Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 on information measures relating to the common agricultural policy {SEC(2003) 506}
Date: 2003-05-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Community budget, EU financing, common agricultural policy, communications policy, public awareness campaign

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 8.5.2003
COM(2003) 235 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 814/2000
on information measures relating to the common agricultural policy

{SEC(2003) 506}

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 814/2000
on information measures relating to the common agricultural policy

I.

Brief Introduction

This  report  examines  the  implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 814/2000  for  the
years  2000,  2001  and  2002.  An  impact  assessment  of  the  measures  taken  under  this
Regulation will be made in the near future within the specific framework of the Commission
evaluation policy.

The objectives of the information measures on the Common Agricultural Policy as defined by
Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 are:

(cid:1)  helping to explain the CAP as well as to implement and develop it,

(cid:1)  promoting the European Model of Agriculture and helping people understand it,

(cid:1)  providing information for farmers and others living in rural areas,

(cid:1) 

raising public awareness of the issues and objectives of the CAP.

Actions fall into two main categories:

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

those submitted at the initiative of third party organisations for co-financing by EAGGF
which can be either programmes or specific actions

those at the initiative of the Commission and financed at a rate of 100% by EAGGF.

It was decided by the Council of Ministers (Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 814/2000) that a
report on the implementation of the Regulation should be presented to the Council and to the
European  Parliament  every  two  years,  with  the  first  one  to  be  presented  not  later  than
31 December 2001.

The original  implementing measures which  laid  out  the  detailed  rules  for  the  application  of
Regulation  (EC)  No 814/2000  and,  in  particular,  those  relating  to  grants  awarded  to  third
parties  were  contained  in  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 1390/2000  which  was  replaced
successively  by  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 1557/2001  and  by  Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2208/2002).

This  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  was  delayed  in  order  to  allow  a  fuller
assessment  of  the  implementation  of  the  Council  Regulation  in  the  light  of  the  experience
obtained  by  the  Commission  services  and  taking  into  account  changes  made  by  the
Commission in the implementing measures. The report also takes account of  comments and
feedback  from  interested  parties  in  civil  society,  from  individual  members  of  the  European
Parliament and from the professional agricultural organisations.

2

II.

1.

History

Budget

(cid:1)  The origin of our financed information policy lay with a line in the B2 part of the budget
that  was  used  to  finance  the  information  activities  of  CEPFAR  and  CEJA  (European
Farmers’ Information Organisation and European Young Farmers’ Organisation).

(cid:1)  Following  comments  by  the  Court  of  Auditors  in  1997  on  the  financing  of  four
agricultural NGO’s  under  B2-519, later to  become B2-5122, the Commission suppressed
the  100%  financing  of  information  actions  by  NGO’s  and  drew  up  a  vademecum  to
regulate the attribution of funds to various applicants.

(cid:1)  A second Vademecum was drawn up in 1998 and this was further adapted in 1999.

(cid:1)  Line B2-519 (B2-5122) was given extra credits and, in 1998, specific beneficiaries were
mentioned  by  the  Parliament  together  with  the  amounts  attributed  to  them.  In  1999  the
potential  beneficiaries  were  only  cited  as  examples  and  the  pre-attribution  of  credits
disappeared. The line was endowed with EUR 5,5 million and a number of beneficiaries at
European  level  from  the  world  of  agriculture  were  cited.  As  a  B2  line,  spending  on
information policy fell under non-obligatory expenditure.

(cid:1) 

In  1999  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 1258/1999  on  the  financing  of  the  CAP  placed
information measures on the CAP in the Guarantee section of EAGGF. It was decided that
from 2000 to 2005, information measures would be financed under B1-382 with an annual
budget of  EUR 4,5  million.  (The  breakdown  between  Grants  and  Commission  Initiatives
was foreseen as EUR 3,5 million for grants (3 million for programmes and 0,5 million for
specific actions) and 1 million for Commission initiatives.)

(cid:1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 provided the legal basis and political direction for

the expenditure on information policy on the CAP from B1-382.

(cid:1) 

In 2000 the European Parliament created a new budget line, B2-514, the object of which
was to finance pilot projects which would contribute to the survival of family farms in the
EU.  This  included  the  financing  of  farming  organisations  that  presented  information
projects.  The  Commission  was  concerned  that  these  actions  would  create  a  situation  of
“double emploi” with certain rural development measures. It was also extremely reluctant
to  take  on  any  new  “pilot  projects”  given  the  negative  experiences  of  the  past  in
DG Agriculture. Pilot Projects have no “legal basis” as they are supposed to pave the way
for  a  subsequent  Regulation  that  will  take  account  of  the  experience  gained  through
implementing  the  projects.  The  Parliament’s  budgetary  committee  took  on  board  the
Commission arguments and agreed that credits on B2-514 would be transferred to B1-382.
However, on 14  December 2000, the Parliament meeting in plenary session reintroduced
B2-514  by  amendment.  The  words  “pilot  projects”  had  been  omitted  but  the  problem
remains  that,  unlike  B1-382,  B2-514  still  has  no  legal  basis  and  cannot  be  executed.  No
expenditure has taken place from this budget line.

(cid:1) 

In 2001, EUR 4,5 million have been allocated to the budget line B1-382.

(cid:1)  For the  year 2002, as the funding possibilities obtained greater publicity,  EUR 2 million
more was  allocated in  order to respond to a higher demand.  Furthermore,  the  Parliament
decided  to  transfer  a  further  EUR 2  million  (which  had  previously  been  attributed  to

3

B2-514) to the general information line B1-382 so that B1-382 contained EUR 8,5 million
available for financing and co-financing of information actions.

2.

Three years of activity

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1390/2000: years 2000 and 2001

This  first  Commission  Regulation  implementing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 814/2000
stated:

(cid:1)  a  call  for  proposals  was  the  most  efficient  and  transparent  way  of  ensuring  that  grants
provided for under Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 received the widest publicity and that the
best measures were selected;

(cid:1)  eligibility  criteria,  grounds  for  exclusion  and  general  selection  criteria  should  be  laid

down in detail;

(cid:1)  as potential beneficiaries of the grants awarded under the Regulation can be organisations
without any clearly defined legal status, a guarantee should be demanded which is at least
equivalent to the amount of an advance of payment made by the Commission;

(cid:1)  Any  exceeding  of  50%  financing  (maximum  75%)  should  only  be  under  exceptional

circumstances.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1557/2001: year 2002

This Regulation guided 2002 activities, but the modifications introduced were minor and the
main lines of Regulation (EC) No 1390/2000 remained: the idea of  a call  for proposals was
still held to be the most transparent and efficient way of attracting good information actions
for co-financing, the provision of a bank guarantee as a condition for obtaining an advance on
final payment.

Those changes  which were made had  as  their  objective to clarify rules,  improve the regime
for  reception  and  treatment  of  applications  and  facilitate  the  recourse  to  “exceptional”
financing  at  the  75%  rate  of  certain  information  actions  which  were  deemed  to  be  of  a
particularly high value and interest. It was felt, for example, that existing criteria relating to
linguistic  interpretation  as  part  of  the  definition  of  “exceptional  actions”  would  be  more
relevant to more prosperous organisations and large transnational meetings than to small and
medium sized  farming  organisations  who, by their own  more local  nature  and  the  nature  of
their information actions, were less likely to have recourse to multi-lingual interpretation and
would be penalised. These criteria were modified and other small changes were made. These
small  changes of  the  existing Regulation were made  very  much  in  response  to  the  practical
difficulties  encountered  by  a  number  of  organisations  representing  small  and  medium  sized
farming enterprises and flagged to the Commission services.

III.

The Present

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2208/2002

The experience of the Commission services in the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 was that, while
actions  taken  at  the  Commission  initiative  had  proved  successful,  there  was  still  room  for
improvement of the implementing measures as regards the awarding of grants for information
actions  to  be  financed  from  budget  line  B1-382.  The  process  needed  some  streamlining  in

4

order to be able to better achieve the objectives of our policy, namely to inform farmers and
the general public about the major changes in political direction which followed the various
food  scares of  the late  nineties  and the crisis of consumer  confidence  in  farmers  and public
authorities which followed in their wake. Informal consultation with a number of agricultural
organisations that have benefited  over the  years  from the  awarding of  grants  confirmed  this
opinion.

Also, it was held that, in the new context, greater importance should be given to the impact of
the co-financed actions on the media and on a wider public. This was held to be of importance
in the context of the greater transparency and sensitivity to the many and varied demands of
civil  society  which  have  characterised  the  overall  political  climate  surrounding  agricultural
policy in the EU and further afield and which have become features of the CAP post Agenda
2000.

Regulation  (EC)  No 2208/2002  takes  the  process  a  step  further.  The  aims  of  the  new
Commission regulation that will guide grants activity in 2003 are:

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

to adapt the  information actions financed to the  current  priorities  of  the  CAP  (e.g.  CAP
Reform,  WTO  negotiations,  Enlargement)  by  defining  in  the  Call  for  Proposals  the
subjects to be treated in a given year,

to simplify procedures for those introducing requests for co-financing,

to  clarify  and  better  regulate  the  possibility  of  75%  financing  under  “exceptional
circumstances”,

to require applicants to have considered the wider impact of their information actions and
to provide with their application a media plan,

to  make  clear  the  costs  which  are  eligible  for  co-financing  by  introducing  a  system  of
benchmarking and thus to increase the operationality of the grants system.

The  Commission  felt  that,  by  taking  the  above  measures,  there  would  also  be  a  greater
harmonisation between actions put forward for co-financing by third parties and those actions
(publications, organisation of conferences, participation in agricultural fairs) carried out at the
initiative of the Commission.

IV.

1.

Breakdown of actions financed

Grants

Analysis of applications received from all countries in EU-15 in 2000, 2001 and 2002 shows a
steady annual increase (from 66 to 145 to 199 of which 27, 54 and 40 were applications for
co-financing  of  programmes  and  39,  91  and  159  were  applications  for  specific  measures  in
each  of  the  three  years).  However,  for  a  number  of  reasons,  most  often  mistakes  in  the
presentation of the applications but also due to the low standard of some of the information
actions presented, the trend for the number of actions co-financed is more static.

The successful applications for programmes in 2000, 2001 and 2002 were respectively 7, 15
and 4 (26 programmes) and for specific actions in the same period: 12, 25 and 24 (61 in total).
It  has  to  be  noted  that  each  programme  contains  a  number  of  actions  and  that  the
26 programmes financed contained 142 specific  actions bringing the overall total to 203  for
the  three  years.  Since  the  introduction  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 814/2000,  26  out  of

5

121 applications  for  co-financing  of  programmes  were  successful  and  61  out  of
289 applications for specific actions (See annex I - Tables concerning grants for 2000, 2001
and 2002 with mention of the co-financing rate).

The majority of programmes co-financed were from Belgium, which reflects the presence in
Belgium of a number of European umbrella farming organisations such as COPA-COGECA,
CEJA  and  AEFPR  but  figures  for  the  specific  actions  reveal  a  wider  distribution  with
significant numbers  of  actions  financed  in  France, Spain and  Italy.  This  reflects  the  general
interest in the CAP within these countries; similar trends can be seen in the amounts of visits
to Brussels requested by French, Spanish and Italian groups and in the volume of letters and
e-mail questions submitted to the services of DG Agriculture.

An  examination  of  the  themes  of  the  information  actions  co-financed  shows  that  by  far  the
most  sought  after  subject  is  the  CAP  in  general  and  CAP  reform  followed  by  Rural
Development,  WTO  issues,  Quality  Policy  and  Enlargement.  This  reflects  a  trend  in  the
applications but also in the choices made by the Commission services.

The kinds of action for which grants were awarded included seminars and conferences on the
CAP,  a  forum  on  women  in  agriculture,  information  visits  and  exchanges  between  farmers
from  different  member  states  and  visits  to  candidate  countries,  an  educational  project  for
school children throughout the community to explain the basics of agriculture and agricultural
policy,  information  visits  organised  by  agricultural  journalists,  the  publication  of  an
information  guide  on  food  safety  and  quality  aimed  at  consumers  and  books,  videos,
CD-ROMs and other publications on the  European  model  of  agriculture,  the  CAP  and  rural
development policy. The awarding of grants by the Commission is only made after a lengthy
selection process and it is hoped that the actions chosen for financing will have had as wide
an impact as possible. A formal evaluation of the impact of these measures will be made at a
later  stage  by  those  Commission  services  specifically  charged  with  evaluation  tasks  in  the
light,  namely,  of  the  type  of  organisation  carrying  out  the  actions,  the  subject  matter  and
instruments chosen and the public reached.

Individual organisations which were successful in obtaining co-financing of their information
programmes  include  the  traditional  beneficiaries  of  the  “pre  814/2000  information  policy
grants” such as COPA-COGECA and AEFPR (European Farmers and Co-operatives umbrella
organisations) and CEJA (young farmers) but also national consumer organisations, national
journalists  organisations,  European  environmental  organisations  and  Rural  Development
groups. A number of national member organisations of the European Umbrella organisations
were also successful as were some provincial/regional organisations and academic bodies.

2.

Actions at the Commission Initiative: Conferences, Fairs, Publications, etc.

External Technical Assistance

In  the  years  2000  and  2001  the  Commission  services  had  a  framework  contract  with  a
public  relations  company  which  was  instrumental  in  the  realisation  of  information  actions
taken at the Commission initiative. (Publications press packs and information folders, mailing
list, web-site, attendance at fairs, organisation of conferences, strategy and key messages).

In  2002  the  Commission  services  continued  their  programme  on  an  ad  hoc  basis,  working
with a number of Directorates General (OPOCE, SCIC, DG EAC and DG Administration) as
well  as  some  private  companies  with  framework  contracts  with  other  Commission  DG’s  to
realise their publications programme and to organise conferences and participation in fairs.

6

Following  a  tender  procedure  launched  in  2001,  one  contract  for  outside  assistance  was
signed in 2002 with an outside firm for writing of articles.

The Commission services are now in the final phases of a tender for external assistance that is
divided into a number of lots including strategy, media tools and technical assistance for fairs
and conferences.

Main actions undertaken in 2000, 2001 and 2002

Conferences

(cid:1) 

the CAP (Round Table on the Future of Farms in Hanover and common organisation of
the market [COM] for Fruit and Vegetables in Brussels);

(cid:1)  Rural Development (The Role of Agriculture in Rural Development in Washington);

(cid:1) 

the WTO negotiations Conferences in Paris with 24 developing countries  and in Estonia
and Mauritius (friends of multifunctionality;

(cid:1)  Enlargement with the Media of the 10 CEEC’s and Regional Offices in Brussels as well
as  seminars  for  media  representatives  from  10  CEEC’s  in  Maastricht  and  Brussels.  Two
major information events were organised for leading members of the agricultural world as
well  as  academics,  consumers,  press  and  other  citizens  from  all  the  candidate  countries,
including Turkey, in Riga and Prague;

(cid:1)  Annual  conferences  were  organised  in  Brussels  for  Agricultural  Press  and  Rural
Carrefours  on  general  CAP,  WTO  and  Enlargement  and  a  conference  on  Mountain
Agriculture was co-financed between DG AGRI and DG REGIO.

Agricultural fairs

In 2000 and 2001 the Commission services had stands at the Berlin Green Week, the Fair in
Libramont, Wallonia, the Paris Salon de l’Agriculture and in the International Fair (Salical) in
Rioja, Spain. In 2002, despite the lack of technical assistance, a major effort was also made to
“show  the  flag”  in  the  various  agricultural  fairs.  The  Commission  had  stands  in  the  Berlin
Green Week, the Paris Salon de l’Agriculture, the Salon Alimentaria in Barcelona, AGRIBEX
in Brussels as well as the fairs held in Verona and Hameelina (Finland).

An  innovative  aspect  of  the  stands  was  the  voluntary  co-operation  of  national  and  local
farmers’  and  interbranch  organisations  to  present  not  only  our  documentation  but  also
tangible experiences of quality agricultural production from these countries. For example, in
Paris,  olive  oil  tasting  demonstrations  as  well  as  information  relating  to  dairy  and  meat
products,  fruit  and  vegetables  and  flowers  were  organised  with  representatives  of  the
professional organisations participating actively and without charge on the Commission stand.

This type of joint action demonstrates clearly the complementarity of the Commission general
information actions under Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 and actions foreseen in the context
of other regulations governing information on agricultural products.

Another  partner  in  our  activity  was  the  Rural  Carrefour  network  that  accompanied
Commission staff in providing information on the stand. The presence of a Commission stand
in agricultural fairs provided a base for our participation in a number of other communication
activities in the context of the fairs involving press and professional organisations.

7

Publications

Publications include the monthly newsletter distributed through a mailing list that includes EU
and  international  institutions,  national,  regional  and  local  authorities,  socio-professional
organisations and specialised press.

The  publications  programme  included  a  number  of  specific  fact  sheets  on  issues  such  as
Agenda 2000, Women in Agriculture and the Agricultural Committees as well as a brochure
on Organic Farming that appeared in all 11 EU languages.

Reports and leaflets were published on COM’s, international and rural issues.

A  photographic  book  “A  Panorama  of  Rural  Development”  was  produced  with  the  kind
participation  of  Member  States  that  provided  the  photographic  material.  This  book  is  now
available and will be presented to ministers and delegates in the informal Council of Ministers
and SCA to be held in May 2003 in Corfu.

Reprints were made of a number of COM factsheets that reflects the interest in and demand
for these publications.

Key  messages  on  the  CAP  Mid-term  Review  and  Enlargement  issues  addressed  to  farmers,
food industry, consumers, press and civil society have also been prepared and revised.

A video was produced on the EU’s WTO position as well as specific publications for a press
pack  that  was  given  to  journalists  at  the  WTO  meeting  in  Doha.  A  video  was  made  on  the
Mid-Term  Review  and  updated  to  reflect  the  Commission  proposals  on  CAP  Reform  of
autumn 2002.

Website

Much of the information contained in the  publications is also made  available to  the  general
public  through  the  DG  AGRICULTURE  website  which  is  a  labour  saving  and  efficient
method of communicating to those who are already interested in learning more about the CAP
and  farm  and  food  policy  issues  in  general.  Links  are  provided  to  complementary
Commission and other sites.

Surveys

Questions were placed in the standard Eurobarometer with a view to monitor progress in the
general  public’s  awareness  of  the  CAP  and  related  issues.  It  has  to  be  said  that  increased
awareness  is  generally  small  but  the  base  of  awareness  discerned  in  the  answers  to  the
Eurobarometer questions on the CAP is also very low. Answers reflected the public’s concern
over  the  various  food  scares  which  characterised  2001  and  confirmed  that  the  most  widely
perceived messages  are those received through television and radio.  Unfortunately these are
also the most expensive media to use.

Two “flash” Eurobarometers were carried out, in which the general public was questioned on
its knowledge of the CAP, WTO, Food Safety and other issues linked to Agricultural policy.
The  general  lack  of  knowledge  revealed  in  these  surveys  seems  to  emphasise  the  need  to
continue an information policy and, if possible, to strengthen the overall level of information
actions  within  the  limits  set  by  the  available  budget  and  the  number  of  staff  available  to
execute  such  a  policy.  A  Eurobarometer  was  carried  out  in  the  candidate  countries.  The
perception of the CAP that emerged from these countries was, not surprisingly, variable and

8

reflects  the  greater  or  lesser  importance  of  agriculture  in  their  economy  and  to  the  persons
interviewed.

Annex II provides comprehensive breakdown of all initiatives taken during the period 2000-
2002  as  well  as  the  respective  costs.  To  be  noted  that  credits  committed  were:  2000  –
EUR 1 354 779; 2001 - EUR 650 594; 2002 - EUR 1 692 819,28.

3.

The proportion of spending between Commission initiatives and Grants

As it can be seen from annex III, the proportion of spending between grants and information
actions  undertaken  by  the  Commission  was  respectively  50,83%:  49,17%  in  2000,  77,51%:
22,49% in 2001 and 52,17%: 47,83% in 2002. For the whole period the amounts concerned
were of EUR 5 488 406 and EUR 3 698 192 which represent 59,74% for grants and 40,26%
for the Commission initiatives.

It is to be noted  that  the  annual  spending  figures  for  2000  were  lower  than  those  originally
committed. For years 2001 and 2002 spending figures are not  yet definitive as some actions
are still on going. Nevertheless, similar differences can be expected, as, in the case of grants,
not all payments made by the beneficiaries can be eligible. In the case of Commission actions
the differences are smaller and due to the commitments of maximum possible amounts.

V.

1.

Conclusion

The CAP is in the forefront of the response to changing world circumstances, as well
as to the new aspirations and expectations of citizens, consumers and taxpayers.

Our  information  policy  should  reflect  these  changes  by  being  an  instrument  which
explains clearly to all interested parties - farmers, food industry and trade - as well as
to civil society in general, the opportunities which exist for farmers and others living
in the rural environment to improve their standard of living whilst respecting nature
and preserving the landscape for future generations.

Regulation  (EC)  No  814/2000  is  a  solid  legal  basis  for  these  tasks  to  be  achieved.
The marriage of actions taken at the initiative of the socio-professional organisations
and  press  with  those  taken  more  directly  at  the  Commission  initiative  provides  a
good practical foundation for  a balanced and positive message to be developed and
transmitted.

The experience of the past three years seems to have been generally positive in terms
of  the  quality  of  actions  financed  and  co-financed.  The  future  evaluation  of  the
impact of the  measures  will  provide  the  appropriate  assessment  of  the  value  of  the
policy. The system for submitting an action for financing has been improved over the
years to take account of the experience and comments provided by the beneficiaries.
Nevertheless,  given the  risks  associated  with  direct management,  there is  a  need  to
ensure  that  EAGGF  funds  are  allocated  in  accordance  with  a  number  of  strict
procedures which are equitable and controllable. The standard of the applications for
actions  submitted  for  co-financing  needs  to  be  raised  so  that  fewer  actions  are
declared  ineligible.  This  applies  mainly  to  the  financial  and  budgetary  content  of
these  applications  and  to  the  sound  management  of  the  actions  themselves.  All
contracts  and  transactions  must  respect  the  new  Financial  Regulation  (EC)
No 1605/2002.

9

Precise internal rules have also been put in place to ensure that information actions
taken  at the  Commission  initiative  are  also  decided  for  good  reasons  and  that  their
impact is as great as possible.

2.

Experience indicates that there is no reason to modify at this stage the two pillars of
the  information  policy:  co-financed  actions  submitted  by  third  parties  (grants)  and
actions undertaken at the Commission initiative and financed at 100%.

The  breakdown  of  spending  between  these  two  pillars  should  be  maintained  at
similar levels.

The  European  farming  umbrella  organisations  remain  the  main  beneficiaries  of  the
grants policy. Even if small and medium sized family farming enterprises have still
not fully reaped the benefits of this policy as was initially hoped, efforts have been
made to ensure a better balance between different types of organisations. This effort
should be pursued.

Significant  change  regarding  the  nature  of  the  actions  is  not  to  be  expected.
However,  the  need  to  reinforce  the  media  content  of  the  actions  in  line  with  the
preoccupations  of  civil  society  and  the  challenges  facing  communicators  in  the
21st century has been recognised by the introduction in Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2208/2002 of the “media plan”.

Reflection  should  also  take  place  on  the  possibility  of  re-enforcing  dialogue  on
information  policy  with  the  Member  States’  representatives  in  the  context  of  the
Commission Annual Activity Programme.

Last  but  not  least,  the  coming  evaluation  and  impact  assessment  that  will  be
undertaken  by  the  Commission  services  will  provide  the  appropriate  guidance  to
improving  the  overall  cost/benefit  of  the  policy  and  the  efficacy  of  the  actions
undertaken in the contexts of both the grants and the Commission own initiatives.

Annexes : SEC(2003) 506

10