protective equipment for martial arts — Part 3: Additional requirements and test methods for trunk protectors

24.2.2001

—

CEN

EN 13277-4:2001

Protective equipment for martial arts — Part 4: Additional requirements and test methods for head protectors

10.8.2002

—

CEN

EN 13277-5:2002

Protective equipment for martial arts — Part 5: Additional requirements and test methods for genital protectors and abdominal protectors

10.8.2002

—

CEN

EN 13277-6:2003

Protective equipment for martial arts — Part 6: Additional requirements and test methods for breast protectors for females

21.2.2004

—

CEN

EN 13287:2004

Personal protective equipment — Footwear — Test method for slip resistance

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 13356:2001

Visibility accessories for non-professional use — Test methods and requirements

21.12.2001

—

CEN

EN 13484:2001

Helmets for users of luges

10.8.2002

—

CEN

EN 13546:2002

Protective clothing — Hand, arm, chest, abdomen, leg, foot and genital protectors for field hockey goal keepers, and shin protectors for field players — Requirements and test methods

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 13567:2002

Protective clothing — Hand, arm, chest, abdomen, leg, genital and face protectors for fencers — Requirements and test methods

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 13594:2002

Protective gloves for professional motorcycle riders — Requirements and test methods

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 13595-1:2002

Protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders — Jackets, trousers and one piece or divided suits — Part 1: General requirements

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 13595-2:2002

Protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders — Jackets, trousers and one-piece or divided suits — Part 2: Test method for determination of impact abrasion resistance

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 13595-3:2002

Protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders — Jackets, trousers and one-piece or divided suits — Part 3: Test method for determination of burst strength

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 13595-4:2002

Protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders — Jackets, trousers and one-piece or divided suits — Part 4: Test method for determination of impact cut resistance

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 13634:2002

Protective footwear for professional motorcycle riders — Requirements and test methods

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 13781:2001

Protective helmets for drivers and passengers of snowmobiles and bobsleighs

10.8.2002

—

CEN

EN 13794:2002

Respiratory protective devices — Self-contained closed-circuit breathing apparatus for escape — Requirements, testing, marking

28.8.2003

EN 1061:1996

EN 400:1993

EN 401:1993

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN 13819-1:2002

Hearing protectors — Testing — Part 1: Physical test methods

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 13819-2:2002

Hearing protectors — Testing — Part 2: Acoustic test methods

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN 13911:2004

Protective clothing for firefighters — Requirements and test methods for fire hoods for firefighters

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 13949:2003

Respiratory equipment — Open-circuit self-contained diving apparatus for use with compressed Nitrox and oxygen — Requirements, testing, marking

21.2.2004

—

CEN

EN ISO 13982-1:2004

Protective clothing for use against solid particulates — Part 1: Performance requirements for chemical protective clothing providing protection to the full body against airborne solid particulates (type 5 clothing) (ISO 13982-1:2004)

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN ISO 13982-2:2004

Protective clothing for use against solid particulates — Part 2: Test method of determination of inward leakage of aerosols of fine particles into suits (ISO 13982-2:2004)

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN ISO 13995:2000

Protective clothing — Mechanical properties — Test method for the determination of the resistance to puncture and dynamic tearing of materials (ISO 13995:2000)

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN ISO 13997:1999

Protective clothing — Mechanical properties — Determination of resistance to cutting by sharp objects (ISO 13997:1999)

4.7.2000

—

EN ISO 13997:1999/AC:2000

CEN

EN ISO 13998:2003

Protective clothing — Aprons, trousers and vests protecting against cuts and stabs by hand knives (ISO 13998:2003)

28.8.2003

EN 412:1993

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN 14021:2003

Stone shields for off-road motorcycling suited to protect riders against stones and debris — Requirements and test methods

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 14052:2005

High performance industrial helmets

This is the first publication

—

CEN

EN 14058:2004

Protective clothing — Garments for protection against cool environments

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 14120:2003

Protective clothing — Wrist, palm, knee and elbow protectors for users of roller sports equipment — Requirements and test methods

21.2.2004

—

CEN

EN 14126:2003

Protective clothing — Performance requirements and tests methods for protective clothing against infective agents

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 14143:2003

Respiratory equipment — Self-contained re-breathing diving apparatus

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 14225-1:2005

Diving suits — Part 1: Wet suits — Requirements and test methods

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 14225-2:2005

Diving suits — Part 2: Dry suits — Requirements and test methods

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 14225-3:2005

Diving suits — Part 3: Actively heated or cooled suits (systems) — Requirements and test methods

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 14225-4:2005

Diving suits — Part 4: One atmosphere suits (ADS) — Human factors requirements and test methods

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 14325:2004

Protective clothing against chemicals — Test methods and performance classification of chemical protective clothing materials, seams, joins and assemblages

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 14328:2005

Protective clothing — Gloves and armguards protecting against cuts by powered knives — Requirements and test methods

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 14360:2004

Protective clothing against rain — Test method for ready made garments — Impact from above with high energy droplets

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 14387:2004

Respiratory protective devices — Gas filter(s) and combined filter(s) — Requirements, testing, marking

6.10.2005

EN 141:2000

EN 371:1992

EN 372:1992

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN 14404:2004

Personal protective equipment — Knee protectors for work in the kneeling position

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 14435:2004

Respiratory protective devices — Self-contained open-circuit compressed air breathing apparatus with half mask designed to be used with positive pressure only — Requirements, testing, marking

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 14458:2004

Personal eye-equipment — Faceshields and visors for use with firefighters' and high performance industrial safety helmets used by firefighters, ambulance and emergency services

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN ISO 14460:1999

Protective clothing for automobile racing drivers — Protection against heat and flame — Performance requirements and test methods (ISO 14460:1999)

16.3.2000

—

EN ISO 14460:1999/A1:2002

10.8.2002

Note 3

Date Expired

(30.9.2002)

EN ISO 14460:1999/AC:1999

CEN

EN 14529:2005

Respiratory protective devices — Self-contained open-circuit compressed air breathing apparatus with half mask designed to include a positive pressure lung governed demand valve for escape purposes only

This is the first publication

—

CEN

EN 14572:2005

High Performance Helmets for Equestrian Activities

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN 14593-1:2005

Respiratory protective devices — Compressed air line breathing apparatus with demand valve — Part 1: Apparatus with a full face mask — Requirements, testing, marking

6.10.2005

EN 139:1994

Date Expired

(2.12.2005)

CEN

EN 14593-2:2005

Respiratory protective devices — Compressed air line breathing apparatus with demand valve — Part 2: Apparatus with a half mask at positive pressure — Requirements, testing, marking

6.10.2005

EN 139:1994

Date Expired

(2.12.2005)

EN 14593-2:2005 /AC:2005

CEN

EN 14594:2005

Respiratory protective devices — Continuous flow compressed air line breathing apparatus — Requirements, testing, marking

6.10.2005

EN 271:1995

EN 12419:1999

EN 139:1994

EN 1835:1999

EN 270:1994

Date Expired

(2.12.2005)

EN 14594:2005 /AC:2005

CEN

EN 14605:2005

Protective clothing against liquid chemicals — Performance requirements for clothing with liquid-tight (Type 3) or spray-tight (Type 4) connections, including items providing protection to parts of the body only (Types PB [3] and PB [4])

6.10.2005

EN 467:1995

EN 466:1995

EN 465:1995

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN ISO 14877:2002

Protective clothing for abrasive blasting operations using granular abrasives (ISO 14877:2002)

28.8.2003

—

CEN

EN ISO 15025:2002

Protective clothing — Protection against heat and flame — Method of test for limited flame spread (ISO 15025:2000)

28.8.2003

EN 532:1994

Date Expired

(28.8.2003)

CEN

EN ISO 15027-1:2002

Immersion suits — Part 1: Constant wear suits, requirements including safety (ISO 15027-1:2002)

10.4.2003

—

CEN

EN ISO 15027-2:2002

Immersion suits — Part 2: Abandonment suits, requirements including safety (ISO 15027-2:2002)

10.4.2003

—

CEN

EN ISO 15027-3:2002

Immersion suits — Part 3: Test methods (ISO 15027-3:2002)

10.4.2003

—

CEN

EN ISO 15831:2004

Clothing — Physiological effects — Measurement of thermal insulation by means of a thermal manikin (ISO 15831:2004)

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN ISO 17249:2004

Safety footwear with resistance to chain saw cutting — (ISO 17249:2004)

6.10.2005

—

CEN

EN ISO 20344:2004

Personal protective equipment — Test methods for footwear (ISO 20344:2004)

6.10.2005

EN 344:1992

EN 344-2:1996

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN ISO 20345:2004

Personal protective equipment — Safety footwear — (ISO 20345:2004)

6.10.2005

EN 345:1992

EN 345-2:1996

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN ISO 20346:2004

Personal protective equipment — Protective footwear (ISO 20346:2004)

6.10.2005

EN 346-2:1996

EN 346:1992

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN ISO 20347:2004

Personal protective equipment — Occupational footwear — (ISO 20347:2004)

6.10.2005

EN 347:1992

EN 347-2:1996

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

CEN

EN 24869-1:1992

Acoustics — Hearing protectors — Subjective method for the measurement of sound attenuation (ISO 4869-1:1990)

16.12.1994

—

CEN

EN 24869-3:1993

Acoustics — Hearing protectors — Part 3: Simplified method for the measurement of insertion loss of ear-muff type protectors for quality inspection purposes (ISO/TR 4869-3:1989)

16.12.1994

—

CENELEC

EN 50237:1997

Gloves and mitts with mechanical protection for electrical purposes

4.6.1999

—

CENELEC

EN 50286:1999

Electrical insulating protective clothing for low-voltage installations

16.3.2000

—

CENELEC

EN 50321:1999

Electrically insulating footwear for working on low voltage installations

16.3.2000

—

CENELEC

EN 50365:2002

Electrically insulating helmets for use on low voltage installations

10.4.2003

—

CENELEC

EN 60743:2001

Live working — Terminology for tools, equipment and devices (IEC 60743:2001)

10.4.2003

EN 60743:1996

Note 2.1

Date expired

(1.12.2004)

CENELEC

EN 60895:2003

Live working — Conductive clothing for use at nominal voltage up to 800 kV a.c. and ± 600 kV d.c. (IEC 60895:2002 (Modified))

6.10.2005

EN 60895:1996

Note 2.1

1.7.2006

CENELEC

EN 60903:2003

Live working — Gloves of insulating material (IEC 60903:2002 (Modified))

6.10.2005

EN 60903:1992

and its amendment + EN 50237:1997

Note 2.1

1.7.2006

CENELEC

EN 60984:1992

Sleeves of insulating material for live working (IEC 60984:1990 (Modified))

4.6.1999

—

EN 60984:1992/A1:2002 (IEC 60984:1990/A1:2002)

10.4.2003

Note 3

Date expired

(6.10.2005)

EN 60984:1992/A11:1997

4.6.1999

Note 3

Date expired

(4.6.1999)

| 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 2.1 | The new (or amended) standard has the same scope as the superseded standard. On the date stated, the superseded standard ceases to give presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the directive. |
| --- | --- |

Note 2.1

The new (or amended) standard has the same scope as the superseded standard. 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 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 4 | The presumption of conformity given by EN 420:2003 with regard to the BHSR 1.2.1.1 and concerning the content of Cr(VI) of the glove materials is subjected to the detection limit of the test method for Cr(VI) to be 3 mg/kg or lower. |
| --- | --- |

Note 4

The presumption of conformity given by EN 420:2003 with regard to the BHSR 1.2.1.1 and concerning the content of Cr(VI) of the glove materials is subjected to the detection limit of the test method for Cr(VI) to be 3 mg/kg or lower.

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 Directive 98/34/EC (2) of the European Parliament and Council amended by 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 Directive 98/34/EC (2) of the European Parliament and Council amended by 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.

---

| 19.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/25

---

STATE AID — PORTUGAL

Aid C 4/2006 (ex N 180/2005) — Aid to Djebel, S.A.

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

(2006/C 91/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By means of the letter dated 22 February 2006 reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the Commission notified Portugal of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the abovementioned aid.

Interested parties may submit their comments on the aid in respect of which the Commission is initiating the procedure within one month of the date of publication of this summary and the following letter, to:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| State aid Registry |
| B-1049 Brussels |
| Fax No: (32-2) 296 12 42 |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

State aid Registry

B-1049 Brussels

Fax No: (32-2) 296 12 42

These comments will be communicated to Portugal. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the request.

TEXT OF SUMMARY

The notified measure consists in the award of aid to Djebel — S.G.P.S., S.A. (‘Djebel’), a large company located in Madeira — Portugal. This company is part of the Pestana Group, which is the main hotel group in Portugal.

The aim of the aid is to support part of the costs incurred by Djebel to acquire shares in the capital of RASH — Administração de Hotéis de Turismo, Lda, a Brazilian company whose only asset is hotel Rio Atlântico located in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.

The capital of RASH was acquired in October 1999 and the hotel was already fully operational at the time of the acquisition.

The aid instrument to be used for the purpose of the present project is a soft loan. The eligible costs of the investment are EUR 14 720 474 and the aid amount is EUR 573 464, corresponding to a net aid intensity of 3,90 %.

The Commission considers that the notified measure constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and has assessed the compatibility of the aid with the common market on the basis of the part of the exemption provided for in Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty and concerning aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities, without adversely affecting trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

For the time being, it has not been demonstrated that the expectation of the aid was necessary to trigger the investment and that it had an incentive effect. The Commission also has doubts on the extent to which the aid will contribute to the development of the tourism activity in Portugal, without adversely affecting trading conditions in the EU.

TEXT OF LETTER

‘A Comissão informa o Governo português de que, após ter examinado as informações prestadas pelas Vossas autoridades sobre o auxílio citado em epígrafe, decidiu dar início ao procedimento previsto no n.o 2 do artigo 88.o do Tratado CE.

1.   PROCEDIMENTO

| 1. | Por carta de 5 de Abril de 2005 da Representação Permanente de Portugal, registada na Comissão em 7 de Abril de 2005, as autoridades portuguesas, nos termos do n.o 3 do artigo 88.o do Tratado, notificaram à Comissão o auxílio acima referido. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Por carta de 5 de Abril de 2005 da Representação Permanente de Portugal, registada na Comissão em 7 de Abril de 2005, as autoridades portuguesas, nos termos do n.o 3 do artigo 88.o do Tratado, notificaram à Comissão o auxílio acima referido.

| 2. | Por cartas com a referência D/54365, de 7 de Junho de 2005, e D/57443, de 26 de Setembro de 2005, dirigidas à Representação Permanente de Portugal, os serviços da Comissão solicitaram as autoridades portuguesas informações adicionais sobre este auxílio. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Por cartas com a referência D/54365, de 7 de Junho de 2005, e D/57443, de 26 de Setembro de 2005, dirigidas à Representação Permanente de Portugal, os serviços da Comissão solicitaram as autoridades portuguesas informações adicionais sobre este auxílio.

| 3. | Por cartas de 25 de Julho, 26 de Setembro e 23 de Dezembro de 2005 da Representação Permanente de Portugal, registadas na Comissão respectivamente em 27 de Julho e 28 de Setembro de 2005 e 3 de Janeiro de 2006, as autoridades portuguesas forneceram informações adicionais. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Por cartas de 25 de Julho, 26 de Setembro e 23 de Dezembro de 2005 da Representação Permanente de Portugal, registadas na Comissão respectivamente em 27 de Julho e 28 de Setembro de 2005 e 3 de Janeiro de 2006, as autoridades portuguesas forneceram informações adicionais.

2.   DESCRIÇÃO DO AUXÍLIO

Investimento e objectivo

| 4. | A medida notificada consiste na concessão de auxílio à Djebel — S.G.P.S., S.A. (a seguir denominada “Djebel”), uma empresa situada na Madeira — Portugal. |
| --- | --- |

4.

A medida notificada consiste na concessão de auxílio à Djebel — S.G.P.S., S.A. (a seguir denominada “Djebel”), uma empresa situada na Madeira — Portugal.

| 5. | A medida diz respeito a uma candidatura individual no âmbito do regime de auxílios N667/1999 — medida 1.2 do programa operacional para a economia. Este regime foi aprovado pela Comissão em 8 de Agosto de 2000 (1) e a decisão previa que os projectos de investimento directo no estrangeiro por parte de grandes empresas tivessem que ser notificados individualmente à Comissão. Este regime, em vigor de 2000 a 2006, destina-se a favorecer estratégias empresariais modernas e competitivas. A candidatura individual notificada é abrangida por uma das categorias específicas de investimento do regime, a saber, investimentos relacionados com a internacionalização de agentes económicos. |
| --- | --- |

5.

A medida diz respeito a uma candidatura individual no âmbito do regime de auxílios N667/1999 — medida 1.2 do programa operacional para a economia. Este regime foi aprovado pela Comissão em 8 de Agosto de 2000 (1) e a decisão previa que os projectos de investimento directo no estrangeiro por parte de grandes empresas tivessem que ser notificados individualmente à Comissão. Este regime, em vigor de 2000 a 2006, destina-se a favorecer estratégias empresariais modernas e competitivas. A candidatura individual notificada é abrangida por uma das categorias específicas de investimento do regime, a saber, investimentos relacionados com a internacionalização de agentes económicos.

| 6. | O auxílio tem por objectivo suportar parte dos custos incorridos pela Djebel para adquirir acções no capital da RASH — Administração de Hotéis de Turismo, Lda, uma empresa brasileira cujo único activo é o hotel Rio Atlântico, situado no Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. |
| --- | --- |

6.

O auxílio tem por objectivo suportar parte dos custos incorridos pela Djebel para adquirir acções no capital da RASH — Administração de Hotéis de Turismo, Lda, uma empresa brasileira cujo único activo é o hotel Rio Atlântico, situado no Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.

| 7. | O capital da RASH foi adquirido em Outubro de 1999 e o hotel encontrava-se já plenamente operacional no momento da aquisição. |
| --- | --- |

7.

O capital da RASH foi adquirido em Outubro de 1999 e o hotel encontrava-se já plenamente operacional no momento da aquisição.

As empresas envolvidas

| 8. | A Djebel não satisfaz os critérios de independência estabelecidos no artigo 3.o do anexo da Recomendação da Comissão de 3 de Abril de 1996 relativa à definição de pequenas e médias empresas (2), nem da Recomendação de 6 de Maio de 2003 relativa à definição de micro, pequenas e médias empresas (3). Esta empresa faz parte do grupo Pestana, que é o principal grupo hoteleiro em Portugal e que não é abrangido pela definição de PME. Por conseguinte, a Djebel é uma grande empresa. |
| --- | --- |

8.

A Djebel não satisfaz os critérios de independência estabelecidos no artigo 3.o do anexo da Recomendação da Comissão de 3 de Abril de 1996 relativa à definição de pequenas e médias empresas (2), nem da Recomendação de 6 de Maio de 2003 relativa à definição de micro, pequenas e médias empresas (3). Esta empresa faz parte do grupo Pestana, que é o principal grupo hoteleiro em Portugal e que não é abrangido pela definição de PME. Por conseguinte, a Djebel é uma grande empresa.

| 9. | A Djebel gere uma sociedade holding no Brasil, cujo objectivo consiste em investir e em gerir hotéis e actividades turísticas. |
| --- | --- |

9.

A Djebel gere uma sociedade holding no Brasil, cujo objectivo consiste em investir e em gerir hotéis e actividades turísticas.

| 10. | O grupo Pestana tinha já adquirido um hotel em Moçambique antes de realizar o investimento abrangido pela presente notificação e adquiriu 4 hotéis adicionais no Brasil posteriormente ao mesmo. |
| --- | --- |

10.

O grupo Pestana tinha já adquirido um hotel em Moçambique antes de realizar o investimento abrangido pela presente notificação e adquiriu 4 hotéis adicionais no Brasil posteriormente ao mesmo.

O auxílio

| 11. | O instrumento de auxílio a utilizar para efeitos do presente projecto é um empréstimo em condições favoráveis. Os custos elegíveis do investimento elevam-se a 14 720 474 euros e o montante do auxílio a 573 464 euros (4), o que corresponde a uma intensidade de auxílio líquida de 3,90 %. |
| --- | --- |

11.

O instrumento de auxílio a utilizar para efeitos do presente projecto é um empréstimo em condições favoráveis. Os custos elegíveis do investimento elevam-se a 14 720 474 euros e o montante do auxílio a 573 464 euros (4), o que corresponde a uma intensidade de auxílio líquida de 3,90 %.

| 12. | O Estado concederia à Djebel um montante adicional para cobrir os custos relativos a estudos e assistência técnica, garantias financeiras e assistência jurídica, no âmbito do Regulamento de minimis
   (5). |
| --- | --- |

12.

O Estado concederia à Djebel um montante adicional para cobrir os custos relativos a estudos e assistência técnica, garantias financeiras e assistência jurídica, no âmbito do Regulamento de minimis
   (5).

Pedidos de auxílio estatal

| 13. | Em 24 de Maio de 1999, a Djebel apresentou uma proposta à F. Turismo — Capital de Risco, S.A. (a seguir denominada “FCR”), um fundo de capital de risco propriedade de empresas públicas e privadas, para a sua participação no projecto previsto. De acordo com as autoridades portuguesas, as intervenções deste fundo não contêm elementos de auxílio estatal na acepção do artigo 87.o do Tratado CE. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Em 24 de Maio de 1999, a Djebel apresentou uma proposta à F. Turismo — Capital de Risco, S.A. (a seguir denominada “FCR”), um fundo de capital de risco propriedade de empresas públicas e privadas, para a sua participação no projecto previsto. De acordo com as autoridades portuguesas, as intervenções deste fundo não contêm elementos de auxílio estatal na acepção do artigo 87.o do Tratado CE.

| 14. | O pedido formal de auxílio no âmbito do regime N667/1999 foi apresentado em 31 de Janeiro de 2001. |
| --- | --- |

14.

O pedido formal de auxílio no âmbito do regime N667/1999 foi apresentado em 31 de Janeiro de 2001.

3.   APRECIAÇÃO DO AUXÍLIO

| 15. | A apreciação que se segue destina-se a resumir as questões relevantes de direito e de facto, a fim de incluir uma apreciação preliminar quanto ao carácter de auxílio da medida projectada e suprimir as dúvidas quanto à sua compatibilidade com o mercado comum. |
| --- | --- |

15.

A apreciação que se segue destina-se a resumir as questões relevantes de direito e de facto, a fim de incluir uma apreciação preliminar quanto ao carácter de auxílio da medida projectada e suprimir as dúvidas quanto à sua compatibilidade com o mercado comum.

A obrigação de notificação

| 16. | As autoridades portuguesas notificaram o auxílio projectado antes da sua concessão ao beneficiário. Referiram igualmente que o auxílio não seria concedido antes da sua aprovação pela Comissão. |
| --- | --- |

16.

As autoridades portuguesas notificaram o auxílio projectado antes da sua concessão ao beneficiário. Referiram igualmente que o auxílio não seria concedido antes da sua aprovação pela Comissão.

| 17. | Consequentemente, a Comissão considera que, ao notificarem a intenção de conceder um auxílio a este beneficiário, as autoridades portuguesas cumpriram a obrigação que lhes incumbe por força do n.o 3 do artigo 88.o do Tratado CE de informarem a Comissão atempadamente dos projectos relativos à concessão ou alteração de auxílios, para que esta possa apresentar as suas observações. |
| --- | --- |

17.

Consequentemente, a Comissão considera que, ao notificarem a intenção de conceder um auxílio a este beneficiário, as autoridades portuguesas cumpriram a obrigação que lhes incumbe por força do n.o 3 do artigo 88.o do Tratado CE de informarem a Comissão atempadamente dos projectos relativos à concessão ou alteração de auxílios, para que esta possa apresentar as suas observações.

A existência de auxílio estatal

| 18. | Nos termos da medida notificada, uma grande empresa receberia fundos para investir no sector do turismo no Brasil, no contexto de uma estratégia de internacionalização. Esta medida traduz-se num tratamento preferencial da empresa beneficiária, conferindo-lhe uma vantagem ou um incentivo em comparação com outras empresas, falseando ou ameaçando falsear desta forma a concorrência. |
| --- | --- |

18.

Nos termos da medida notificada, uma grande empresa receberia fundos para investir no sector do turismo no Brasil, no contexto de uma estratégia de internacionalização. Esta medida traduz-se num tratamento preferencial da empresa beneficiária, conferindo-lhe uma vantagem ou um incentivo em comparação com outras empresas, falseando ou ameaçando falsear desta forma a concorrência.

| 19. | O auxílio seria concedido a uma empresa no sector do turismo da UE, no qual existem ou podem existir trocas comerciais entre Estados-Membros ou ao qual empresas de outros Estados-Membros podem desejar aceder. Por conseguinte, a medida pode afectar o comércio entre Estados-Membros. |
| --- | --- |

19.

O auxílio seria concedido a uma empresa no sector do turismo da UE, no qual existem ou podem existir trocas comerciais entre Estados-Membros ou ao qual empresas de outros Estados-Membros podem desejar aceder. Por conseguinte, a medida pode afectar o comércio entre Estados-Membros.

| 20. | O auxílio é financiado por recursos públicos. |
| --- | --- |

20.

O auxílio é financiado por recursos públicos.

| 21. | A Comissão considera, nesta fase, que a medida notificada constitui, por conseguinte, um auxílio na acepção do n.o 1 do artigo 87.o do Tratado CE e do n.o 1 do artigo 61.o do Acordo EEE. |
| --- | --- |

21.

A Comissão considera, nesta fase, que a medida notificada constitui, por conseguinte, um auxílio na acepção do n.o 1 do artigo 87.o do Tratado CE e do n.o 1 do artigo 61.o do Acordo EEE.

Compatibilidade

| 22. | Nos termos do n.o 1 do artigo 87.o do Tratado CE, a Comissão considera, normalmente, incompatíveis com o mercado comum os auxílios ao investimento a favor de grandes empresas. Só são normalmente concedidas isenções no caso de auxílios ao investimento relativos a projectos realizados em regiões elegíveis para auxílios com finalidade regional na acepção do n.o 3, alíneas a) ou c), do artigo 87.o do Tratado CE. Contudo, o investimento notificado é realizado num país terceiro e as isenções de carácter regional previstas no n.o 3, alíneas a) e c), do artigo 87.o do Tratado CE não podem ser aplicáveis a tal investimento. |
| --- | --- |

22.

Nos termos do n.o 1 do artigo 87.o do Tratado CE, a Comissão considera, normalmente, incompatíveis com o mercado comum os auxílios ao investimento a favor de grandes empresas. Só são normalmente concedidas isenções no caso de auxílios ao investimento relativos a projectos realizados em regiões elegíveis para auxílios com finalidade regional na acepção do n.o 3, alíneas a) ou c), do artigo 87.o do Tratado CE. Contudo, o investimento notificado é realizado num país terceiro e as isenções de carácter regional previstas no n.o 3, alíneas a) e c), do artigo 87.o do Tratado CE não podem ser aplicáveis a tal investimento.

| 23. | Assim sendo, a isenção prevista no n.o 3, alínea c), do artigo 87.o do Tratado CE relativa aos auxílios destinados a facilitar o desenvolvimento de certas actividades económicas é a única possibilidade para aprovar este auxílio. |
| --- | --- |

23.

Assim sendo, a isenção prevista no n.o 3, alínea c), do artigo 87.o do Tratado CE relativa aos auxílios destinados a facilitar o desenvolvimento de certas actividades económicas é a única possibilidade para aprovar este auxílio.

| 24. | Para o efeito, a Comissão deve demonstrar que este terá um impacto positivo no sector do turismo em Portugal (e, portanto, na UE) e que não afectará as condições comerciais na UE numa medida contrária ao interesse comum. Além disso, deve ser estabelecido que a perspectiva de obtenção do auxílio foi necessária para desencadear o investimento e que o auxílio terá um claro efeito de incentivo. |
| --- | --- |

24.

Para o efeito, a Comissão deve demonstrar que este terá um impacto positivo no sector do turismo em Portugal (e, portanto, na UE) e que não afectará as condições comerciais na UE numa medida contrária ao interesse comum. Além disso, deve ser estabelecido que a perspectiva de obtenção do auxílio foi necessária para desencadear o investimento e que o auxílio terá um claro efeito de incentivo.

| 25. | Até à data, a Comissão aprovou auxílios a investimentos directos no estrangeiro (a seguir denominados “IDE”) principalmente a favor de PME. Em relação a grandes empresas, a Comissão ainda não desenvolveu uma linha de orientação precisa. Portanto, tem tomado decisões nestes casos com base numa análise individual detalhada. Nos casos em que a Comissão tinha dúvidas sobre a existência de uma falha de mercado e/ou sobre o cumprimento do critério da necessidade, procedeu à abertura do procedimento formal de investigação. |
| --- | --- |

25.

Até à data, a Comissão aprovou auxílios a investimentos directos no estrangeiro (a seguir denominados “IDE”) principalmente a favor de PME. Em relação a grandes empresas, a Comissão ainda não desenvolveu uma linha de orientação precisa. Portanto, tem tomado decisões nestes casos com base numa análise individual detalhada. Nos casos em que a Comissão tinha dúvidas sobre a existência de uma falha de mercado e/ou sobre o cumprimento do critério da necessidade, procedeu à abertura do procedimento formal de investigação.

Contribuição para o desenvolvimento da actividade turística em Portugal

| 26. | De acordo com as autoridades portuguesas, o auxílio terá vários impactos positivos em Portugal, nomeadamente:






  — | aumento das receitas consolidadas do grupo na Madeira, |
| --- | --- | --- |

26.

De acordo com as autoridades portuguesas, o auxílio terá vários impactos positivos em Portugal, nomeadamente:

—

aumento das receitas consolidadas do grupo na Madeira,

| — | aumento dos fluxos turísticos bilaterais entre a UE e o Brasil, uma vez que Portugal é o principal ponto de entrada de turistas brasileiros na Europa, |
| --- | --- |

—

aumento dos fluxos turísticos bilaterais entre a UE e o Brasil, uma vez que Portugal é o principal ponto de entrada de turistas brasileiros na Europa,

| — | promoção de outras actividades conexas: transportes, operadores turísticos, etc., |
| --- | --- |

—

promoção de outras actividades conexas: transportes, operadores turísticos, etc.,

| — | reforço das relações com o Mercosul, uma das principais prioridades da política externa da UE. |
| --- | --- |

—

reforço das relações com o Mercosul, uma das principais prioridades da política externa da UE.

| 27. | As autoridades portuguesas explicam que o projecto notificado não conduz a qualquer perda de postos de trabalho em Portugal, nem à deslocalização de actividades. A posição do grupo em Portugal é mesmo reforçada graças ao investimento notificado, uma vez que:






  — | o beneficiário possui a grande maioria dos seus hotéis em Portugal e a aquisição de um hotel no Brasil não altera a situação de forma significativa, |
| --- | --- | --- |

27.

As autoridades portuguesas explicam que o projecto notificado não conduz a qualquer perda de postos de trabalho em Portugal, nem à deslocalização de actividades. A posição do grupo em Portugal é mesmo reforçada graças ao investimento notificado, uma vez que:

—

o beneficiário possui a grande maioria dos seus hotéis em Portugal e a aquisição de um hotel no Brasil não altera a situação de forma significativa,

| — | o investimento no Brasil faz parte de uma estratégia de diversificação destinada a desenvolver e consolidar as actividades do beneficiário. A internacionalização do grupo aumenta os seus resultados e a sua competitividade na Europa, |
| --- | --- |

—

o investimento no Brasil faz parte de uma estratégia de diversificação destinada a desenvolver e consolidar as actividades do beneficiário. A internacionalização do grupo aumenta os seus resultados e a sua competitividade na Europa,

| — | graças à internacionalização, o grupo reforça a sua estrutura de gestão em Portugal, uma vez que mantém todas as suas funções de coordenação financeira, operacional e comercial em Portugal. |
| --- | --- |

—

graças à internacionalização, o grupo reforça a sua estrutura de gestão em Portugal, uma vez que mantém todas as suas funções de coordenação financeira, operacional e comercial em Portugal.

| 28. | Portugal alega que o investimento é susceptível de ter um impacto positivo no sector do turismo em Portugal. Contudo, as autoridades portuguesas não forneceram dados exactos e concretos suficientes sobre o impacto do projecto no sector do turismo em Portugal, em especial em termos de criação directa e/ou indirecta de emprego, repatriação de rendimentos e evolução da política de investimento do beneficiário em Portugal. A Comissão convida, por conseguinte, as autoridades portuguesas a apresentarem informações pormenorizadas e concretas sobre esta questão, a fim de permitir uma apreciação do eventual impacto positivo do projecto no sector do turismo em Portugal, bem como o seu efeito de coesão positivo. |
| --- | --- |

28.

Portugal alega que o investimento é susceptível de ter um impacto positivo no sector do turismo em Portugal. Contudo, as autoridades portuguesas não forneceram dados exactos e concretos suficientes sobre o impacto do projecto no sector do turismo em Portugal, em especial em termos de criação directa e/ou indirecta de emprego, repatriação de rendimentos e evolução da política de investimento do beneficiário em Portugal. A Comissão convida, por conseguinte, as autoridades portuguesas a apresentarem informações pormenorizadas e concretas sobre esta questão, a fim de permitir uma apreciação do eventual impacto positivo do projecto no sector do turismo em Portugal, bem como o seu efeito de coesão positivo.

Efeito sobre as condições comerciais na UE

| 29. | As autoridades portuguesas alegam que o auxílio terá um efeito limitado sobre as condições comerciais na UE, nomeadamente porque:






  — | o montante do auxílio é relativamente reduzido e corresponde apenas a 3,90 % do investimento elegível, |
| --- | --- | --- |

29.

As autoridades portuguesas alegam que o auxílio terá um efeito limitado sobre as condições comerciais na UE, nomeadamente porque:

—

o montante do auxílio é relativamente reduzido e corresponde apenas a 3,90 % do investimento elegível,

| — | apesar de o grupo Pestana ser o maior grupo hoteleiro em Portugal, a sua quota de mercado em Portugal é apenas de 2 % e a sua quota de mercado na UE é, portanto, negligenciável, |
| --- | --- |

—

apesar de o grupo Pestana ser o maior grupo hoteleiro em Portugal, a sua quota de mercado em Portugal é apenas de 2 % e a sua quota de mercado na UE é, portanto, negligenciável,

| — | no que diz respeito ao mercado brasileiro, os concorrentes do beneficiário têm quotas de mercado muito mais elevadas, |
| --- | --- |

—

no que diz respeito ao mercado brasileiro, os concorrentes do beneficiário têm quotas de mercado muito mais elevadas,

| — | o projecto notificado constitui o primeiro investimento do beneficiário no Brasil e este hotel não aumenta de forma significativa a oferta local, não tendo afectado a posição relativa das empresas europeias já estabelecidas no Brasil nem a sua capacidade de atrair turistas, |
| --- | --- |

—

o projecto notificado constitui o primeiro investimento do beneficiário no Brasil e este hotel não aumenta de forma significativa a oferta local, não tendo afectado a posição relativa das empresas europeias já estabelecidas no Brasil nem a sua capacidade de atrair turistas,

| — | o sector hoteleiro no Brasil é muito competitivo, tem um grau reduzido de concentração e tem crescido rapidamente nos últimos anos. |
| --- | --- |

—

o sector hoteleiro no Brasil é muito competitivo, tem um grau reduzido de concentração e tem crescido rapidamente nos últimos anos.

| 30. | Portugal alega que o investimento é susceptível de ter um efeito limitado sobre as condições comerciais na UE. Contudo, as autoridades portuguesas não forneceram dados exactos e concretos que sustentem suficientemente este impacto limitado, por exemplo, sobre a evolução das quotas de mercado dos concorrentes do beneficiário no Brasil, sobre a estrutura do mercado hoteleiro brasileiro, etc. |
| --- | --- |

30.

Portugal alega que o investimento é susceptível de ter um efeito limitado sobre as condições comerciais na UE. Contudo, as autoridades portuguesas não forneceram dados exactos e concretos que sustentem suficientemente este impacto limitado, por exemplo, sobre a evolução das quotas de mercado dos concorrentes do beneficiário no Brasil, sobre a estrutura do mercado hoteleiro brasileiro, etc.

Efeito de incentivo

| 31. | Para que um auxílio tenha um efeito de incentivo, deve ser comprovado que foi apresentado um pedido de auxílio antes do início do investimento. O investimento realizou-se em Outubro de 1999, mais de um ano antes de o beneficiário ter apresentado o pedido de concessão de auxílio ao abrigo do regime de auxílios estatais N667/1999 (em 31 de Janeiro de 2001). As autoridades portuguesas alegam que a proposta de participação do FCR no investimento, que se realizou em 24 de Maio de 1999 (antes do investimento) é prova suficiente de que este critério foi cumprido. |
| --- | --- |

31.

Para que um auxílio tenha um efeito de incentivo, deve ser comprovado que foi apresentado um pedido de auxílio antes do início do investimento. O investimento realizou-se em Outubro de 1999, mais de um ano antes de o beneficiário ter apresentado o pedido de concessão de auxílio ao abrigo do regime de auxílios estatais N667/1999 (em 31 de Janeiro de 2001). As autoridades portuguesas alegam que a proposta de participação do FCR no investimento, que se realizou em 24 de Maio de 1999 (antes do investimento) é prova suficiente de que este critério foi cumprido.

| 32. | Todavia, nesta fase a Comissão duvida que esta proposta para a participação de uma empresa de capital de risco no investimento possa ser considerada como constituindo um pedido de concessão de auxílio estatal susceptível de justificar o seu efeito de incentivo. |
| --- | --- |

32.

Todavia, nesta fase a Comissão duvida que esta proposta para a participação de uma empresa de capital de risco no investimento possa ser considerada como constituindo um pedido de concessão de auxílio estatal susceptível de justificar o seu efeito de incentivo.

| 33. | O investimento realizou-se em Outubro de 1999, cerca de cinco anos e meio antes da notificação ter sido apresentada à Comissão. De acordo com as autoridades portuguesas, o facto de o investimento ter sido realizado sem o auxílio demonstra que o promotor estava confiante em obter esse auxílio e que tinha que aproveitar esta oportunidade comercial. As autoridades portuguesas alegam que o beneficiário não deve ser penalizado pelo facto de ter demorado mais tempo a apresentar o pedido do que a executar o investimento. Referem igualmente as desvantagens e riscos excepcionais da operação, tais como a elevada volatilidade do real brasileiro e o facto de este ser o primeiro investimento da empresa no Brasil. |
| --- | --- |

33.

O investimento realizou-se em Outubro de 1999, cerca de cinco anos e meio antes da notificação ter sido apresentada à Comissão. De acordo com as autoridades portuguesas, o facto de o investimento ter sido realizado sem o auxílio demonstra que o promotor estava confiante em obter esse auxílio e que tinha que aproveitar esta oportunidade comercial. As autoridades portuguesas alegam que o beneficiário não deve ser penalizado pelo facto de ter demorado mais tempo a apresentar o pedido do que a executar o investimento. Referem igualmente as desvantagens e riscos excepcionais da operação, tais como a elevada volatilidade do real brasileiro e o facto de este ser o primeiro investimento da empresa no Brasil.

| 34. | Contudo, nesta fase, a Comissão tem sérias dúvidas quanto ao facto de a empresa necessitar realmente do auxílio notificado para realizar o seu investimento. A Djebel é propriedade do maior grupo hoteleiro de Portugal. Desde 1999, a empresa expandiu a sua actividade no Brasil, onde actualmente possui cinco hotéis e se encontra entre as dez maiores cadeias hoteleiras, o que parece indicar que o investimento teria avançado mesmo sem a perspectiva do auxílio. Além disso, não é provável que um auxílio concedido agora para um investimento realizado há mais de seis anos tenha ainda qualquer relação prática com o investimento. |
| --- | --- |

34.

Contudo, nesta fase, a Comissão tem sérias dúvidas quanto ao facto de a empresa necessitar realmente do auxílio notificado para realizar o seu investimento. A Djebel é propriedade do maior grupo hoteleiro de Portugal. Desde 1999, a empresa expandiu a sua actividade no Brasil, onde actualmente possui cinco hotéis e se encontra entre as dez maiores cadeias hoteleiras, o que parece indicar que o investimento teria avançado mesmo sem a perspectiva do auxílio. Além disso, não é provável que um auxílio concedido agora para um investimento realizado há mais de seis anos tenha ainda qualquer relação prática com o investimento.

| 35. | O projecto notificado não é o primeiro projecto de internacionalização do grupo Pestana, do qual a Djebel faz parte, que tinha já actividades em Moçambique. Afigura-se, por conseguinte, duvidoso que o auxílio fosse necessário para a realização da primeira experiência de internacionalização do grupo Pestana no Brasil. |
| --- | --- |

35.

O projecto notificado não é o primeiro projecto de internacionalização do grupo Pestana, do qual a Djebel faz parte, que tinha já actividades em Moçambique. Afigura-se, por conseguinte, duvidoso que o auxílio fosse necessário para a realização da primeira experiência de internacionalização do grupo Pestana no Brasil.

| 36. | Deste modo, a Comissão tem actualmente sérias dúvidas quanto a saber se a perspectiva do auxílio era necessária para desencadear o investimento e se pode ser considerado que o auxílio terá um efeito de incentivo. |
| --- | --- |

36.

Deste modo, a Comissão tem actualmente sérias dúvidas quanto a saber se a perspectiva do auxílio era necessária para desencadear o investimento e se pode ser considerado que o auxílio terá um efeito de incentivo.

O regime de auxílios estatais N667/1999

| 37. | Durante esta primeira fase da investigação, a Comissão tomou conhecimento de um eventual problema com o regime ao abrigo do qual o presente projecto é notificado. |
| --- | --- |

37.

Durante esta primeira fase da investigação, a Comissão tomou conhecimento de um eventual problema com o regime ao abrigo do qual o presente projecto é notificado.

| 38. | Após a Comissão ter aprovado o regime, Portugal adoptou o seu regulamento de execução (6) sem notificação prévia à Comissão nos termos do n.o 3 do artigo 88.o do Tratado CE. Este regulamento inclui uma disposição que permite a elegibilidade retroactiva dos custos relativos a projectos em relação aos quais foi recebido um pedido até 31 de Janeiro de 2001. No que diz respeito a estes projectos, as despesas incorridas após 1 de Julho de 1999 são consideradas elegíveis. Esta disposição poderá ser incompatível com o ponto 4.2 das Orientações relativas aos auxílios estatais com finalidade regional (7). As autoridades portuguesas justificam esta disposição com problemas técnicos no estabelecimento da estrutura organizacional do regime. Alegam que a disposição se destinava a beneficiar exclusivamente projectos para os quais fora apresentado um pedido de auxílio ao abrigo de outros regimes e antes do início dos respectivos investimentos. A Comissão prosseguirá a investigação desta questão através de um pedido de informações adicionais às autoridades portuguesas. |
| --- | --- |

38.

Após a Comissão ter aprovado o regime, Portugal adoptou o seu regulamento de execução (6) sem notificação prévia à Comissão nos termos do n.o 3 do artigo 88.o do Tratado CE. Este regulamento inclui uma disposição que permite a elegibilidade retroactiva dos custos relativos a projectos em relação aos quais foi recebido um pedido até 31 de Janeiro de 2001. No que diz respeito a estes projectos, as despesas incorridas após 1 de Julho de 1999 são consideradas elegíveis. Esta disposição poderá ser incompatível com o ponto 4.2 das Orientações relativas aos auxílios estatais com finalidade regional (7). As autoridades portuguesas justificam esta disposição com problemas técnicos no estabelecimento da estrutura organizacional do regime. Alegam que a disposição se destinava a beneficiar exclusivamente projectos para os quais fora apresentado um pedido de auxílio ao abrigo de outros regimes e antes do início dos respectivos investimentos. A Comissão prosseguirá a investigação desta questão através de um pedido de informações adicionais às autoridades portuguesas.

Conclusão

| 39. | Em conclusão, por agora não foi ainda demonstrado que a perspectiva do auxílio era necessária para desencadear o investimento e que o auxílio terá um efeito de incentivo. A Comissão também tem dúvidas quanto à medida em que o auxílio contribuirá para o desenvolvimento da actividade turística em Portugal, sem afectar negativamente as condições comerciais na UE. Por conseguinte, existem actualmente sérias dúvidas de que o auxílio facilitasse certas actividades económicas e pudesse, por conseguinte, ser isento na acepção do n.o 3, alínea c), do artigo 87.o do Tratado CE. |
| --- | --- |

39.

Em conclusão, por agora não foi ainda demonstrado que a perspectiva do auxílio era necessária para desencadear o investimento e que o auxílio terá um efeito de incentivo. A Comissão também tem dúvidas quanto à medida em que o auxílio contribuirá para o desenvolvimento da actividade turística em Portugal, sem afectar negativamente as condições comerciais na UE. Por conseguinte, existem actualmente sérias dúvidas de que o auxílio facilitasse certas actividades económicas e pudesse, por conseguinte, ser isento na acepção do n.o 3, alínea c), do artigo 87.o do Tratado CE.

4.   DECISÃO

| 40. | Consequentemente, após ter examinado as informações fornecidas pelas autoridades portuguesas, a Comissão informa o Governo português da sua decisão de dar início ao procedimento previsto no n.o 2 do artigo 88.o do Tratado CE. |
| --- | --- |

40.

Consequentemente, após ter examinado as informações fornecidas pelas autoridades portuguesas, a Comissão informa o Governo português da sua decisão de dar início ao procedimento previsto no n.o 2 do artigo 88.o do Tratado CE.

| 41. | Tendo em conta as considerações anteriores, a Comissão notifica a Portugal para lhe apresentarem no prazo de um mês a contar da recepção da presente carta todos os documentos, informações e dados necessários para apreciar a compatibilidade do auxílio. Caso contrário, a Comissão adoptará uma decisão com base nos elementos de que dispõe. A Comissão solicita às autoridades competentes que transmitam imediatamente uma cópia da presente carta ao beneficiário potencial do auxílio. |
| --- | --- |

41.

Tendo em conta as considerações anteriores, a Comissão notifica a Portugal para lhe apresentarem no prazo de um mês a contar da recepção da presente carta todos os documentos, informações e dados necessários para apreciar a compatibilidade do auxílio. Caso contrário, a Comissão adoptará uma decisão com base nos elementos de que dispõe. A Comissão solicita às autoridades competentes que transmitam imediatamente uma cópia da presente carta ao beneficiário potencial do auxílio.

| 42. | A Comissão recorda a Portugal o efeito suspensivo do n.o 3 do artigo 88.o do Tratado CE e remete para o artigo 14.o do Regulamento (CE) n.o 659/1999 do Conselho, que prevê que qualquer auxílio ilegal poderá ser recuperado junto do beneficiário. |
| --- | --- |

42.

A Comissão recorda a Portugal o efeito suspensivo do n.o 3 do artigo 88.o do Tratado CE e remete para o artigo 14.o do Regulamento (CE) n.o 659/1999 do Conselho, que prevê que qualquer auxílio ilegal poderá ser recuperado junto do beneficiário.

| 43. | A Comissão comunica a Portugal que informará as partes interessadas através da publicação da presente carta e de um resumo da mesma no Jornal Oficial da União Europeia. Informará igualmente os interessados dos países da EFTA signatários do Acordo EEE mediante publicação de uma comunicação no suplemento EEE do Jornal Oficial da União Europeia, bem como o Órgão de Fiscalização da EFTA, através do envio de uma cópia da presente carta. As partes interessadas serão convidadas a apresentar as suas observações no prazo de um mês a contar da data de publicação da referida comunicação.’ |
| --- | --- |

43.

A Comissão comunica a Portugal que informará as partes interessadas através da publicação da presente carta e de um resumo da mesma no Jornal Oficial da União Europeia. Informará igualmente os interessados dos países da EFTA signatários do Acordo EEE mediante publicação de uma comunicação no suplemento EEE do Jornal Oficial da União Europeia, bem como o Órgão de Fiscalização da EFTA, através do envio de uma cópia da presente carta. As partes interessadas serão convidadas a apresentar as suas observações no prazo de um mês a contar da data de publicação da referida comunicação.’

---

(1)  Por carta SG(2000) D/106085, JO C 266 de 16. 9. 2000, p. 4.

1

(2)  JO L 107 de 30.4.1996.

2

(3)  JO L 124 de 20.5.2003.

3

(4)  O empréstimo em condições favoráveis ascende a 3 680 119 euros (25 % dos custos elegíveis), não vence juros e é concedido por um período de 6 anos. Será reembolsado em 11 prestações semestrais a começar no segundo semestre. A taxa de referência aplicável em Portugal na data da realização do investimento era de 4,76 %. O montante bruto do auxílio é igual ao seu montante líquido, uma vez que a empresa se encontra situada no offshore da Madeira e não está sujeita ao imposto sobre o rendimento das sociedades até ao final de 2011.

4

offshore

(5)  Regulamento (CE) n.o 69/2001 da Comissão, de 12 de Janeiro de 2001, relativo à aplicação dos artigos 87.o e 88.o do Tratado CE aos auxílios de minimis; JO L 10 de 13. 1. 2001, pp. 30-32.

5

o

o

o

de minimis

(6)  Portaria n.o 687/2000, de 31 de Agosto, com a redacção que lhe foi dada pela Portaria n.o 243/2001, de 22 de Março.

6

o

o

(7)  JO C 74 de 10. 3. 1998, pp. 9-31.

7

---

| 19.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/30

---

STATE AID — FRANCE

State aid No C 9/2006 (ex NN 85/2005) — Fund for the prevention of risks to fishing

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

(2006/C 91/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By means of the letter dated 8 March 2006 reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the Commission notified France of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the abovementioned aid.

Interested parties may submit their comments within one month of the date of publication of this summary and the following letter, to:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate General for Fisheries |
| DG FISH/D/3 ‘Legal Issues’ |
| B-1049 Brussels |
| Fax: (32-2) 295 19 42 |

European Commission

Directorate General for Fisheries

DG FISH/D/3 ‘Legal Issues’

B-1049 Brussels

Fax: (32-2) 295 19 42

These comments will be communicated to France. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the request.

TEXT OF SUMMARY

This fund was created in April 2004 at the initiative of the ‘Confédération de la Coopération, de la Mutualité et du Crédit maritimes’. According to three agreements passed between the French State and the Fund, a total amount of EUR 65 million was granted to the Fund. The three agreements state that these amounts will have to be reimbursed with an interest rate of 4,45 %, respectively at the dates of 1 November 2006, 1 May 2007 and 1 July 2007.

This Fund has two aims: first, to act against the fluctuations of the oil prices by acquiring options on oil futures markets and, second, to compensate partially the high costs of fuel used by the vessels of the enterprises which are in the membership of this fund, when fuel price is over a determined amount.

With regard to State aid, the Fund must be considered in a double manner, first when its funds are used to acquire financial options on futures markets and, second, when they are used to compensate the costs of fuel used by the vessels.

Acquisition of options on futures markets

In practice, the funding from the French State could be considered as a short-term loan at a rate of 4,45 %. The Commission observes that the Fund does not have any real estate and, moreover, its personal properties are very low because they consist only of Members' contributions. For that reason, a bank would never have granted such a loan.

This Fund therefore benefits from a financial advantage compared to other companies acting on the same futures markets. That advantage constitutes State aid in favour of the Fund. There is no provision in the EC Treaty which could allow considering it compatible with the common market.

The fishing enterprises which are in its membership can benefit from lower prices for the fuel they buy. That constitutes aid, which has the effect to decrease the running costs of the enterprises benefiting from the Fund. In accordance with Paragraph 3.7 of the Guidelines for the examination of State aid to the fisheries sector, this aid, granted without being linked to any obligation, is not compatible with the common market.

Compensation for the partial costs of fuel used by the vessels

As above, there is an aid which has the effect to decrease the running costs of the enterprises benefiting from the Fund. Likewise, in accordance with Paragraph 3.7 of the Guidelines for the examination of State aid to the fisheries sector, this aid, granted without any obligation being imposed, is not compatible with the common market.

In accordance with Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, all unlawful aid can be subject to recovery from the recipient.

TEXT OF LETTER

«La Commission a l'honneur d'informer le Gouvernement de la France qu'après avoir examiné les informations fournies par ses autorités sur la mesure citée en objet, elle a décidé d'ouvrir la procédure formelle d'examen prévue par l'article 93 [devenu 88], paragraphe 2, du traité CE et par le règlement (CE) no 659/1999 du Conseil du 22 mars 1999 portant modalités d'application de cet article (1).

1.   PROCÉDURE

La Commission a eu connaissance de diverses informations relatives à l'existence d'un fonds destiné à compenser la hausse du carburant subie par les entreprises de pêche de France depuis l'année 2004. Selon ces informations, ce fonds, dénommé fonds de prévention des aléas à la pêche (ci-après FPAP), avait pour objectif annoncé de lisser les variations à court terme du prix du carburant à la pêche et a eu en pratique pour effet de permettre à ces entreprises de bénéficier d'un prix pour le carburant nettement inférieur au prix du marché. Il était apparemment prévu que ce fonds devait fonctionner uniquement grâce à des contributions des professionnels. Le principe de fonctionnement aurait été simple: le fonds aurait pris en charge la partie du coût du carburant supérieur à un prix de référence déterminé par litre (27 centimes semble-t-il pendant une certaine période) et, en contrepartie, les entreprises auraient apporté des contributions au FPAP quand le prix du carburant serait redescendu au-dessous de ce prix de référence. De cette manière, un équilibre aurait été atteint pour le financement du système sans qu'il y ait apport de fonds publics.

Cependant, étant donné que le prix de marché du carburant est toujours resté très largement au-dessus du prix de référence, la Commission a supposé que le fonctionnement du FPAP était possible seulement grâce à l'apport financier de l'État et que cet apport financier constituait une aide d'État au sens de l'article 87 du traité CE.

Conformément à ce qui est prévu à l'article 10 du règlement (CE) no 659/1999, la Commission a demandé à la France, à deux reprises, de lui fournir les informations relatives à ce fonds afin qu'elle puisse examiner s'il y avait effectivement présence d'aide d'État et, le cas échéant, si cette aide d'État était ou non compatible avec le marché commun. La France n'ayant pas répondu dans les délais impartis, la Commission a décidé, conformément au paragraphe 3 dudit article 10, de lui adresser une injonction de fournir les informations nécessaires à cet examen. Cette injonction, datée du 5 décembre 2005, a été notifiée à la France le 6 décembre 2005 avec un délai de réponse de trois semaines.

La France a répondu par courrier daté du 21 décembre 2005 et reçu à la Commission le 27 décembre. La Commission avait aussi reçu entre-temps, le 8 décembre 2005, un courrier de la France daté du 6 décembre.

Pour procéder à l'examen requis, la Commission a donc en sa possession les informations communiquées par ces deux courriers, datés des 6 et 21 décembre, ainsi que les documents joints à ces courriers.

Comme cela est indiqué ci-après (cf. paragraphe 3 “Appréciation”), la Commission n'a pas reçu toutes les informations qui lui auraient été nécessaires pour procéder à un examen exhaustif de cette mesure. Dans ces conditions, conformément à l'article 13 du règlement (CE) no 659/1999, la présente décision d'ouverture de la procédure formelle d'examen est prise sur la base des renseignements disponibles.

2.   DESCRIPTION

Le FPAP est constitué, conformément à la loi française du 21 mars 1884 modifiée par la loi du 12 mars 1920, sous forme de syndicat professionnel. Le projet de statuts a été approuvé par l'assemblée constitutive qui s'est tenue le 10 février 2004 et les statuts eux-mêmes portent la date du 9 avril 2004.

Selon ces statuts, ce syndicat est créé, pour une durée de 99 ans, à l'initiative de la Confédération de la Coopération, de la Mutualité et du Crédit Maritimes. Le siège est fixé à Paris, 24, rue du Rocher.

Les adhérents postulants doivent apporter la preuve que leur activité se trouve être impliquée dans la pêche; toutefois, le syndicat peut admettre en son sein toute autre personne prête à apporter son appui moral au syndicat sous réserve que l'effectif de cette catégorie d'adhérents ne dépasse pas 5 % du nombre des adhérents du syndicat. La France précise, dans son courrier du 6 décembre 2005, que le FPAP compte 2 013 adhérents et 2 385 navires représentant 30 % de la flotte française; 93,5 % des navires sont des navires de plus de 12 mètres.

L'article 2 des statuts indique que: “Le syndicat a pour objet de développer des produits destinés à permettre aux entrepreneurs de pêche d'assurer la couverture des risques suivants: fluctuation des prix du gazole, pollution maritime ou risque sanitaire relatif à la pollution, fermeture des quotas ou réduction importante des possibilités de pêche, risque relatif au marché. Il prend le nom de Fonds de prévention des aléas pêche.”.

La France a transmis les copies de trois conventions passées entre l'État et le FPAP et relatives à la mise en place d'avances remboursables par l'État en faveur de ce fonds. Ces avances sont versées par l'intermédiaire de l'Office national interprofessionnel des produits de la mer et de l'aquaculture (OFIMER). La première convention, datée du 12 novembre 2004, porte sur un montant de 15 millions d'EUR; la seconde, datée du 27 mai 2005, sur un montant de 10 millions d'EUR; la troisième, datée du 11 octobre 2005, sur un montant de 45 millions d'EUR. Selon ces trois conventions, c'est donc un montant de 65 millions d'EUR qui a été avancé au FPAP.

Selon l'article 1 de ces conventions, “le FPAP fonctionne sur la base de cotisations versées par ses adhérents de façon à couvrir la mise en place de couvertures financières contre les aléas résultant des fluctuations des cours du pétrole et des frais de gestion qui en découlent”.

Selon l'article 2 de la convention du 12 novembre 2004, “l'avance de trésorerie a pour objet la mise en place d'un mécanisme de couverture contre les fluctuations des cours internationaux du pétrole à compter du 1
  er
  novembre 2004; cette avance pourra permettre l'acquisition sur les marchés à terme d'une option financière. Les compensations versées à l'adhérent du fonds doivent correspondre au différentiel de prix constaté entre le prix maximum couvert et le prix moyen mensuel de l'indice de référence pour le mois considéré.”. L'article 2 de la convention du 27 mai 2005 a une rédaction presque similaire: il prévoit, au lieu de la “mise en place” d'un mécanisme de couverture, la “poursuite” de ce mécanisme et il indique le 1er mars 2005 comme date à partir de laquelle la couverture pourra opérer pour l'avance versée dans le cadre de cette convention. Il en est de même pour la convention du 11 octobre 2005; l'article 2 prévoit que, pour l'avance versée, le fonds poursuit son activité de couverture “... à compter du 1
  er
  juillet 2005 et au moins jusqu'au 31 décembre 2005 en achetant des options financières sur les marchés à terme, à concurrence de 17 centimes d'EUR/l.”. Il est précisé que “les compensations versées à l'adhérent du fonds doivent correspondre, au maximum, au différentiel de prix constaté entre le prix de 30 centimes d'EUR/l et le prix moyen mensuel de référence pour le mois considéré, si ce dernier est supérieur à 30 centimes d'EUR/l”.

L'article 3 de ces conventions indique que les avances ne peuvent être versées par l'OFIMER qu'après fourniture de certaines pièces justificatives. Parmi ces pièces, doit figurer le procès-verbal de l'organe délibérant du FPAP détaillant l'utilisation qui sera faite de l'avance accordée par l'État. Par sa note datée du 6 décembre 2005, la France a confirmé que les montants indiqués, représentant un total de 65 millions d'EUR, ont été effectivement consentis au FPAP. Cette note précise que ces avances sont consenties “afin d'assurer le fonctionnement du FPAP, dans les plus brefs délais, pour la période allant de novembre 2004 à fin décembre 2005”.

Par ailleurs, le FPAP s'engage à tenir une comptabilité permettant de connaître, sur demande, l'utilisation des avances ainsi que l'affectation des ressources et des dépenses. Les pièces comptables doivent être conservées pendant dix ans.

L'article 4 fixe le taux d'intérêt qui affectera le remboursement de ces avances par le FPAP à l'OFIMER à 4,45 %. Le montant de 10 millions d'EUR faisant l'objet de la convention du 12 novembre 2004 devra être remboursé au plus tard le 1er novembre 2006; celui de 10 millions d'EUR objet de la convention du 27 mai 2005 au plus tard le 1er mai 2007 et celui de 45 millions d'EUR objet de la convention du 11 octobre 2005 au plus tard le 1er juillet 2007.

3.   APPRÉCIATION

La Commission constate que le FPAP a un objet qui doit être considéré, au regard des aides d'État, d'une manière double.

En premier lieu, le FPAP a pour objet de permettre l'acquisition d'options financières sur les marchés à terme. Même si cela n'est pas explicitement précisé, les dits marchés à terme sont manifestement ceux du pétrole ou de ses produits dérivés. Il apparaît ainsi, que le FPAP, tout en étant constitué sous la forme d'un syndicat, agit sur ces marchés à terme en achetant et vendant des options, comme le ferait une société privée ordinaire active sur ce genre de marchés et fonctionnant selon les règles de l'économie de marché.

En second lieu, le FPAP a pour objet de verser aux entreprises de pêche adhérentes la différence entre le prix moyen mensuel de référence et le “prix maximal couvert” selon les conventions des 12 novembre 2004 et 27 mai 2005 ou le prix de 30 centimes d'EUR par litre selon la convention du 11 octobre 2005. La fonction du FPAP correspond alors en pratique à une fonction de gestion des fonds en provenance de l'État afin de les répartir entre les entreprises de pêche adhérentes en fonction du carburant qu'elles ont acheté pour la conduite de leur activité de pêche.

3.1.   Aide à l'acquisition d'options sur les marchés à terme

3.1.1.   Existence d'une aide d'État

Les sociétés intervenant sur les marchés à terme des produits des matières premières sont ordinairement des sociétés privées fonctionnant selon les règles de l'économie de marché. Étant donné que le traité CE, selon son article 295, ne préjuge en rien le régime de la propriété dans les États membres, une société fonctionnant à partir de fonds d'origine publique peut théoriquement intervenir de la même manière sur ces marchés à terme si son fonctionnement est conforme aux règles de l'économie de marché. Il convient donc d'apprécier si ces règles sont respectées ou non.

Le capital initial du FPAP est constitué des cotisations des adhérents. Celles-ci sont probablement d'un montant très modique. Aucune information communiquée à la Commission ne lui permet de penser que le montant global des cotisations aurait été suffisant pour permettre au FPAP d'intervenir sur un marché à terme sans apport de fonds extérieurs. Ces fonds extérieurs ont été fournis par l'État, au moyen des avances octroyées par l'intermédiaire de l'OFIMER, et constituent donc une partie de ces avances qui ont représenté, selon les informations communiquées par la France, 65 millions d'EUR.

La France n'a donné à la Commission aucune indication sur le montant des fonds engagés par le FPAP sur ces marchés à terme.

Par ailleurs, la Commission observe que la France n'a fourni aucune information lui permettant de savoir si les trois avances déjà consenties sont les seules qui le seront ou bien si le versement de nouvelles avances est possible.

Ces fonds doivent être remboursés avec un taux d'intérêt de 4,45 %. Cet apport de l'État correspond donc en pratique à un prêt accordé à ce taux.

La Commission constate que ce taux est supérieur au taux de référence utilisé par la Commission pour déterminer l'élément d'aide existant dans un prêt bonifié, taux de référence fixé à 4,43 % en 2004 (2) et à 4,08 % depuis le 1er janvier 2005 (3). Par conséquent, théoriquement, il pourrait ne pas y avoir d'aide d'État dans les avances consenties si celles-ci l'avaient été dans les conditions normales d'une économie de marché.

Or, la Commission observe que le FPAP, d'une part, ne possède apparemment aucun bien immobilier et que, d'autre part, ses biens mobiliers sont très réduits puisqu'ils sont constitués uniquement des cotisations des adhérents. Il n'y a aucune garantie que l'État puisse être remboursé par le FPAP. Pour cette raison, elle estime qu'une banque, dans les conditions normales d'une économie de marché, n'aurait jamais prêté les sommes en question au FPAP, voire seulement une partie de ces sommes, pour intervenir sur un marché à terme sans avoir suffisamment de garanties que les dites sommes lui seront remboursées. Par conséquent, ces avances de l'État représentent un avantage financier en faveur du FPAP accordé au moyen de ressources de l'État.

En outre, étant donné que les trois conventions passées entre l'État et le FPAP prévoient expressément que les fonds publics versés ont pour objet, entre autres, la mise en place d'un mécanisme de couverture contre les fluctuations des cours internationaux du pétrole, la Commission considère que cet avantage est imputable à l'État (4).

Cet avantage financier comporte deux aspects: l'avantage en faveur du FPAP lui-même et l'avantage qu'en retirent, par voie de conséquence, les entreprises de pêche adhérentes.

Avantage en faveur du FPAP lui-même

Le FPAP bénéficie d'un avantage financier par rapport aux autres sociétés intervenant sur les marchés à terme, qu'il s'agisse de sociétés habituellement actives sur ces marchés ou bien de sociétés étant ou pouvant être constituées de la même manière que le FPAP sous forme de syndicat professionnel dans les autres États membres, voire en France même.

Par conséquent, cet avantage financier affecte les échanges entre les États membres et fausse ou menace de fausser la concurrence. Pour cette raison, il constitue une aide d'État au sens de l'article 87 du traité CE.

Avantage en faveur des entreprises de pêche

Les fonds en provenance de l'État dont bénéficie le FPAP favorisent les entreprises de pêche qui ont adhéré à ce syndicat parce qu'elles sont les seules à pouvoir bénéficier des prix préférentiels obtenus pour le carburant à partir des options acquises sur les marchés à terme.

Par conséquent, étant donné que les entreprises de pêche bénéficiaires sont en concurrence sur le marché communautaire avec d'autres entreprises, qu'il s'agisse d'autres entreprises de pêche ou bien d'entreprises d'autres secteurs d'activité économique dont les produits sont en concurrence avec les produits de la pêche, ces fonds affectent les échanges entre les États membres et faussent ou menacent de fausser la concurrence.

Pour cette raison, cet avantage dont bénéficient les entreprises de pêche constitue aussi une aide d'État au sens de l'article 87 du traité CE.

3.1.2.   Compatibilité avec le marché commun

3.1.2.1.   Aide d'État en faveur du FPAP lui-même

Comme l'indiquent les conventions passées entre l'État et le FPAP, cette aide d'État a eu pour objet de permettre le démarrage des interventions du FPAP sur les marchés à terme du pétrole et de ses produits dérivés ainsi que leur poursuite. Il s'agit donc d'une aide au fonctionnement du FPAP.

Il convient d'apprécier si cette aide au fonctionnement en faveur du FPAP peut être considérée comme compatible avec le marché commun.

Selon l'article 87, paragraphes 2 et 3, du traité, certaines catégories d'aide sont ou peuvent être considérées comme compatibles avec le marché commun. Il convient d'examiner si cette aide au fonctionnement du FPAP peut entrer dans l'une de ces catégories.

La Commission observe d'abord que cette aide n'est pas destinée à remédier à des dommages causés par un événement extraordinaire. La Commission rappelle que les fluctuations du cours du pétrole sont inhérentes à l'activité économique normale et ne peuvent pas être considérées comme un événement extraordinaire au sens de l'article 87 du traité. Cette aide ne peut donc pas être considérée comme compatible avec le marché commun en vertu du paragraphe 2, sous-paragraphe b), de l'article 87 du traité CE.

Ensuite, la Commission observe qu'aucune des lignes directrices qu'elle a adoptées pour l'analyse des aides d'État ne s'applique au présent régime d'aide.

Cette aide ne peut pas non plus être considérée comme compatible avec le marché commun sur la base d'une application directe du paragraphe 3 du même article, avec les différents cas de figure qui y sont prévus.

En effet, il ne s'agit manifestement pas d'une aide destinée à favoriser le développement économique de régions dans lesquelles le niveau de vie est anormalement bas ou dans lesquelles sévit un grave sous-emploi (cas prévu au sous-paragraphe a). Cette aide a pour but de permettre au FPAP d'intervenir sur les marchés à terme pertinents. Elle n'a donc pas de rapport avec les aides visées à ce sous-paragraphe a).

D'autre part, le FPAP ne peut pas être considéré comme un projet important d'intérêt européen ou comme une aide destinée à remédier à une perturbation grave de l'économie d'un État membre (cas prévus au sous-paragraphe b). En effet, le FPAP est spécifiquement français et les autres États membres n'ont pas exprimé l'intention d'instituer des fonds du même genre; la dimension européenne de ce fonds fait par conséquent défaut. Quant à considérer qu'il s'agit d'une aide destinée à remédier à une perturbation grave de l'économie d'un État membre, la Commission pourrait, à première vue, envisager d'adopter une telle position puisque la hausse du prix du carburant a entraîné une perturbation avérée de la situation du secteur de la pêche. Cependant, tout en notant que le FPAP ne concerne qu'un seul secteur d'activité économique alors que différents secteurs sont touchés par la hausse du prix du pétrole, la Commission a toujours considéré qu'il n'appartient pas aux autorités publiques d'intervenir financièrement contre cette hausse du pétrole; leur rôle doit au contraire consister notamment à mener des politiques d'incitation envers les entreprises afin qu'elles s'adaptent aux nouvelles conditions économiques créées par cette hausse. C'est pourquoi une aide ayant pour seul objectif d'intervenir sur les marchés à terme pertinents ne correspond pas à l'objectif souhaité.

En outre, l'existence du FPAP ne peut pas, par elle-même, répondre à la condition du sous-paragraphe c), qui prévoit que peuvent être compatibles avec le marché commun les aides destinées à faciliter le développement de certaines activités ou de certaines régions économiques quand elles n'altèrent pas les conditions des échanges dans une mesure contraire à l'intérêt commun. En effet, aucun élément n'indique que le développement ou l'accroissement d'une activité d'intervention sur les marchés à terme du pétrole est souhaitable. En outre, cette activité n'est pas liée à une région économique. C'est pourquoi cette aide ne peut pas être considérée comme compatible avec le marché commun en vertu de ce sous-paragraphe c).

Enfin, cette catégorie d'aide ne figure pas parmi les catégories d'aide qui seraient considérées comme compatibles avec le marché commun par décision du Conseil adoptée conformément au sous-paragraphe e).

3.1.2.2.   Aide en faveur des entreprises de pêche

Comme pour l'aide en faveur du FPAP, la Commission observe que cette aide n'est pas destinée à remédier à des dommages causés par un événement extraordinaire et ne peut donc pas être considérée comme compatible avec le marché commun en vertu du paragraphe 2, sous-paragraphe b), de l'article 87 du traité CE.

Etant donné qu'il s'agit d'une aide aux entreprises de pêche, celle-ci doit être analysée à la lumière des lignes directrices pour l'examen des aides d'État destinées aux secteurs de la pêche et de l'aquaculture (5), dites ci-après lignes directrices.

Comme cela est indiqué ci-dessus (cf. paragraphe 3.1.1), cette aide permet aux entreprises de pêche ayant adhéré au syndicat de bénéficier des prix préférentiels obtenus pour le carburant à partir des options acquises sur les marchés à terme.

Cette aide a pour effet de diminuer les coûts de production. Elle n'est assortie d'aucune obligation de la part des bénéficiaires. Elle entre dans la catégorie des aides au fonctionnement visées au paragraphe 3.7 des lignes directrices qui indique que “les aides d'État qui sont octroyées sans être assorties d'une quelconque obligation pour les bénéficiaires de répondre aux objectifs de la politique commune de la pêche et qui sont destinées à améliorer la situation des entreprises et à accroître leur trésorerie ou dont les montants sont fonction de ... ou des moyens de production et qui ont pour effet de diminuer les coûts de production ou d'améliorer les revenus du bénéficiaire sont, en tant qu'aides au fonctionnement, incompatibles avec le marché commun...”.

3.2.   Compensation pour l'achat de carburant par les entreprises de pêche

3.2.1.   Existence d'une aide d'État

Comme cela est décrit ci-dessus (cf. paragraphe 2 “Description”), le FPAP, grâce aux fonds avancés par l'État, prend en charge la différence de prix existant, selon les conventions des 12 novembre 2004 et 27 mai 2005, entre le “prix maximum couvert” et le prix moyen mensuel de référence et, selon la convention du 11 octobre 2005, entre 30 centimes d'EUR par litre et le prix moyen mensuel de référence.

Par conséquent, les avances qui sont consenties par l'État au FPAP et qui permettent la prise en charge d'une partie des coûts supportés par les entreprises de pêche adhérant au FPAP procurent un avantage à ces entreprises. La position de ces entreprises se trouve donc renforcée par rapport aux entreprises se trouvant en concurrence sur le marché communautaire avec ces entreprises de pêche, qu'il s'agisse d'autres entreprises de pêche ou bien d'entreprises d'autres secteurs d'activité économique dont les produits sont en concurrence avec elles.

En outre, étant donné que les trois conventions passées entre l'État et le FPAP prévoient expressément que les fonds publics versés ont pour objet, entre autres, de verser aux adhérents du FPAP la différence, pour le carburant utilisé, entre le prix maximum couvert et le prix moyen mensuel de l'indice de référence, la Commission considère que cet avantage est imputable à l'État (6).

Par conséquent, ces fonds de l'État dont bénéficie le FPAP pour prendre partiellement en charge le coût du carburant utilisé par les navires de pêche constituent une aide d'État au sens de l'article 87 du traité CE.

Comme pour l'acquisition d'options sur les marchés à terme, la Commission observe que la France n'a donné à la Commission aucune indication sur la partie des 65 millions d'EUR avancés par l'État qui ont servi à prendre en charge partiellement le coût du carburant. De la même manière, la France n'a fourni aucune information sur le fait de savoir si les trois avances déjà consenties sont les seules qui le seront ou bien si le versement de nouvelles avances est possible ou déjà prévu.

3.2.2.   Compatibilité avec le marché commun

Comme pour l'avantage dont bénéficient les entreprises de pêche par le moyen de l'acquisition d'options par le FPAP sur les marchés à terme, la Commission observe que cette aide n'est pas destinée à remédier à des dommages causés par un événement extraordinaire et ne peut donc pas être considérée comme compatible avec le marché commun en vertu du paragraphe 2, sous-paragraphe b), de l'article 87 du traité CE.

Etant donné qu'il s'agit d'une aide aux entreprises de pêche, elle doit également être analysée, comme ci-dessus, à la lumière des lignes directrices pour l'examen des aides d'État destinées aux secteurs de la pêche et de l'aquaculture.

Comme pour l'aide résultant de l'acquisition d'options sur les marchés à terme, cette aide a pour effet de diminuer les coûts de production.

De ce fait, elle entre aussi dans la catégorie des aides au fonctionnement visées au paragraphe 3.7 des lignes directrices. Elle n'est non plus assortie d'aucune obligation de la part des bénéficiaires.

4.   CONCLUSION

En conséquence, il existe, à ce stade de l'évaluation préliminaire telle qu'elle est prévue à l'article 6 du règlement (CE) no 659/1999, des doutes sérieux sur la compatibilité de cette mesure d'aide avec le marché commun, tant en ce qui concerne l'aide en faveur du FPAP que l'aide en faveur des entreprises de pêche.

À la lumière des considérations qui précèdent, la Commission, agissant dans le cadre de la procédure prévue à l'article 88, paragraphe 2, du Traité CE, demande à la France de lui présenter ses observations et de lui fournir tous les renseignements nécessaires pour apprécier l'aide en cause, dans un délai d'un mois à compter de la réception de la présente lettre.

Par la présente, la Commission avise la France qu'elle informera les intéressés par la publication de la présente lettre et d'un résumé de celle-ci au Journal Officiel de l'Union européenne. Elle informera également les intéressés dans les pays de l'AELE signataires de l'accord EEE par la publication d'une communication dans le supplément EEE du Journal Officiel, ainsi que l'autorité de surveillance de l'AELE en leur envoyant une copie de la présente. Tous les intéressés susmentionnés seront invités à présenter leurs observations à compter d'un mois à compter de la date de cette publication.»

---

(1)  JO L 83 du 27.3.1999, p. 1.

1

(2)  JO C 307 du 17.12.2003, p. 11.

2

(3)  JO C 220 du 8.9.2005, p. 2.

3

(4)  Affaires C-482/99, France/Commission, arrêt de la Cour du 16 mai 2002 et C-345/02, Pearle BV, arrêt de la Cour de justice du 15 juillet 2004.

4

(5)  JO C 229 du 14.9.2004, p. 5.

5

(6)  Affaire C-345/02, Commission/France, arrêt de la Cour de justice du 15 juillet 2004.

6

---

| 19.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/35

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4114 — Lottomatica/GTECH)

(2006/C 91/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 7 April 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Lottomatica S.p.A. (‘Lottomatica’, Italy) controlled by De Agostini S.p.A. (‘De Agostini’, Italy) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking GTECH Holdings Corporation (‘GTECH’, USA) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 7 April 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Lottomatica S.p.A. (‘Lottomatica’, Italy) controlled by De Agostini S.p.A. (‘De Agostini’, Italy) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking GTECH Holdings Corporation (‘GTECH’, USA) by way of purchase of shares.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for Lottomatica: active in the lotteries and gambling sector as well as in automatic payment services in Italy; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Lottomatica: active in the lotteries and gambling sector as well as in automatic payment services in Italy;

| — | for De Agostini: active in the media, publishing, financial and insurance sectors; |
| --- | --- |

—

for De Agostini: active in the media, publishing, financial and insurance sectors;

| — | for GTECH: active in the gambling sector and in automatic payment services at a world-wide level. |
| --- | --- |

—

for GTECH: active in the gambling sector and in automatic payment services at a world-wide level.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4114 — Lottomatica/GTECH, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Competition DG |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4114 — Lottomatica/GTECH, to the following address:

European Commission

Competition DG

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

| 19.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/36

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4121 — Allianz Group/Sofinim/United Broadcast Facilities)

(2006/C 91/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 22 March 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://europa.eu.int/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://europa.eu.int/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 32006M4121. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4121. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---

| 19.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/36

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4172 — Barclays/Tuja)

(2006/C 91/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 March 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://europa.eu.int/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://europa.eu.int/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 32006M4172. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4172. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---

| 19.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/37

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4130 — ENI/Grupo Amorim/CGD/GALP)

(2006/C 91/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 24 March 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://europa.eu.int/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://europa.eu.int/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 32006M4130. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4130. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---

| 19.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/37

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4087 — Eiffage/Macquarie/APRR)

(2006/C 91/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 15 February 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://europa.eu.int/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://europa.eu.int/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 32006M4087. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4087. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---

European Data Protection Supervisor

| 19.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/38

---

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor

| — | on the Proposal for a Council Decision on the establishment, operation and use of the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (COM(2005)230 final); |
| --- | --- |

—

on the Proposal for a Council Decision on the establishment, operation and use of the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (COM(2005)230 final);

| — | the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment, operation and use of the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (COM(2005)236 final), and |
| --- | --- |

—

the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment, operation and use of the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) (COM(2005)236 final), and

| — | the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding access to the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) by the services in the Member States responsible for issuing vehicle registration certificates (COM(2005)237 final) |
| --- | --- |

—

the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding access to the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) by the services in the Member States responsible for issuing vehicle registration certificates (COM(2005)237 final)

(2006/C 91/11)

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 17 June 2005 from the Commission;

HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION:

1.   INTRODUCTION

1.1.   Background

The Schengen information system (the SIS) is an EU large scale IT system created as a compensatory measure following the abolition of controls at internal borders within the Schengen area. The SIS allows competent authorities in Member States to exchange information which is used for performing controls on persons and objects at the external borders or on the territory, as well as for the issuance of visas and residence permits.

The Schengen Convention entered into force in 1995, as an intergovernmental agreement. The SIS, as part of the Schengen Convention, was later on integrated into the EU framework by the Amsterdam Treaty.

A new ‘second generation’ Schengen Information System II will replace the current system, so allowing the enlargement of the Schengen area to the new EU Member States. It will also introduce new functionalities in the system. The Schengen provisions elaborated in an intergovernmental framework will be fully transformed in classic European law instruments.

On 1 June 2005, the European Commission presented three proposals for establishing the SIS II. These proposals consist of:

| — | a proposed Regulation based on Title IV EC Treaty (visas, asylum immigration and other policies related to the free movement of persons) which will govern the first pillar (immigration) aspects of the SIS II, hereinafter referred to as ‘the proposed Regulation’; |
| --- | --- |

—

a proposed Regulation based on Title IV EC Treaty (visas, asylum immigration and other policies related to the free movement of persons) which will govern the first pillar (immigration) aspects of the SIS II, hereinafter referred to as ‘the proposed Regulation’;

| — | a proposed Decision based on Title VI EU Treaty (police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters) which will govern the use of SIS for third pillar purposes, further referred to as ‘the proposed Decision’; |
| --- | --- |

—

a proposed Decision based on Title VI EU Treaty (police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters) which will govern the use of SIS for third pillar purposes, further referred to as ‘the proposed Decision’;

| — | a proposed Regulation based on Title V (Transport) regarding specifically the access to the SIS data by authorities in charge of vehicle registration; this proposal will be addressed separately (see below, point 4.6). |
| --- | --- |

—

a proposed Regulation based on Title V (Transport) regarding specifically the access to the SIS data by authorities in charge of vehicle registration; this proposal will be addressed separately (see below, point 4.6).

It is worth mentioning in this context that the Commission will issue in the coming months a communication on interoperability and increased synergies between EU information Systems (SIS, VIS, Eurodac).

The SIS II consists of a central database called the ‘Central Schengen Information System’ (CS-SIS) for which the Commission will ensure the operational management connected to national access points defined by each Member State (NI-SIS). SIRENE authorities shall ensure the exchange of all supplementary information (information connected to the SIS II alerts but not stored in the SIS II).

Members States will contribute data to the SIS II on people wanted for arrest, surrender or extradition, people wanted for judicial procedures, people to be placed under surveillance or subject to specific checks, people to be refused entry at external border and lost or stolen items. A set of data called ‘alerts’ entered in the SIS allows the competent authority to identify a person or an object.

The SIS II develops new characteristics: widened access to the SIS (Europol, Eurojust, national prosecutors, vehicle licensing authorities), interlinking of alerts, addition of new categories of data, including biometric data (fingerprints and photographs), as well as a technical platform to be shared with the Visa Information System. These additions have stirred discussions for years about a shift of purpose of the SIS, from a control tool to a reporting and investigation system.

1.2.   General assessment of the proposals

| 1. | The EDPS welcomes the fact that he is 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 texts. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The EDPS welcomes the fact that he is 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 texts.

| 2. | For several reasons, the EDPS welcomes the proposals. The transformation of an intergovernmental structure into European law instruments brings several positive consequences: the legal value of the rules governing SIS II will be clarified, the Court of Justice will have competence for the interpretation of the first pillar legal instrument), the European Parliament will be at least partly involved (albeit a little late in the process). |
| --- | --- |

2.

For several reasons, the EDPS welcomes the proposals. The transformation of an intergovernmental structure into European law instruments brings several positive consequences: the legal value of the rules governing SIS II will be clarified, the Court of Justice will have competence for the interpretation of the first pillar legal instrument), the European Parliament will be at least partly involved (albeit a little late in the process).

| 3. | Moreover, on substance, the proposals contain a significant part devoted to data protection, some of which being welcome improvements compared to the current situation. In particular, one can mention the measures in favour of victims of identity theft, the extension of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 to data processing activities of the Commission in the Title VI activities, a better definition of the grounds for alerting individuals for the purpose of refusing entry. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Moreover, on substance, the proposals contain a significant part devoted to data protection, some of which being welcome improvements compared to the current situation. In particular, one can mention the measures in favour of victims of identity theft, the extension of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 to data processing activities of the Commission in the Title VI activities, a better definition of the grounds for alerting individuals for the purpose of refusing entry.

| 4. | It is also obvious that great care has been devoted to the drafting of the proposals; they are complex, but this reflects the inherent complexity of the system they govern. Most of the comments in this opinion aim at clarifying or supplementing provisions, but will not require a complete redrafting. |
| --- | --- |

4.

It is also obvious that great care has been devoted to the drafting of the proposals; they are complex, but this reflects the inherent complexity of the system they govern. Most of the comments in this opinion aim at clarifying or supplementing provisions, but will not require a complete redrafting.

However, despite this globally positive appreciation, some reservations can be expressed about, in particular, the following:

| 1. | It is in many respects difficult to know what the intention behind the text is; the absence of an explanatory memorandum is highly regrettable. Given the very complex nature of these documents, that would have been a basic requirement. The lack of it in some cases gives the reader no option but guesswork. |
| --- | --- |

1.

It is in many respects difficult to know what the intention behind the text is; the absence of an explanatory memorandum is highly regrettable. Given the very complex nature of these documents, that would have been a basic requirement. The lack of it in some cases gives the reader no option but guesswork.

| 2. | Moreover, one can only regret there has been no impact assessment study. The fact that the first version of the system is already in place does not justify this, since there are considerable differences between both. Among others, the impact of the introduction of biometric data should have been better thought through. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Moreover, one can only regret there has been no impact assessment study. The fact that the first version of the system is already in place does not justify this, since there are considerable differences between both. Among others, the impact of the introduction of biometric data should have been better thought through.

| 3. | The legal data protection framework is very complex; it is based on the combined application of lex generalis and lex specialis. It should be ensured that even when a specific legislation is developed, the existing data protection framework in Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 remains fully applicable. The combined application of different legal instruments should lead neither to discrepancies between national regimes on fundamental aspects, nor to a watering down of the present level of data protection. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The legal data protection framework is very complex; it is based on the combined application of lex generalis and lex specialis. It should be ensured that even when a specific legislation is developed, the existing data protection framework in Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 remains fully applicable. The combined application of different legal instruments should lead neither to discrepancies between national regimes on fundamental aspects, nor to a watering down of the present level of data protection.

| 4. | Access by many new authorities which do not fit in with the original ‘purpose of controls on persons and objects’ should be accompanied by more stringent safeguards. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Access by many new authorities which do not fit in with the original ‘purpose of controls on persons and objects’ should be accompanied by more stringent safeguards.

| 5. | The proposals are for a significant part based on other legal instruments which are still in the making (sometimes not even proposed). The EDPS understands the difficulties of legislating in a complex and constantly evolving environment; however, in view of the consequences for the persons concerned and of the legal uncertainty it creates, he deems it not acceptable. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The proposals are for a significant part based on other legal instruments which are still in the making (sometimes not even proposed). The EDPS understands the difficulties of legislating in a complex and constantly evolving environment; however, in view of the consequences for the persons concerned and of the legal uncertainty it creates, he deems it not acceptable.

| 6. | There is some fuzziness in the attribution of competences between Member States and the Commission. Clarity is paramount as it is not only necessary for the smooth running of the system, but also a basic requirement to ensure a comprehensive supervision of the system. |
| --- | --- |

6.

There is some fuzziness in the attribution of competences between Member States and the Commission. Clarity is paramount as it is not only necessary for the smooth running of the system, but also a basic requirement to ensure a comprehensive supervision of the system.

1.3.   Structure of the opinion

The opinion will be structured as follows: it first clarifies the legal framework applicable to the SIS II. It then addresses the definition of the purpose of the SIS II and the elements significantly different from the current system. Point 5 contains comments on the respective roles of the Commission and Member States with regard to the operation of the SIS II. Point 6 concerns the data subject rights while point 7 addresses the supervision, at national and EDPS level, as well as the cooperation between the supervisors. Point 8 proposes some comments and possible amendments on security; points 9 and 10 deal respectively with comitology and interoperability. Finally, a summary of conclusions highlights the principal conclusions for each point.

2.   RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

2.1.   Relevant data protection framework of the SIS II

The proposals refer to Directive 95/46/EC, Convention 108 and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 as their legal data protection framework. Other instruments are also relevant.

In order to clarify this context and to remind what the main points of reference for our examination are, it is useful to list the following:

| — | Respect for private life has been ensured in Europe since the adoption in 1950 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: ‘ECHR’) by the Council of Europe. Article 8 ECHR stipulates ‘the right to respect for private and family life’.
  According to Article 8(2) any interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right is only allowed, if it is ‘in accordance with the law’ and is ‘necessary in a democratic society’ for the protection of important interests. In the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, these conditions have led to additional requirements as to the quality of the legal basis for interference, the proportionality of any measure, and the need for appropriate safeguards against abuse. |
| --- | --- |

—

Respect for private life has been ensured in Europe since the adoption in 1950 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: ‘ECHR’) by the Council of Europe. Article 8 ECHR stipulates ‘the right to respect for private and family life’.

According to Article 8(2) any interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right is only allowed, if it is ‘in accordance with the law’ and is ‘necessary in a democratic society’ for the protection of important interests. In the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, these conditions have led to additional requirements as to the quality of the legal basis for interference, the proportionality of any measure, and the need for appropriate safeguards against abuse.

| — | The right to respect for private life and the protection of personal data have been laid down more recently in Article 7 and 8 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to Article 52 of the Charter, it is recognized that these rights may be subjected to limitations, provided that similar conditions are fulfilled as apply under Article 8 ECHR. |
| --- | --- |

—

The right to respect for private life and the protection of personal data have been laid down more recently in Article 7 and 8 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to Article 52 of the Charter, it is recognized that these rights may be subjected to limitations, provided that similar conditions are fulfilled as apply under Article 8 ECHR.

| — | Article 6(2) of the EU Treaty provides that the Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the ECHR. |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 6(2) of the EU Treaty provides that the Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the ECHR.

The three texts explicitly applicable to the SIS II proposals are the following:

| — | The Council of Europe Convention No 108 of 28 January 1981 for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (hereinafter ‘Convention 108’) has developed basic principles for the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data. All Member States have ratified Convention 108. It is applicable also to activities carried out in the framework of the police and judicial areas. Convention 108 is currently the data protection regime applicable to the SIS Convention, together with the Recommendation No R (87) 15 of 17 September 1987 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe regulating the use of data in the police sector. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Council of Europe Convention No 108 of 28 January 1981 for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (hereinafter ‘Convention 108’) has developed basic principles for the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data. All Member States have ratified Convention 108. It is applicable also to activities carried out in the framework of the police and judicial areas. Convention 108 is currently the data protection regime applicable to the SIS Convention, together with the Recommendation No R (87) 15 of 17 September 1987 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe regulating the use of data in the police sector.

| — | 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 (OJ L 281, p. 31). This directive will be referred to as ‘Directive 95/46/EC’. It is worth noting that in most Member State, the national legislation implementing the Directive also covers processing activities carried out in the area of police and justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

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 (OJ L 281, p. 31). This directive will be referred to as ‘Directive 95/46/EC’. It is worth noting that in most Member State, the national legislation implementing the Directive also covers processing activities carried out in the area of police and justice.

| — | 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 (OJ L 8, p.1). This regulation will be referred to as ‘Regulation (EC) No 45/2001’. |
| --- | --- |

—

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 (OJ L 8, p.1). This regulation will be referred to as ‘Regulation (EC) No 45/2001’.

Interpretation of Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 must depend partly on relevant case law from the European Court of Human Rights pursuant to the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). In other words, the Directive and the Regulation, in so far as they deal with processing of personal data liable to infringe fundamental freedoms, in particular the right to privacy, must be interpreted in the light of fundamental rights. This also follows from the case law of the European Court of Justice (1).

On 4 October 2005, the Commission issued a ‘Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters’ (2) (hereinafter ‘draft Framework Decision’). This Framework Decision is intended to replace Convention 108 as the legislation of reference for the draft SIS II Decision, which is likely to have an impact on the data protection regime in this context (see below, point 2.2.5).

2.2.   SIS II data protection legal regime

2.2.1.   General remark

The legislative basis necessary for governing the SIS II consists of separate instruments; however, as stated in the Recitals, it ‘does not affect the principle that the SIS II constitutes one single information system that should operate as such. Certain provisions of these instruments should therefore be identical’.

The structure of the two documents is basically the same, with indeed chapters I-III being almost identical in both texts. The fact that the SIS II is to be seen as a single information system with two different legal bases is also reflected in the — rather complex — data protection regime.

The data protection regime is determined partly in the proposals themselves, as a ‘lex specialis’, complemented by a different legislation of reference (‘lex generalis’) for each sector (Commission, Member States in first pillar, Member States in third pillar).

This structure raises the question of how to deal with specialised sets of rules in their relationship to general law. In this case, the EDPS considers the particular rule an application of the general rule. As a consequence, the

  lex specialis

  must always be in conformity with the

  lex generalis

  ; it elaborates (specifies or adds to) the

  lex generalis

  but is not conceived as an exception from it.

As to the question of which rule should be applied in specific cases, the principle is that the lex specialis applies in priority; but wherever it is silent or unclear, reference should be made to the lex generalis.

There are, according to this structure three different combinations of lex generalis and lex specialis. It could be summarized as follows.

2.2.2.   Applicable regime for the Commission

Where the Commission is involved, Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 applies, including the role of the EDPS, whether the activities are carried out in the framework of the first (proposed Regulation) or third pillar (proposed Decision). Recital 21 of the proposed Decision states that: ‘Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 (...) applies to the processing of personal data by the Commission when such processing is carried out in the exercise of activities all or part of which fall within the scope of Community law. Part of the processing of personal data in the SIS II is within the scope of Community law’.

There are practical reasons for this: it would indeed be extremely difficult, as far as the Commission is concerned, to determine if the data are processed in the framework of activities falling under first or third pillar legislation.

Moreover, applying one legal instrument to all activities by the Commission in the context of the SIS II, not only makes more sense from a practical point of view, but also improves consistency (ensuring, according to Recital 21 of the proposed Regulation a ‘consistent and homogeneous application of the rules regarding the protection of individuals' fundamental rights and freedoms with regard to the processing of personal data’). Therefore, the EDPS welcomes the recognition by the Commission that Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 applies to all data processing activities of the Commission in SIS II.

2.2.3.   Applicable regime for the Member States

The situation concerning Member States is more complex. The processing of personal data in application of the proposed Regulation is governed by the proposed Regulation itself as well as by Directive 95/46/EC. The reading of Recital 14 of the proposed Regulation makes it very clear that the Directive must be considered as the lex generalis, while the SIS II Regulation will be the lex specialis. This has a number of consequences that will be detailed hereunder.

As to the proposed Decision, the data protection legal instrument of reference (lex generalis) is the Convention 108, which can make an important difference between the data protection regimes in first and third pillar on some points.

2.2.4.   Impact on the level of data protection

As a general comment on this architecture of data protection, the EDPS underlines the following:

| — | The application of the proposed Regulation as a lex specialis of Directive 95/46/EC (and similarly, of the proposed Decision as a lex specialis of the Convention 108) should never lead to a watering down of the level of data protection ensured under the Directive or Convention. The EDPS will make recommendations to this effect (see for instance the right to remedies). |
| --- | --- |

—

The application of the proposed Regulation as a lex specialis of Directive 95/46/EC (and similarly, of the proposed Decision as a lex specialis of the Convention 108) should never lead to a watering down of the level of data protection ensured under the Directive or Convention. The EDPS will make recommendations to this effect (see for instance the right to remedies).

| — | Similarly, the combined application of legal instruments can not have as a result that the level of data protection ensured under the current Schengen Convention will be lowered (see for instance the remarks hereunder about Article 13 of Directive 95/46/EC). |
| --- | --- |

—

Similarly, the combined application of legal instruments can not have as a result that the level of data protection ensured under the current Schengen Convention will be lowered (see for instance the remarks hereunder about Article 13 of Directive 95/46/EC).

| — | The application of two different instruments, however necessary because of the framework of European law, should not lead to unjustified discrepancies between the data protection of the individuals concerned according to the type of data processed about them. This is to be avoided as much as possible. The recommendations made hereunder will also strive to improve consistency as much as possible (see for instance the powers of the national supervisory authorities). |
| --- | --- |

—

The application of two different instruments, however necessary because of the framework of European law, should not lead to unjustified discrepancies between the data protection of the individuals concerned according to the type of data processed about them. This is to be avoided as much as possible. The recommendations made hereunder will also strive to improve consistency as much as possible (see for instance the powers of the national supervisory authorities).

| — | The legal framework is so complex that it is very likely to engender some confusion in the practical application. It is in some cases difficult to see how lex generalis and lex specialis interact, and it would be useful to clarify this in the proposals. Moreover, in this complex legal environment, the suggestion made by the JSA Schengen in its ‘opinion on the proposed legal basis for the SIS II’ (27 September 2005) to develop a ‘vademecum’ listing all the rights existing in relation to the SIS II and providing a clear hierarchy of applicable legislation is very useful. |
| --- | --- |

—

The legal framework is so complex that it is very likely to engender some confusion in the practical application. It is in some cases difficult to see how lex generalis and lex specialis interact, and it would be useful to clarify this in the proposals. Moreover, in this complex legal environment, the suggestion made by the JSA Schengen in its ‘opinion on the proposed legal basis for the SIS II’ (27 September 2005) to develop a ‘vademecum’ listing all the rights existing in relation to the SIS II and providing a clear hierarchy of applicable legislation is very useful.

In conclusion, the present opinion will strive to ensure a high level of data protection, consistency and clarity to provide the data subject with the necessary legal certainty.

2.2.5.   Impact of the Draft Framework Decision on Data Protection in Third Pillar

The Convention 108 as the data protection instrument of reference for the draft SIS II Decision will be replaced by the Framework Decision on data protection in the third pillar (3). This is not mentioned in the proposal, but follows from the proposed framework decision. Its Article 34.2 states that ‘Any reference to the Convention No 108 of the Council of Europe of 28 January 1981 for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data shall be construed as a reference to this Framework Decision’. The EDPS will issue in the coming weeks an opinion on the draft Framework Decision and will not analyse in details its content in this opinion. However, wherever the application of the Framework Decision is likely to have a significant impact on the SIS II data protection regime, this will be mentioned.

2.2.6.   Application of Article 13 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 9 Convention 108

Article 13 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 9 of the Convention 108 provide for the possibility for Member States to take legislative measures to restrict the scope of obligations and rights provided for by them, when such a restriction constitutes a necessary measure to safeguard other important interests (e.g. national security, defence, public security) (4).

The Recitals of both the proposed Regulation and proposed Decision mention that this possibility could be used by Member States when implementing the proposals at national level. A double test should be applied in this case: the application of Article 13 of the Directive 95/46/EC must be in compliance with Article 8 ECHR and should not lead to a diminution of the present data protection regime.

It is even the more crucial in the case of SIS II, since the system must have a predictable character. As Member States are sharing data, there must be a possibility to know with reasonable certainty how they will be processed at national level.

There is in particular one worrying element with regard to this, where the proposals would lead to a lowering of the current data protection level. Article 102 of the Schengen Convention provides for a system where the use of the data is strictly regulated and restricted, even in national legislation (‘Any use of the data which does not comply with paragraphs 1 to 4 shall be considered as misuse under the national law of the Contracting Party’). Both Directive 95/46/EC and Convention 108, however, provide that exceptions, inter alia, to the principle of purpose limitation can be introduced in national legislation. If this is done, it would represent a discrepancy with the current system in the Schengen Convention, where national legislation can not deviate from the core principle of purpose and use limitation.

The adoption of the Framework Decision would not change this observation: the problem is much more to maintain a strict purpose limitation principle for the processing of SIS II data than to ensure that data would be processed in compliance with the Framework Decision.

The EDPS suggests to introduce in the SIS II proposals (namely Article 21 of the proposed Regulation and Article 40 of the proposed Decision) a provision to the same effect as the current Article 102.4 of the Schengen Convention, limiting the possibility for Member States to provide for use of the data not foreseen in the SIS II texts. Another possibility is to restrict explicitly in the proposed Decision and proposed Regulation the scope of the exceptions that can be used under Article 13 Directive or Article 9 Convention, laying down, for instance, that Member States can only restrict the rights of access and information, but not the data quality principles.

3.   PURPOSE

According to Article 1 of the two documents (‘establishment and general objective of the SIS II’), the SIS II is established to ‘enable competent authorities of the Member States to exchange information for the purpose of controls on persons and objects’, and shall ‘contribute to maintaining a high level of security within an area without internal border controls between Member States’.

The purpose of the SIS II is worded in rather broad terms; the provisions mentioned above are not in themselves a precise indication of what is covered (meant) by this objective.

The objective of the SIS II seems much broader than the objective of the current SIS as laid down in Article 92 of the Schengen Convention, which referred specifically to ‘(...) access alerts on persons and property for the purposes of border checks and other police and customs checks (...) and (concerning Article 96 alerts) for the purpose of issuing visas, residence permits and the administration of legislation on aliens (...)’.

This broader purpose also derives from the addition to the SIS II of new functionalities and accesses which do not fit into the original purpose of controls on persons and objects, but more into an investigative tool. In particular, access is foreseen for authorities who will use the SIS II data for their own purposes, and not for the realisation of the SIS II purposes (see below); interlinking of alerts will be generalized while this represents a typical feature of a police investigative tool.

There are also questions as to the biometric search engine which is to be developed in the coming years, allowing for searches in the system, which exceed the needs of a control system.

In conclusion, the proposals have a much broader scope than the existing framework. This requires additional safeguards. In this regard, the EDPS will focus his analysis not so much on the broad definition in Article 1 as such, but on the functionalities and other constitutive parts of the SIS II.

4.   SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE SIS II

This chapter will focus first on the new elements brought in by the SIS II, namely the introduction of biometrics, the new conception of access, with special attention to access by Europol and Eurojust, to authorities in charge of vehicle registration, the interlinking of alerts, and access by different authorities to immigration data.

4.1.   Biometrics

The SIS II proposals introduce the possibility to process a new category of data which deserves specific attention: biometric data. As already underlined in the EDPS opinion on the Visa Information System (5), the inherently sensitive nature of biometric data requires specific safeguards which have not been introduced in the SIS II proposals.

As a general comment, the tendency to use biometric data in EU wide information systems (VIS, EURODAC, Information System on driving licences etc.) is growing steadfastly, but is not accompanied by a careful consideration of risks involved and required safeguards.

This need for a deeper reflection has been also highlighted in the recent resolution on biometrics issued by the International Conference of Data Commissioners in Montreux (6). Until now, the added value for developing standards has been only focused on the growing interoperability between systems and not on the improvement of the quality of the biometric processes.

It would be useful to build a set of common obligations or requirements related to the specificity of such data as well as a common methodology for their implementation. These common requirements could contain in particular the following elements (the need of which is illustrated by the SIS II proposals):

| — | Targeted impact assessment: It has to be underlined that the proposals have not been subjected to an impact assessment on the use of biometrics (7). |
| --- | --- |

—

Targeted impact assessment: It has to be underlined that the proposals have not been subjected to an impact assessment on the use of biometrics (7).

| — | Emphasis on the enrolment process: The source of biometric data and the way they will be collected are not detailed. Enrolment is a critical step in the overall process of biometric identification and cannot be only defined by annexes or further sub-group discussions as it will directly condition the end-result of the process i.e. the level of False Rejection Rate or False Acceptance Rate. |
| --- | --- |

—

Emphasis on the enrolment process: The source of biometric data and the way they will be collected are not detailed. Enrolment is a critical step in the overall process of biometric identification and cannot be only defined by annexes or further sub-group discussions as it will directly condition the end-result of the process i.e. the level of False Rejection Rate or False Acceptance Rate.

| — | Highlight the level of accuracy: The use of biometrics for identification (comparison of one to many) presented in the proposal as a future implementation of a ‘biometrics search engine’ are more critical because the results of this process are less accurate than the use for authentication or control (one to one comparison). Biometric identification should not therefore constitute the unique way of identification or unique access key to further information. |
| --- | --- |

—

Highlight the level of accuracy: The use of biometrics for identification (comparison of one to many) presented in the proposal as a future implementation of a ‘biometrics search engine’ are more critical because the results of this process are less accurate than the use for authentication or control (one to one comparison). Biometric identification should not therefore constitute the unique way of identification or unique access key to further information.

| — | Fallback procedure: Readily available fallback procedures shall be implemented in order to respect the dignity of persons who could have been wrongly identified and to avoid transferring onto them the burden of the system imperfections. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fallback procedure: Readily available fallback procedures shall be implemented in order to respect the dignity of persons who could have been wrongly identified and to avoid transferring onto them the burden of the system imperfections.

The use of biometric data without a proper preliminary assessment also reveals an overestimation of the reliability of biometrics. Biometric data are ‘live’ data which evolve with time; the samples which are stored in the database constitute only a snapshot of a dynamic element. Its permanency is not absolute and need to be controlled. The accuracy of biometrics always has to be put into perspective of other elements as it will never be absolute.

The possible use of SIS II data for investigation purposes entails serious risks for the data subject if one gives an increased or over-estimated role to biometric evidence as it has been illustrated in previous cases (8).

Therefore, the proposals should recognise and raise awareness on the real capabilities of biometrics for identification purposes.

4.2.   Access to SIS II data

4.2.1   A new vision of access

The authorities with access to SIS data are defined for each alert. In principle, a double test is applied for granting access to the SIS data: access must be granted to authorities in full compliance with the general purpose of the SIS and with the specific purpose of each alert.

This follows from the definition of alerts found both in the proposed Regulation and the proposed Decision (Art.3.1.a of both instruments: ‘Alert’ means a set of data entered in the SIS II allowing the competent authorities to identify a person or an object, in view of a specific action to be taken). Article 39.3 of the proposed Decision reinforces that view by stipulating that ‘the data referred to in paragraph 1 shall only be used for the purpose of identifying a person in view of a specific action to be taken in accordance with this decision’. In this respect, the SIS II still has the features of a hit-no hit system, where each alert is inserted for a specific purpose (surrender, refusing entry,...).

The authorities with access to the SIS data have a de facto use limitation for these data, since they can in principle only have access to them to perform a specific action.

However, some accesses provided for in the new proposals are not consistent with this logic: indeed, they aim at providing the authority with information, but not at allowing it to identify a person and take the action foreseen in the alert.

More specifically, this concerns:

| — | access to immigration data by asylum authorities; |
| --- | --- |

—

access to immigration data by asylum authorities;

| — | access to immigration data by authorities in charge of granting refugees status; |
| --- | --- |

—

access to immigration data by authorities in charge of granting refugees status;

| — | access to alerts on extradition, discreet surveillance and stolen documents for seizure for Europol; |
| --- | --- |

—

access to alerts on extradition, discreet surveillance and stolen documents for seizure for Europol;

| — | access to data on extradition and localisation for Eurojust. |
| --- | --- |

—

access to data on extradition and localisation for Eurojust.

All these authorities share the same characteristics with regard to the SIS II data:

they are not able to take the specific action mentioned by the definition of the alerts. Access is granted to them as a source of information for their own purposes.

Even between these authorities, there is a distinction to be made between the ones having access for their own purposes, but with a rather specific objective, and the ones (namely Europol and Eurojust), for which there is no specification at all of the purpose of the access. Asylum authorities, for instance have access for a specific purpose, even if it is not the purpose mentioned in the alert. They can have access to immigration data ‘for the purpose of determining whether an asylum applicant has stayed illegally in another Member State’. Europol and Eurojust, however, have access to the data contained in certain categories of alerts, ‘which is necessary for the performance of their tasks’.

To summarize, access to SIS II data is granted in three cases:

| — | access for realisation of the alert; |
| --- | --- |

—

access for realisation of the alert;

| — | access for a purpose other than SIS II, but well circumscribed in the proposals; |
| --- | --- |

—

access for a purpose other than SIS II, but well circumscribed in the proposals;

| — | access for a purpose other than SIS II, but not precisely described. |
| --- | --- |

—

access for a purpose other than SIS II, but not precisely described.

The EDPS takes the view that, the more general the purpose for access, the more stringent the safeguards which need to be implemented should be. The general safeguards are detailed hereunder; then, the specific situation of Europol and Eurojust will be addressed.

4.2.2   Conditions for granting access

| 1. | Access can in any case be granted only when it is compatible with the general purpose of the SIS II, and consistent with its legal basis.
  This means, in practice that access to immigration data pursuant to the proposed Regulation must support the implementation of policies linked to the movement of persons part of the Schengen acquis.
  Similarly, access to alerts laid down by the Decision shall aim at supporting operational cooperation between police authorities and judicial authorities in criminal matters.
  In this regard, the EDPS draws the attention to the chapter related to access to SIS II by services responsible for issuing registration certificates (see below, pt 4.6). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Access can in any case be granted only when it is compatible with the general purpose of the SIS II, and consistent with its legal basis.

This means, in practice that access to immigration data pursuant to the proposed Regulation must support the implementation of policies linked to the movement of persons part of the Schengen acquis.

Similarly, access to alerts laid down by the Decision shall aim at supporting operational cooperation between police authorities and judicial authorities in criminal matters.

In this regard, the EDPS draws the attention to the chapter related to access to SIS II by services responsible for issuing registration certificates (see below, pt 4.6).

| 2. | The need for access to SIS II data must be demonstrated, as well as the impossibility or great difficulty to obtain the data by other, less intrusive means. This should have been done in an explanatory memorandum, whose absence is, as already said, very regrettable. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The need for access to SIS II data must be demonstrated, as well as the impossibility or great difficulty to obtain the data by other, less intrusive means. This should have been done in an explanatory memorandum, whose absence is, as already said, very regrettable.

| 3. | The use that will be made of data must be defined explicitly and restrictively.
  For instance, asylum authorities have access to immigration data ‘for the purpose of determining whether an asylum applicant has stayed illegally in another Member State’. Europol and Eurojust, however, have access to the data contained in certain categories of alerts, ‘which is necessary for the performance of their tasks: this is not sufficiently detailed (see below)’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The use that will be made of data must be defined explicitly and restrictively.

For instance, asylum authorities have access to immigration data ‘for the purpose of determining whether an asylum applicant has stayed illegally in another Member State’. Europol and Eurojust, however, have access to the data contained in certain categories of alerts, ‘which is necessary for the performance of their tasks: this is not sufficiently detailed (see below)’.

| 4. | The conditions of the access must be well defined and restricted. In particular, only the services inside these organisations which have to deal with the SIS II data, should get an access to it. This obligation laid down in Article 40 of the proposed Decision and Article 21.2 of the proposed Regulation should be supplemented by an obligation for the national authorities to keep an up-to-date list of persons entitled to access the SIS II. The same should apply to Europol and Eurojust. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The conditions of the access must be well defined and restricted. In particular, only the services inside these organisations which have to deal with the SIS II data, should get an access to it. This obligation laid down in Article 40 of the proposed Decision and Article 21.2 of the proposed Regulation should be supplemented by an obligation for the national authorities to keep an up-to-date list of persons entitled to access the SIS II. The same should apply to Europol and Eurojust.

| 5. | The fact that these authorities are granted access to SIS II data can never be a ground for entering or maintaining data in the system if they are not useful for the specific alert they are part of. New categories of data may not be added because they would benefit other information systems. For example, Article 39 of the proposed Decision provides for the introduction in alerts of data concerning the issuing authority. These data are not needed to perform an action (arrest, surveillance,...), and the only reason why they could be introduced is probably to benefit Europol or Eurojust. A clear rationale for the processing of this data should be provided. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The fact that these authorities are granted access to SIS II data can never be a ground for entering or maintaining data in the system if they are not useful for the specific alert they are part of. New categories of data may not be added because they would benefit other information systems. For example, Article 39 of the proposed Decision provides for the introduction in alerts of data concerning the issuing authority. These data are not needed to perform an action (arrest, surveillance,...), and the only reason why they could be introduced is probably to benefit Europol or Eurojust. A clear rationale for the processing of this data should be provided.

| 6. | The retention period of the data may not be extended where it is not necessary for the purpose for which the data was entered. That means that even if Europol or Eurojust have an access to these data, this is not sufficient ground for maintaining them in the system (for instance, once a wanted person has been extradited, the data should be deleted, even if they could be useful for Europol). Here again, careful supervision will be needed to ensure this is applied by the national authorities. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The retention period of the data may not be extended where it is not necessary for the purpose for which the data was entered. That means that even if Europol or Eurojust have an access to these data, this is not sufficient ground for maintaining them in the system (for instance, once a wanted person has been extradited, the data should be deleted, even if they could be useful for Europol). Here again, careful supervision will be needed to ensure this is applied by the national authorities.

4.2.3   Access by Europol and Eurojust

a.   Grounds for access

The access by Europol and Eurojust to some SIS data has already been debated before their introduction by the Council Decision of 24 February 2005 (9). Among all the authorities having access for their own purposes, they benefit from an access granted in the most open terms. Although the use of these data is described in Chapter XII of the Decision, the grounds for granting access in the first place are not sufficiently developed. This is even the more so considering that Europol and Eurojust's tasks are likely to evolve over time.

The EDPS urges the Commission to define restrictively the tasks for the performance of which access by Europol and Eurojust would be justified.

b.   Restriction of data

In order to avoid ‘fishing expeditions’ by Europol and Eurojust, and to make sure they only access data ‘necessary for their tasks’, the JSA Schengen in its opinion of 27 September 2005 on the SIS II proposals, suggested to restrict Europol and Eurojust access to data about individuals whose name already appear in their files. This would guarantee that only alerts relevant for them are consulted. The EDPS supports this recommendation.

c.   Security aspects

The EDPS welcomes the obligation of logging all transactions made in connection by Europol and Eurojust, as well as the interdiction of copying or downloading parts of the system.

Article 56 of the proposed Decision envisages ‘one to two’ access points for Europol and Eurojust. However understandable it could be for a Member State to need more than one access point, due to a decentralised situation of its competent authorities, the status and activities of Europol and Eurojust do not justify this request. It has to be underlined as well that from a security point of view, the multiplication of access points increases the risk of misuse and should therefore be precisely justified with more consistent elements. Therefore, in the absence of convincing argumentation, the EDPS suggests to grant only one access point in the cases of Europol and Eurojust.

4.3.   Interlinking of alerts

Article 26 of the Regulation and Article 46 of the Decision provide that Member States may create links between alerts in accordance with their national legislation, in order to establish a relationship between two or more alerts.

Although links between alerts can certainly be useful to controls (for instance, an arrest warrant on a car thief can be linked to a stolen vehicle), the introduction of links between alerts is a very typical feature of a police investigative tool.

Interlinking of alerts can have a major impact on the rights of the person concerned, since the person is no longer ‘assessed’ on the basis of data relating only to him/her, but on the basis of his/her possible association with other persons. Individuals whose data are linked to those of criminals or wanted persons are likely to be treated with more suspicion than others. Interlinking of alerts furthermore represents an extension of the investigative powers of the SIS because it will make possible the registration of alleged gangs or networks (if, for instance, data on illegal immigrants are linked with data of traffickers). Finally, since the establishment of links is left to national legislation, it has as a possible consequence that links which are illegal in one Member State can be established by another one, thus feeding ‘illegal’ data into the system.

The Council Conclusions of 14 June 2004 on the functional requirements on the SIS II stated that each link must have a clear operational requirement, be based on a clearly defined relationship and comply with the proportionality principle. Moreover, it may not affect the access rights. Anyway, since the interlinking of alerts constitutes a processing operation, it must comply with the provisions of the national legislation implementing Directive 95/46/EC and/or Convention 108.

The proposals reiterate that the existence of links cannot change the access rights (indeed, it would otherwise give access to data the processing of which would not be lawful under national legislation, in breach of Article 6 of the Directive).

The EDPS stresses the importance of a strict interpretation of Article 26 of the proposed Regulation and Article 46 of the proposed Decision: one way to ensure this is to make clear that authorities with no right of access to certain categories of data not only cannot have access to links to those categories, but that they should not even be aware of the existence of these links. The visualisation of the links must be impossible where there is no access right to the linked data.

Moreover, the EDPS would like to be consulted on the technical measures to guarantee this.

4.4.   Alerts for the purpose of refusing entry

4.4.1.   Grounds for inclusion

The use of ‘alerts issued in respect of third country nationals for the purpose of refusing entry’ (Article 15 of the Regulation) has a significant impact on the freedoms of the individual: an individual reported under this provision has no more access to the Schengen area for several years. This has been until now the most often used alert in terms of the number of persons reported. Seeing the consequences of this alert, as well as the number of persons concerned, great care must be taken in its conception, as well as in its implementation. Although this is also true concerning other alerts, the EDPS will devote a specific chapter to this alert, because it poses specific problems concerning the grounds for inclusion.

The new alert for refusing entry presents improvements with regards to the present situation, but is also not completely satisfactory, as it is based in good part on instruments which have not yet been adopted or even proposed.

The improvements reside in a more precise description of the grounds of inclusion of the data. The current wording of the Schengen Convention has led to a situation where there were significant differences between Member States in terms of the number of persons reported under Article 96 of the Convention. The JSA Schengen has conducted a comprehensive study (10) on that matter and came up with recommendations that ‘policy makers should consider harmonising the reasons for creating an alert in the different Schengen States’.

The proposed Article 15 is more detailed in its drafting, which is to be welcomed.

Moreover, Article 15.2 gives also a list of cases where persons cannot be alerted because they are legally residing on the territory of a Member State, in application of different statuses. Although it could be deduced from the present Schengen Convention, the practice has shown that the application of this mechanism also was subject to variation between Member States. Therefore, clarification is a positive element.

However, this provision is also subject to serious criticism, as it is based for an important part on a not yet adopted text, namely the Directive ‘on Return’.

Since the adoption of the SIS II proposals, a ‘Directive on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals’ has been proposed by the Commission (on 1 September 2005), but as long as this text is not final, it cannot be considered as a valid ground for entering data into a system. It constitutes, in particular a breach of Art. 8 ECHR, since an intrusion in the privacy of individuals should be justified by — inter alia — a clear and accessible legislation.

Therefore, the EDPS urges the Commission to either withdraw this provision, or redraft it in a way, based on existing legislation, that allows the individuals to know which measures exactly the authorities can take regarding him/her.

4.4.2.   Access to Article 15 alerts

Article 18 lays down which authorities have access to these alerts and for which purposes. Article 18 (1) and (2) determines which authorities have access to alerts entered on the basis of the Directive on Return. The same commentary as above applies.

Article 18 (3) of the proposed Regulation grants access to authorities responsible for granting refugee status, pursuant to a Directive which has not yet been even proposed. In the absence of an available text, the EDPS must reiterate the comments made here above.

4.4.3.   Retention period of Article 15 alerts

The alert must, according to Article 20 not be kept longer than the period of refusal of entry laid down in the decision (of removal or return). This is consistent with data protection rules. Moreover, it will be erased automatically after five years, unless the Member State having entered the data in the SIS II decides otherwise.

Adequate supervision at national level should ensure that there is no automatic unjustified extension of the retention period, and that the Member States erase the data before the five year term if the period of refusal of entry happens to be shorter.

4.5.   Retention periods

Although the principle of retention remains the same (as a general rule, an alert should be erased from the SIS II as soon as the action requested by the alert is taken), the proposals will have as a result that the retention period for the alerts has been generally extended.

The Schengen Convention provided for a review of the need for continued storage of the data no later than three years after they were entered (or one year in the case of data entered for discreet surveillance). The new proposals foresee an automatic deletion (with possibility to object for the issuing Member State) after 5 years for immigration data, 10 years for data on arrest, missing persons and persons wanted for judicial procedures, and 3 years for persons to be put under discreet surveillance.

Even though in principle, the Member States will have to delete the data when the purpose of the alert is met, this amounts to a significant increase of the maximum retention period (in most cases, tripling), without any sort of justification by the Commission. In the case of immigration data one can only venture a guess that the 5 years duration is linked with the duration of the entry ban as proposed in the draft Directive on Return. In all other cases, there is no rationale that the EDPS is aware off.

The potential impact on the data subjects being reported in the SIS can have considerable consequences on the lives of the persons concerned. This is especially worrying in the case of alerts on persons for discreet surveillance or specific checks, since these alerts may be issued on the basis of suspicions.

The EDPS would like to see serious justification for this extension of data retention periods. If there is no convincing justification, he suggests reducing them to their current duration, insisting particularly on the case of alerts for the purpose of discreet surveillance or specific checks.

4.6.   Access by authorities in charge of issuing vehicle registration certificates

The main issue resides in the choice of a more than questionable legal basis. The Commission fails to make a convincing case for the use of a First Pillar ‘transport’ legal basis for a measure which would allow access to the SIS by administrative authorities for the purposes of preventing and fighting crime (trafficking of stolen vehicles). The need for a strong justification and a solid legal basis for granting access to the SIS II was detailed in point 4.2.2 of the present opinion.

The EDPS refers to the comments on this subject made by the JSA Schengen in its opinion on the proposed legal basis for the SIS II. In particular, the suggestion made by the JSA Schengen to amend the proposed Decision in order to include in it this access is to be followed.

5.   ROLE OF THE COMMISSION AND THE MEMBER STATES

A clear description and allocation of responsibilities in the context of the SIS II is paramount, not only for a smooth functioning of the system, but also from a supervision point of view. The distribution of supervisory competences will follow from the description of responsibilities, hence a need for absolute clarity.

5.1.   Role of the Commission

The EDPS welcomes chapter III of both proposals which describes the role and responsibilities of the Commission for SIS II (as a role of ‘operational management’). Such clarification was not present in the VIS proposal. However this chapter alone does not define exhaustively the role of the Commission. Indeed, as discussed in chapter 9 of this opinion, the Commission is also involved in the implementation and the management of the system through the comitology procedure.

In terms of data protection, the Commission has a role that is recognised already in the VIS and Eurodac systems, that of a responsible for operational management. In combination with its major role in the development and maintenance of the system, this should be seen as the role of a sui generis controller. It is, as already said in the EDPS'opinion on the VIS, much more than that of a processor, but also more limited than that of a normal controller, since the Commission has no access to the data processed in the SIS II.

As the SIS II will be built on complex systems, amongst which some rely on emerging technologies, the EDPS insists upon reinforcing the responsibility of the Commission in maintaining the systems up-to-date by implementing the Best Available Technologies related to security and data protection.

It should be added therefore in the Article 12 of the proposals that the Commission should regularly propose the implementation of new technologies which represent the state of the art in this field and which will enhance data protection and security levels, as well as facilitate the tasks of the national authorities which have access to these data.

5.2.   Role of the Member States

The situation of Member States is not really clear, as it is rather difficult to know which authority(ies) is(are) going to be the data controller(s).

The proposals describe a role for SIS II National Office (to ensure competent authorities' access to the SIS II) as well as for SIRENE authorities (to ensure the exchange of all supplementary information). Member States also have to ensure the functioning and security of their ‘NS’ (‘National System’). It is not clear if this last responsibility is to be borne by one of the above mentioned authorities. In any case, clarification is needed in this regard.

In terms of data protection, the Commission and the Member States should be considered as joint controllers, each with specific responsibilities. The recognition of these complementary missions is the only way to leave no area of the SIS II activities unsupervised.

6.   DATA SUBJECTS RIGHTS

6.1.   Information

6.1.1.   Proposed Regulation

Article 28 of the proposed Regulation foresees the right of information of the data subject, following mainly Article 10 of Directive 95/46. This is a welcome change compared to the current situation, where there is no right of information explicitly foreseen in the Convention. There is, however some room for improvement, on the following points.

Some information should be added to the list, because it would contribute to ensuring a fair treatment of the data subject (11). This information should concern the retention period of the data, the existence of the right to request a review or appeal of the decision to issue an alert (in some cases, see Article 15 (3) of the proposed Regulation), the possibility to obtain assistance from the data protection authority, and the existence of remedies.

There is no indication in the proposed Regulation as to the moment when the information should be provided. This could make the rights of the data subject impossible to exercise. In order to make these rights effective, the Regulation should provide for a precise moment where the information should be given, depending from the authority who issued the alert.

A practical solution would be to add information about the alert in the decision which is the ground for the alert in the first place: either a judicial or administrative decision based on a threat to public policy (....) or a return decision or removal order accompanied by a re-entry ban. This should be added to Article 28 of the Regulation.

6.1.2.   Proposed Decision

Article 50 of the Decision stipulates that information is given on request of the data subject and states the possible grounds for refusing to grant this information. Limitations to this right are obviously understandable, considering the nature of the data and the context in which they are processed.

However, the right of information should not be subjected to a request of the data subject (that would actually rather be the definition of a request for access). One can suppose that the need to ‘request’ information was justified by the cases where the data subject cannot be informed because he is not located.

This would be better addressed by adding an exception to the right of information in cases where the provision of information proves impossible or involves a disproportionate effort. Article 50 of the Decision should be amended accordingly.

This solution would also be consistent with the application of the draft Framework Decision on Data protection in third pillar.

6.2.   Access

The proposed Regulation and Decision both impose deadlines for answering requests for access, which is a positive evolution. However, since the procedure for exercising the right of access is defined at national level, one can wonder how the delays imposed in the proposals can interact with the existing procedures, especially if the Member States have shorter deadlines to answer a request for access. It should be made clear that the deadlines which are the most favourable to the data subject should be applied.

6.2.1.   Proposed Regulation

It is worth noting that the restrictions to the right of access (‘shall be refused if this is indispensable for the performance of a lawful task in connection with the alert or for the protection of rights and freedoms of third parties’) which currently exist in the Schengen Convention do not figure in the proposed Regulation.

However, this is probably due to the applicability of the Directive 95/46/EC which foresees (in its Article13) the possibility to implement exceptions in national legislations. In any case, it should be pointed out that the use of Article 13 in national legislation for restricting the right of access should always be in compliance with Article 8 ECHR, only in limited cases.

6.2.2.   Proposed Decision

The proposed Decision takes up the limitation to the access right as in the Schengen Convention. The proposed Framework Decision contains in essence the same limitations to the right of access; so the adoption of this instrument would not make a significant difference in this.

Since in several Member States, access to law enforcement data is ‘indirect’ (which means exercised via the national data protection authority), it should be useful to provide for an obligation of data protection authorities to cooperate actively in the exercise of the right of access.

6.3.   Right to review or appeal the decision to issue an alert

Article 15 (3) of the Regulation institutes a right to review or appeal before a judicial authority with respect to the decision to issue an alert, when this decision is taken by an administrative authority. This is a welcome addition, compared to the current Schengen Convention.

This underlines the need for complete and timely information of the data subject as mentioned in point 6.1 above: without this information this new right would remain theoretical.

6.4.   Remedies

Article 30 of the proposed Regulation and Article 52 of the proposed Decision provide for the right to bring an action or a complaint before the courts of any Member State, if the data subject is refused the right of access, rectification or erasure of data, to obtain information or reparation.

The wording (‘any person in the territory of a Member State’) suggests that the complainant must be physically on the territory to bring his action before courts. This territorial limitation is not justified and could make the right to remedies ineffective, as very often, the complainant is likely to introduce an action precisely because he is not granted access to the Schengen territory. Moreover, as far as the proposed Regulation is concerned, since the Directive is the lex generalis, its Article 22 must be taken into account; it stipulates that ‘every person’ has a right to a judicial remedy, irrespective of his place of residence. The proposed Framework Decision does not contain either a territorial limitation. The EDPS suggests dropping the territorial limitation in Article 30 and Article 52.

7.   SUPERVISION

7.1.   Introductory remark: sharing of responsibilities

The proposals share out the supervisory task between national supervisory authorities (12), and the EDPS, each for its own scope. This is consistent with the approach of the proposals to applicable law and responsibilities for the operation and use of the SIS II, and with the need for an effective supervision.

The EDPS therefore welcomes this approach in Article 31 of the proposed Regulation and Article 53 of the proposed Decision. However, for a better understanding and a clarification of the respective tasks, the EDPS proposes to split each article into several provisions, each of them dedicated to a level of supervision as had been properly done in the VIS proposal.

7.2.   Supervision by national data protection authorities

Pursuant to Article 31 of the proposed Regulation and Article 53 of the proposed Decision, each Member State must ensure that an independent authority monitors the lawfulness of the processing of SIS II personal data.

Article 53 of the proposed Decision adds a right for the individual to ask the supervisory authority to check the lawfulness of the processing of the data concerning him. A similar provision has not been included in the proposed Regulation since the Directive applies as a lex generalis. Therefore, it must be considered that national data protection authorities can exercise, with regard to the SIS II all the competences conferred to them by Article 28 of the Directive 95/46/EC, including checking the lawfulness of a data processing. Article 31.1 of the Regulation is a clarification on their mission but cannot constitute a limitation of these powers. The recognition of these competences should be clarified in the text of the proposed Regulation.

As to the proposed Decision, it recognises more extensive duties to national supervisory authorities because its lex generalis is different. However, the situation where supervisory authorities would have different missions and competences according to the category of processed data is not sound, and very difficult to manage in the practice. Therefore, it should be avoided, either by recognising these authorities the same powers in the text of the proposed Decision itself, or by referring to another

  lex generalis
  (namely the Framework Decision on Data Protection in Third Pillar) giving more competences to the data protection authorities.

7.3.   Supervision by the EDPS

The EDPS monitors that the data processing activities of the Commission are carried out in accordance with the proposals. Similarly, the EDPS should be able to exercise all his competences under Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, taking into account, however, the limited powers of the Commission with regard to the data themselves.

It is useful to add that, according to Article 46 (f) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, the EDPS ‘shall cooperate with the national supervisory authorities to the extent necessary for the performance of their respective duties’. The cooperation with Member States in the supervision of the SIS II does not stem only from the proposals, but also from Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

7.4.   Joint supervision

The proposals also recognise the need to coordinate the supervisory activities of the different authorities involved. Article 31 of the proposed Regulation and Article 53 of the proposed Decision stipulate that ‘the national supervisory authorities and the European Data Protection Supervisor shall cooperate actively with each other. The European Data Protection Supervisor shall convene a meeting for that purpose at least once a year’.

The EDPS welcomes this proposal which contains in essence the necessary elements to create the cooperation — which is indeed crucial — between the authorities in charge of supervision at national and European level. It should be underlined that the proposals provide for a meeting at least once a year, but that it is to be considered as a minimum.

These provisions (Article 31 of the proposed Regulation and Article 53 of the proposed Decision) could however benefit from some clarifications of the content of that coordination. The existing JSA has the competence to examine difficulties of interpretation or application of the Convention, to study problems that may occur with the exercise of independent supervision or of the right of access, and to draw up harmonised proposals for joint solutions to existing problems.

The new proposals cannot lead to a watering down of the existing scope of the common supervision. If it is clear that data protection authorities can exercise with regard to the SIS II all the supervisory competences they are endowed with under the Directive, the cooperation of these authorities can cover broad aspects of the supervision of the SIS II, including the tasks of the existing JSA as developed in Article 115 of the Schengen Convention.

However, in order to make this absolutely clear, it would be useful to reaffirm this explicitly in the proposals.

8.   SECURITY

The management of and respect for an optimal security level for the SIS II constitutes a fundamental requirement for ensuring an adequate protection of personal data stored in the database. In order to obtain this satisfactory level of protection, proper safeguards have to be implemented for handling the potential risks related to the infrastructure of the system and to the persons involved. This subject is now discussed in various parts of the proposal and deserves some improvement.

Articles 10 and 13 of the proposal contain various measures for data security and specify the kind of misuses that need to be prevented. The EDPS welcomes that provisions on systematic (self-)auditing of security measures have been included in these articles.

However Article 59 of the proposed Decision and Article 34 of the proposed Regulation, which provide for monitoring and evaluation, should not only concern the aspects of output, cost-effectiveness and quality of services, but also compliance with legal requirements, especially in the field of data protection. The EDPS therefore recommends that the scope of these articles is extended to monitoring and reporting on the lawfulness of processing.

Moreover, in complement to Article 10 (1) (f) or Article 18 of the proposed Decision and Article 17 of the proposed Regulation concerning the duly authorised staff who has access to the data, it should be added that Member States (as well as Europol and Eurojust) should ensure that precise user profiles are available (that should be kept at the disposal of the national supervisory authorities for checks). In addition to these user profiles, a complete list of user identities has to be made and kept permanently up-to-date by Member States. The same applies mutatis mutandis to the Commission.

These security measures are completed by monitoring and organisational safeguards. Article 14 of the proposals describes the conditions and the purposes for which records of all data processing operations have to be kept. These records shall not only be stored for monitoring data protection and ensuring data security but also for consolidating the regular self-auditing of the SIS II requested by Article 10. The self-auditing reports will contribute to the effective execution of the tasks of the supervisory authorities that will be able to identify the weakest spots and to focus on them during their own auditing procedure.

As it was stated earlier in this opinion, the multiplication of access points to the system needs to be carefully justified as it automatically increases the risks of abuses. A concrete demonstration of the need for a second access point should therefore be requested by Article 4 (1) (b) of the proposals.

The proposals do not clearly explain the need for national copies of the central system and trigger serious concerns regarding the overall level of risk and security of the system, such as:

| — | The multiplication of copies increases the risks of abuse (especially taking into account the presence of new data like biometric data); |
| --- | --- |

—

The multiplication of copies increases the risks of abuse (especially taking into account the presence of new data like biometric data);

| — | The data concerned by these copies are not well defined; |
| --- | --- |

—

The data concerned by these copies are not well defined;

| — | The accuracy, quality, and availability requirements of the article 9 constitute great technical challenges and therefore increase the cost according to the state of the art of the available technology; |
| --- | --- |

—

The accuracy, quality, and availability requirements of the article 9 constitute great technical challenges and therefore increase the cost according to the state of the art of the available technology;

| — | The supervision by the national authorities of these copies will request additional human and financial resources which might not be always available. |
| --- | --- |

—

The supervision by the national authorities of these copies will request additional human and financial resources which might not be always available.

In view of the risks involved, the EDPS is neither convinced of the necessity (considering the available technologies) nor of the added value of the use of national copies. He recommends dropping the possibility for Member States to use national copies.

However, if the national copies are to be developed, the EDPS reminds that a strict purpose limitation principle must be applied to their national use. Similarly, the national copy may never be queried in other ways than the central database.

The lawfulness of the personal data processing operation is based on the strict respect of data security and data integrity. The EDPS will monitor in an efficient way these processes, if he can not only monitor the security of data, but also their integrity through the analysis of the available logs. It is thus necessary to add ‘data integrity’ to Article 14 (6).

9.   COMITOLOGY

The proposals envisage comitology procedures in several cases where technological decisions for the implementation or the management of the SIS II are required. As it was stated in the VIS opinion for similar reasons, these decisions will have a significant impact on the proper implementation of the principle of purpose and proportionality.

The EDPS advises that decisions with a substantial impact on data protection like for instance access to and introduction of data, exchange of supplementary information, quality of data and compatibility between alerts, technical compliance of national copies, etc. should be made by way of Regulation or Decision, preferably involving a co-decision procedure
   (13).

For all other cases with an impact on data protection, the EDPS should be given the possibility to advice on the choices made by these committees.

The EDPS' advisory role should be included in Articles 60 and 61 of the Decision and Article 35 of the Regulation.

In the more specific case of the technical rules for linking alerts (Article 26 of the regulation and Article 46 of the Decision), the need for a different comitology mode (advisory mode for the Decision and regulatory mode for the Regulation) has to be explained.

10.   INTEROPERABILITY

As the communication of the Commission on the interoperability of emerging EU systems is still lacking, it is difficult to properly evaluate the added value of the foreseen but not yet defined synergies.

In this context, the EDPS would also like to refer to the Declaration of the Council of 25 March 2004 on Combating Terrorism, in which the Commission is asked to present proposals in order to enhance interoperability and synergies between information systems (SIS, VIS and Eurodac). He would also like to refer to the ongoing discussion as to which body could be entrusted with the management of the different large scale systems in the future (see also point 3.8 of this opinion).

The EDPS already stated in his opinion on the Visa Information System that interoperability is a critical and vital requirement for the efficiency of large scale IT systems as the SIS II. It offers the possibility to reduce the overall cost in a consistent manner and to avoid natural redundancies of heterogeneous elements.

| — | Interoperability can also contribute to the objective of maintaining a high level of security within an area without internal border controls between Member States by implementing the same procedural standard to all the constitutive elements of this policy. However, it is crucial to distinguish between two levels of interoperability:






  — | Interoperability between EU Member States is highly desirable; indeed the alert sent by one Member State's authorities have to be interoperable with the ones sent by any other Member State's authorities. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Interoperability can also contribute to the objective of maintaining a high level of security within an area without internal border controls between Member States by implementing the same procedural standard to all the constitutive elements of this policy. However, it is crucial to distinguish between two levels of interoperability:

—

Interoperability between EU Member States is highly desirable; indeed the alert sent by one Member State's authorities have to be interoperable with the ones sent by any other Member State's authorities.

| — | Interoperability between systems built for different purposes or with third country systems is far more questionable. |
| --- | --- |

—

Interoperability between systems built for different purposes or with third country systems is far more questionable.

Among the available safeguards used to limit the purpose of the system and prevent ‘function creep’, the use of different technological standards can contribute to this limitation. Moreover, any form of interaction between two different systems should be thoroughly documented. Interoperability should never lead to a situation where an authority, not entitled to access or use certain data, can obtain this access via another information system. As far as it is possible to discover by the reading of the proposals, it seems for example that an Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) will not be present in the first years of the SIS II; only a reference to a future biometric search engine is given. If a scenario where AFIS from other EU systems are used is envisaged, this should be clearly documented with the necessary safeguards required for such synergies.

The EDPS wants to stress again that interoperability of the systems can not be implemented in violation of the purpose limitation principle, and that any proposal in this matter should be submitted to him.

11.   SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

11.1.   General points

| 1. | The EDPS welcomes several positive aspects of these proposals, which on some points represent an improvement compared to the present situation. He recognises that provisions on data protection have, generally speaking, been drafted with great care. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The EDPS welcomes several positive aspects of these proposals, which on some points represent an improvement compared to the present situation. He recognises that provisions on data protection have, generally speaking, been drafted with great care.

| 2. | The EDPS underlines that the new legal regime, however complex should






  — | ensure a high level of data protection, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The EDPS underlines that the new legal regime, however complex should

—

ensure a high level of data protection,

| — | be predictable for citizens as well as for authorities sharing data, |
| --- | --- |

—

be predictable for citizens as well as for authorities sharing data,

| — | be consistent in its application to different (first or third pillar) contexts. |
| --- | --- |

—

be consistent in its application to different (first or third pillar) contexts.

| 3. | Moreover, the addition of new elements in the SIS II, increasing its possible impact on the lives of the individuals should be met by more stringent safeguards which are described in the opinion. In particular,






  — | Access to SIS II data cannot be given to new authorities without the strongest justification. It should also be restricted as much as possible, both in terms of accessible data and authorized persons. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Moreover, the addition of new elements in the SIS II, increasing its possible impact on the lives of the individuals should be met by more stringent safeguards which are described in the opinion. In particular,

—

Access to SIS II data cannot be given to new authorities without the strongest justification. It should also be restricted as much as possible, both in terms of accessible data and authorized persons.

| — | Interlinking of alerts may never lead, even indirectly, to a change in access rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

Interlinking of alerts may never lead, even indirectly, to a change in access rights.

| — | A non adopted legislation cannot be considered a valid ground for entering data in the SIS II (alerts for the purpose of refusing entry). |
| --- | --- |

—

A non adopted legislation cannot be considered a valid ground for entering data in the SIS II (alerts for the purpose of refusing entry).

| — | The legal basis for access by authorities in charge of issuing vehicle registration certificates should be reconsidered as it is intended mainly to fight crime. |
| --- | --- |

—

The legal basis for access by authorities in charge of issuing vehicle registration certificates should be reconsidered as it is intended mainly to fight crime.

| — | The EDPS recognises that the use of biometric data can improve the performance of the system and help the victims of identity theft. However, the impact of this insertion doesn't seem to be sufficiently thought through, and the reliability of these data seems overstated. |
| --- | --- |

—

The EDPS recognises that the use of biometric data can improve the performance of the system and help the victims of identity theft. However, the impact of this insertion doesn't seem to be sufficiently thought through, and the reliability of these data seems overstated.

11.2.   Specific remarks

| 1. | The EDPS welcomes the recognition by the Commission that Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 applies to all data processing activities of the Commission in SIS II, as it will contribute to ensure a consistent and homogeneous application of the rules regarding the protection of individuals' fundamental rights and freedoms with regard to the processing of personal data. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The EDPS welcomes the recognition by the Commission that Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 applies to all data processing activities of the Commission in SIS II, as it will contribute to ensure a consistent and homogeneous application of the rules regarding the protection of individuals' fundamental rights and freedoms with regard to the processing of personal data.

| 2. | In order to ensure a strict purpose limitation at national level, the EDPS recommends to introduce in the SIS II proposals (namely Article 21 of the proposed Regulation and Article 40 of the proposed Decision) a provision to the same effect as the current Article 102.4 of the Schengen Convention, limiting the possibility for Member States to provide for use of the data not foreseen in the SIS II texts. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In order to ensure a strict purpose limitation at national level, the EDPS recommends to introduce in the SIS II proposals (namely Article 21 of the proposed Regulation and Article 40 of the proposed Decision) a provision to the same effect as the current Article 102.4 of the Schengen Convention, limiting the possibility for Member States to provide for use of the data not foreseen in the SIS II texts.

| 3. | Strict conditions should be applied when granting access to SIS II data to any authority:






  — | Access must be compatible with the general purpose of the SIS II, and consistent with its legal basis. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Strict conditions should be applied when granting access to SIS II data to any authority:

—

Access must be compatible with the general purpose of the SIS II, and consistent with its legal basis.

| — | The need for access to SIS II data must be demonstrated. |
| --- | --- |

—

The need for access to SIS II data must be demonstrated.

| — | The use that will be made of data must be defined explicitly and restrictively. |
| --- | --- |

—

The use that will be made of data must be defined explicitly and restrictively.

| — | The conditions of the access must be well defined and restricted. In particular, there should be an up-to-date list of persons entitled to access the SIS II also for Europol and Eurojust. |
| --- | --- |

—

The conditions of the access must be well defined and restricted. In particular, there should be an up-to-date list of persons entitled to access the SIS II also for Europol and Eurojust.

| — | The fact that these authorities are granted access to SIS II data can never be a ground for entering or maintaining data in the system if they are not useful for the specific alert they are part of. |
| --- | --- |

—

The fact that these authorities are granted access to SIS II data can never be a ground for entering or maintaining data in the system if they are not useful for the specific alert they are part of.

| — | The retention period of the data may not be extended where it is not necessary for the purpose for which the data was entered. |
| --- | --- |

—

The retention period of the data may not be extended where it is not necessary for the purpose for which the data was entered.

| 4. | In the specific cases of Europol and Eurojust the EDPS urges the Commission to define restrictively the tasks for the performance of which access would be justified. Access by Europol and Eurojust should moreover be restricted to data about individuals whose name already appears in their files. It is also suggested to grant only one access point in the cases of Europol and Eurojust. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the specific cases of Europol and Eurojust the EDPS urges the Commission to define restrictively the tasks for the performance of which access would be justified. Access by Europol and Eurojust should moreover be restricted to data about individuals whose name already appears in their files. It is also suggested to grant only one access point in the cases of Europol and Eurojust.

| 5. | Concerning the alerts for the purpose of refusing entry, the provisions based on not yet adopted legislation should be either withdrawn or redrafted in a way -based on existing legislation- that allows the individuals to know which measures exactly the authorities can take regarding him/her. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Concerning the alerts for the purpose of refusing entry, the provisions based on not yet adopted legislation should be either withdrawn or redrafted in a way -based on existing legislation- that allows the individuals to know which measures exactly the authorities can take regarding him/her.

| 6. | The retention periods of the data have been extended without any serious justification being put forward for this. If there is no convincing justification, they should be brought back to their current duration, particularly in the case of alerts for the purpose of discreet surveillance or specific checks. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The retention periods of the data have been extended without any serious justification being put forward for this. If there is no convincing justification, they should be brought back to their current duration, particularly in the case of alerts for the purpose of discreet surveillance or specific checks.

| 7. | The role of the Commission is described as one of a responsible for operational management. In combination with its major role in the development and maintenance of the system, this should be seen as the role of a sui generis controller. It is much more than that of a processor, but also more limited than that of a normal controller, since the Commission has no access to the data processed in the SIS II.
  In application of that role, it should be added in the Article 12 of both proposals that the Commission should regularly propose the implementation of new technologies which represent the state of the art in this field and which will enhance data protection and security levels. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The role of the Commission is described as one of a responsible for operational management. In combination with its major role in the development and maintenance of the system, this should be seen as the role of a sui generis controller. It is much more than that of a processor, but also more limited than that of a normal controller, since the Commission has no access to the data processed in the SIS II.

In application of that role, it should be added in the Article 12 of both proposals that the Commission should regularly propose the implementation of new technologies which represent the state of the art in this field and which will enhance data protection and security levels.

| 8. | Concerning the role of the Member States, clarification is needed as to authorities being controller. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Concerning the role of the Member States, clarification is needed as to authorities being controller.

| 9. | Concerning the information of the data subject:






  — | In the proposed Regulation, some information should be added to the list: the retention period of the data, the existence of the right to request a review or appeal of the decision to issue an alert, the possibility to obtain assistance from the data protection authority, and the existence of remedies.
  Moreover, as to the moment when this information is provided, an obligation to provide information about the alert in the decision which is the ground for the alert in the first place. |
| --- | --- | --- |

9.

Concerning the information of the data subject:

—

In the proposed Regulation, some information should be added to the list: the retention period of the data, the existence of the right to request a review or appeal of the decision to issue an alert, the possibility to obtain assistance from the data protection authority, and the existence of remedies.

Moreover, as to the moment when this information is provided, an obligation to provide information about the alert in the decision which is the ground for the alert in the first place.

| — | In the proposed Decision, Article 50 should be amended in order not to subject the right of information to a request of the data subject. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the proposed Decision, Article 50 should be amended in order not to subject the right of information to a request of the data subject.

| 10. | As to the deadlines for answering an access request, the imposition of deadlines in the proposals is welcome. When national legislations also impose deadlines, it should be made clear that the deadlines which are the most favourable to the data subject should be applied.
  Moreover, it would be useful to provide for an obligation of data protection authorities to cooperate actively in the exercise of the right of access. |
| --- | --- |

10.

As to the deadlines for answering an access request, the imposition of deadlines in the proposals is welcome. When national legislations also impose deadlines, it should be made clear that the deadlines which are the most favourable to the data subject should be applied.

Moreover, it would be useful to provide for an obligation of data protection authorities to cooperate actively in the exercise of the right of access.

| 11. | As to the right to remedies, the EDPS suggests dropping the territorial limitation in Article 30 and Article 52. |
| --- | --- |

11.

As to the right to remedies, the EDPS suggests dropping the territorial limitation in Article 30 and Article 52.

| 12. | Concerning the powers of the national data protection authorities:






  — | in the Regulation: it must be considered that they can exercise, with regard to the SIS II all the competences conferred to them by Article 28 of the Directive 95/46/EC; this should be clarified in the text of the proposed Regulation. |
| --- | --- | --- |

12.

Concerning the powers of the national data protection authorities:

—

in the Regulation: it must be considered that they can exercise, with regard to the SIS II all the competences conferred to them by Article 28 of the Directive 95/46/EC; this should be clarified in the text of the proposed Regulation.

| — | As to the proposed Decision: the supervisory authorities should be recognised the same powers as in the Regulation/Directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

As to the proposed Decision: the supervisory authorities should be recognised the same powers as in the Regulation/Directive.

| 13. | Concerning the competences of the EDPS: the EDPS should be able to exercise all his competences under Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, taking into account, however, the limited powers of the Commission with regard to the data themselves. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Concerning the competences of the EDPS: the EDPS should be able to exercise all his competences under Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, taking into account, however, the limited powers of the Commission with regard to the data themselves.

| 14. | As to coordinated supervision: the proposals also recognise the need to coordinate the supervisory activities of the different authorities involved. The EDPS welcomes the fact that they contain in essence the necessary elements to create the cooperation between the authorities in charge of supervision at national and European level. These provisions (Article 31 of the proposed Regulation and Article 53 of the proposed Decision) could however benefit from some clarifications of the content of that coordination. |
| --- | --- |

14.

As to coordinated supervision: the proposals also recognise the need to coordinate the supervisory activities of the different authorities involved. The EDPS welcomes the fact that they contain in essence the necessary elements to create the cooperation between the authorities in charge of supervision at national and European level. These provisions (Article 31 of the proposed Regulation and Article 53 of the proposed Decision) could however benefit from some clarifications of the content of that coordination.

| 15. | Articles 10 and 13 of the proposal contain various measures for data security; the inclusion of provisions on systematic (self-)auditing of security measures is welcome.






  — | However Article 59 of the proposed Decision and Article 34 of the proposed Regulation, which provide for monitoring and evaluation, should not only concern the aspects of output, cost-effectiveness and quality of services, but also compliance with legal requirements, especially in the field of data protection. These provisions should be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- | --- |

15.

Articles 10 and 13 of the proposal contain various measures for data security; the inclusion of provisions on systematic (self-)auditing of security measures is welcome.

—

However Article 59 of the proposed Decision and Article 34 of the proposed Regulation, which provide for monitoring and evaluation, should not only concern the aspects of output, cost-effectiveness and quality of services, but also compliance with legal requirements, especially in the field of data protection. These provisions should be amended accordingly.

| — | Moreover, in complement to Article 10 (1) (f) or Article 18 of the proposed Decision and Article 17 of the proposed Regulation, it should be added that Member States, Europol and Eurojust should ensure that precise user profiles are available (that should be kept at the disposal of the national supervisory authorities for checks). In addition to these user profiles, a complete list of user identities has to be made and kept permanently up-to-date by Member States. The same applies to the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

Moreover, in complement to Article 10 (1) (f) or Article 18 of the proposed Decision and Article 17 of the proposed Regulation, it should be added that Member States, Europol and Eurojust should ensure that precise user profiles are available (that should be kept at the disposal of the national supervisory authorities for checks). In addition to these user profiles, a complete list of user identities has to be made and kept permanently up-to-date by Member States. The same applies to the Commission.

| — | The lawfulness of the personal data processing operation is based on the strict respect of data security and data integrity. The EDPS should be enabled to monitor not only the security of data, but also their integrity through the analysis of the available logs. It is thus necessary to add ‘data integrity’ to Article 14 (6). |
| --- | --- |

—

The lawfulness of the personal data processing operation is based on the strict respect of data security and data integrity. The EDPS should be enabled to monitor not only the security of data, but also their integrity through the analysis of the available logs. It is thus necessary to add ‘data integrity’ to Article 14 (6).

| 16. | The use of national copies can entail many additional risks. The EDPS is neither convinced of the necessity (considering the available technologies) nor of the added value of the use of national copies. He recommends avoiding or at least seriously limiting the possibility for Member States to use national copies. However, if the national copies are to be developed, a strict purpose limitation principle must be applied to their national use. Similarly, the national copy may never be queried in other ways than the central database. |
| --- | --- |

16.

The use of national copies can entail many additional risks. The EDPS is neither convinced of the necessity (considering the available technologies) nor of the added value of the use of national copies. He recommends avoiding or at least seriously limiting the possibility for Member States to use national copies. However, if the national copies are to be developed, a strict purpose limitation principle must be applied to their national use. Similarly, the national copy may never be queried in other ways than the central database.

| 17. | On comitology: decisions with a substantial impact on data protection should be made by way of Regulation or Decision, preferably involving a co-decision procedure. Where the comitology procedure is actually used, the EDPS' advisory role should be included in Articles 60 and 61 of the Decision and Article 35 of the Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

17.

On comitology: decisions with a substantial impact on data protection should be made by way of Regulation or Decision, preferably involving a co-decision procedure. Where the comitology procedure is actually used, the EDPS' advisory role should be included in Articles 60 and 61 of the Decision and Article 35 of the Regulation.

| 18. | Interoperability of the systems can not be implemented in violation of the purpose limitation principle, and any proposal in this matter should be submitted to the EDPS. |
| --- | --- |

18.

Interoperability of the systems can not be implemented in violation of the purpose limitation principle, and any proposal in this matter should be submitted to the EDPS.

Done at Brussels on 19 October 2005.

Peter HUSTINX

European Data Protection Supervisor

---

(1)  It is useful in this context to refer to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others (Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01, Judgment of 20 May 2003, Full Court, (2003) ECR I-4989). The Court dealt with an Austrian law providing for the transfer of salary details on public sector employees to the Austrian Court of Auditors and their subsequent publication. In its judgment the Court lays down a number of criteria drawn from Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which should be used when applying Directive 95/46/EC in so far as this directive allows for certain restrictions to the right to privacy.

1

(2)  (COM (2005) 475 final).

2

(3)  It will also replace the general data protection regime of the Schengen Convention (Articles 126 to 130 of the Schengen Convention). This regime does not apply to the SIS.

3

(4)  A Member State using this option to restrict rights may only do so in compliance with Article 8 ECHR, as mentioned before.

4

(5)  Opinion of the EDPS on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Visa Information System and the exchange of data between Member States on short stay visas, 23 March 2005, pt 3.4.2.

5

(6)  27th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners, Montreux, 16 September 2005, Resolution on the use of biometrics in passports, identity cards and travel documents.

6

(7)  The assessment could be based on the so-called seven pillars of biometric wisdom in‘Biometrics at the frontiers: Assessing the impact on Society’ IPTS, DG-JRC, EUR 21585 EN, part 1.2, page 32.

7

in

(8)  In June 2004, a Lawyer from Portland (US) was jailed for two weeks because the FBI successfully matched his fingerprint with one found in the Madrid terrorist bombing (on the plastic bag which contained the detonator). It was finally demonstrated that the matching process was flawed and resulted to a misinterpretation.

8

(9)  Council Decision 2005/211/JHA of 24 February 2005 concerning the introduction of some new functions for the Schengen Information System, including the fight against terrorism, OJ L 68/44, 15.3.2005

9

(10)  Report of the Schengen Joint Supervisory Authority on an inspection of the use of Article 96 alerts in the Schengen Information System, Brussels, 20 June 2005.

10

(11)  In the same sense, see EDPS Opinion on the establishment of the Visa Information System, pt 3.10.1.

11

(12)  The supervisory authorities for Europol and Eurojust are also involved, but to a lesser extent.

12

(13)  See in the same sense, EDPS Opinion on the Visa Information System, Par. 3.12, and EDPS Opinion on the proposal for a Directive on the retention of data processed in connection of the provision of public electronic communication services issued on 26 September 2005, pt.60.

13

---