Proposal for a Council Decision extending to the non-participating Member States the application of Council Decision amending and extending Council Decision of 17 December 2001 establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles’ programme)
Date: 2005-04-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, action programme, euro, euro area, fight against crime, industrial counterfeiting

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.4.2005 
COM(2005) 127 final/2 

2005/0029 (CNS) 
2005/0030 (CNS) 

CORRIGENDUM 
Ce document annule et remplace le COM(2005)127 final  
du 6.4.2005 2005/0029 (CNS) et 2005/0030 (CNS) 
suite à des formules d’adoptions erronées. 
Concerne la version EN 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL  

concerning the implementation and continuation of the Pericles programme for the 
protection of the euro against counterfeiting 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL DECISION 

amending and extending Council Decision of 17 December 2001 establishing an 
exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against 
counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles’ programme)  

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL DECISION 

extending to the non-participating Member States the application of Council Decision 
amending and extending Council Decision of 17 December 2001 establishing an 
exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against 
counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles’ programme)  

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL  

concerning the implementation and continuation of the Pericles programme for the 
protection of the euro against counterfeiting 

1. 

GENERAL 

Pericles, the Community programme for exchange, assistance and training in the protection of 
the  euro  against  counterfeiting,  was  established  by  Council  Decision  of  17  December  2001 
(2001/923/EC)  and  is  designed  to  support  and  supplement  the  measures  undertaken  by  the 
Member  States  and  in  existing  programmes  to  protect  the  euro  against  counterfeiting.  Such 
measures  include  information  exchange  (seminars,  workshops,  meetings  and  conferences), 
placements and exchanges of staff, as well as technical, scientific and operational back-up. 

Article 1 of the Pericles Decision provides that the programme shall run from 1 January 2002 
to 31 December 2005. Article 6 of the Decision set a reference amount of 4 million euro for 
the programme.  

Article  13  (3)  of  the  Pericles  Decision  provides  that  the  Commission  shall  send  to  the 
European Parliament and the Council, by 30 June 2005: 

–  a  report,  independent  from  the  programme  manager,  evaluating  the  relevance,  the 

efficiency and the effectiveness of the programme; and 

–  a  communication  on  whether  this  programme  should  be  continued  and  adapted, 

accompanied by an appropriate proposal. 

The evaluation report of the Pericles Programme was submitted on 30 November 2004.  

This  communication  takes  into  consideration  the  conclusions  and  recommendations  of  the 
evaluation report; it provides information concerning the implementation of the programme; 
and is consequently accompanied by a proposal for an extension and adaptation of the initial 
Decision. 

2. 

DEVELOPMENTS IN EURO COUNTERFEITING 

Since  early  Summer  2003,  the  number  of  counterfeit  euro  banknotes  detected  in  circulation 
has stabilised at about 50 000 a month, a level below the pre-euro levels, lower than the US 
dollar and extremely low compared to the nine billion genuine euro banknotes in circulation. 
At  the  same  time,  the  number  of  counterfeit  euro  coins  is  continuing  to  increase  but  also 
remains low by historical standards. In addition, the police forces have successfully conducted 
a  number  of  operations  to  dismantle  workshops  and  seize  large  numbers  of  counterfeit 
banknotes and coins before they enter into circulation. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
Tables 1a and 1b summarise developments in the counterfeiting of euro banknotes and coins.  

Table 1a 

  Table 1b 

Counterfeit euro banknotes detected in circulation 

  Counterfeit euro coins detected in circulation 

2002 - 2004 

2002 - 2004 

Jan-Jun 2002 

Jul-Dec 2002 

Year 2002 

Jan-Jun 2003 

Jul-Dec 2003 

Year 2003 

Jan-Jun 2004 

Jul-Dec 2004 

21965 

145153 

230534 

311925 

307000 

287000 

Jan-Jun 2002 

Jul-Dec 2002 

167118 

Year 2002 

Jan-Jun 2003 

Jul-Dec 2003 

542459 

Year 2003 

Jan-Jun 2004 

Jul-Dec20 04 

68 

2271 

8100 

18091 

36191 

38309 

2339 

26191 

Year 2004 

594000 

Year 2004 

74500 

Source: ECB 

  Source: Commission 

This  overall  favourable  situation  is  the  result  of  a  long  preparation  at  both  legislative  and 
institutional  level  and  demonstrates  the  high  level  of  cooperation  achieved  in  EU  and  at 
international level. The Commission set out the basic ideas for the protection of the euro in a 
Communication  it  published  as  early  as  19981.  On  that  basis,  the  Council  adopted  a  basic 
Regulation in 20012, laying the institutional foundations for the protection structure; that was 
preceded  by  a  Council  Framework  Decision3,  adopted  in  2000,  by  which  protection  of  the 
euro  with  criminal  penalties  is  strengthened  and,  to  some  extent,  harmonised.  And,  in  1999 
Europol’s  mandate  was  extended  to  include  money  counterfeiting4.  With  regard  to  criminal 
sanctions,  the  Commission  has  published  two  reports5  on  the  implementation  of  the  above-
mentioned Framework Decision, which show a satisfactory level of implementation. 

With a view to ensuring the clear structure in the fight against currency counterfeiting as well 
as close cooperation and efficient flow of information National Central Offices (NCO) were 
established in all Member States. Databases and communication systems are operating in the 
ECB and Europol. Dedicated bodies were created for the technical analysis of counterfeits in 
the Member States, the ECB - for banknotes, and the Commission - for coins. 

The  Pericles  programme  is  playing  a  significant  role  in  achieving  the  present  results  in  the 
protection of the euro and the fight against the crime of counterfeiting, through the exchange 
of information and the development of cooperation. Continuing vigilance is needed in order to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

The Communication of the Commission of 22 July 1998 to the Council, the European Parliament and 
the ECB entitled ‘Protection of the euro- combating counterfeiting’ COM(98) 474 final. 
OJ  L  181,  4/7/2001  Council  Regulation  (EC)  no  1338/2001  laying  down  measures  necessary  for  the 
protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting;  and  OJ  L  181,  4/7/2001  Council  Regulation  (EC)  no 
1339/2001 extending the effects of Regulation (EC) N° 1338/2001 to those Member States which have 
not adopted the euro as their single currency. 
OJ L 140, 29/05/2000 Council Framework Decision on increasing protection by criminal penalties and 
other sanctions against counterfeiting in connection with the introduction of the euro. 
OJ  C  149/16,  28/05/1999  Council  Decision  of  29.04.1999  extending  Europol’s  mandate  to  deal  with 
forgery of money and means of payment. 
Commission  Report  COM(2001)  771  of  13.12.2001;  Second  Commission  Report  COM(2003)  532  of 
03.09.2003. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
maintain and build on the results currently achieved in the fight euro counterfeiting. Training 
and technical assistance plays an important role in this respect, hence the need to continue the 
Pericles programme. 

3. 

THE EVALUATION REPORT 

In line with Article 13 of the Pericles Decision, the evaluation of the Pericles programme was 
assigned to the independent auditor of the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) who submitted 
the evaluation report on 30 November 2004. 

The evaluator examined the files of 21 of the Pericles actions carried out until March 2004, on 
Member  State  or  Commission  initiative.  Based  on  questionnaires  to  organisers  and 
participants,  as  well  as  discussions  with  stake  holders,  he  reached  the  following  main 
conclusions6: 

–  The programme has improved awareness of the Community dimension of the euro and has 
also  developed  a  greater  understanding  amongst  the  participants  of  the  related  laws  and 
instruments and in particular of the relevant Community and broader European law. 

–  With  regard  to  the  range  of  information  exchanges  and  methodologies/measures,  most 

have been presented in the various workshops, meetings and seminars. 

–  The  target  groups  for  the  programme  have  been  reached  in  part  with  a  very  high 
participation  by  law  enforcement  officials;  attendance  by  commercial  banking  sector, 
specialist lawyers or chambers of commerce was not sufficient. 

–  The activities examined were considered relevant to and among the main objectives of the 

programme. 

–  In terms of costs, the evaluator found that some of the projects were particularly costly and 

highlighted specific cost items. 

The evaluator made the following main recommendations: 

–  The  programme  should  continue  for  a  further  4  years  at  least  with  the  same  budget  (€  1 
million  per  year)  and  with  the  same  measures  and  target  groups.  A  second  evaluation 
should take place after four years. 

–  The programme should continue to be available to all Member States but a priority should 
be  given  (in  the  first  instance)  to  those  with  low  participation  or  who  did  not  organise 
actions in the first programme, as well as the new Member States.  

–  Emphasis should be put on practical training. There should be a prioritisation in favour of 
staff exchanges and specific training, including case studies. These activities are also more 
cost efficient. 

6 

Evaluation Report, p. 4, 21, 22 and 23. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  Co-operation  between  the  European  institutions/bodies  (Commission/OLAF,  ECB  and 
Europol) should be further developed so as to eliminate any overlapping between different 
programmes and to further improve the co-ordination of the main actors (law enforcement, 
banks, prosecutors) in the fight against euro counterfeiting. 

–  With regard to the effect of the programme on the convergence of high level training for 
trainers, it was not possible to make an assessment as there was not sufficient information 
on the link between national strategies and the activities under Pericles.  

–  With a view to enabling the assessment of the effect of the programme, among others on 
the  convergence  of  high  level  training  for  trainers,  the  evaluator  recommends  the 
preparation  of  a  strategy  document,  to  be  finalised  before  the  new  Pericles  enters  into 
effect. 

4. 

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME 

Based on the reference amount of EUR 4 million, the annual appropriations authorised under 
the Pericles programme, were EUR 1.2 million for 2002; EUR 0.9 million for 2003; EUR 0.9 
million for 2004; and EUR 1.0 million for 2005. 

The  implementation  of  the  Programme  made  a  slow  start,  mainly  due  to  its  adoption  in 
December 2001. Thus, the first project under Pericles was only carried out in October 2002 
and  the  amount  committed  in  2002  was  just  under  40%  of  the  initial  budget  allocation  (the 
allocation was reviewed downwards in the course of the year). Subsequently, the programme 
took off and the budget allocation was completely committed in 2003 and 2004. Intentions for 
2005  show  that  the  remaining  amount  will  also  be  completely  consumed.  Based  on  these 
statistics/forecasts, the overall level of commitments during the period 2002-2005 will reach 
80% of the initial reference amount. 

The main aggregates in the implementation of Pericles are shown on Table 2. 

TABLE 2 

PERICLES - SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION 2002 – 2004 AND INTENTIONS FOR 2005 

Financial year  Number of 

Initiating MS   Main Target 

actions 

Groups 

Number of 
participants 

Grant 
commitments 

Budget 
allocation 

Level of consumption

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 
(intentions) 

TOTAL 
(estimates) 

7 

MS 

5 

COM   2 

16 

MS 

2 

COM  4 

15 

MS  

11 

COM   4 

18 

MS 

13 

COM  5 

56 

MS 

41 

COM  15 

DE, IT, ES, 
EL, (NL+UK) 

Police, financial 

366 

474 905 

1 200 000 

39.6 % 

PT, IT, DE, ES, 
FR, FI, EL 

Police, judiciary, 
financial, 
commerce 

AT, FR, DE, 
EL, IT, ES, PT, 

Police, judiciary, 
financial, banks 

SI, FR, DE, 
LT, IT, ES, 
LV, CY, PO 

Financial, banks, 
police, judiciary, 
commerce 

753 

875 701 

900 000 

97.3 % 

586 

879 263 

900 000 

97.7 % 

888 

987 000 

1 000 000 

98.7 % 

2593 

3 216 869 

4 000 000 

80.4 % 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
In  the  course  of  the  first  three  years  of  the  programme  38  projects  were  initiated;  for  2005 
another 18 actions  are intended by the Member States and the Commission. Of the total  56 
projects, 41 originate at the competent authorities of Member States, while 15 are an initiative 
of the Commission/OLAF.  

Most  of  the  actions  carried  out  are  conferences,  seminars  and  workshops,  as  well  as 
specialised  training  courses.  Staff  exchange  has,  nonetheless,  gained  ground  and  has  now 
become a standard feature of Pericles. Following enlargement, this type of activity is likely to 
develop further, which is also in line with the recommendation of the Pericles evaluator. Only 
one technical study was undertaken under the current Pericles, which is planned to continue at 
a broader level in 2005. The analysis of Pericles by type of project is shown in Table 3. 

TABLE 3  PERICLES – ANALYSIS BY TYPE OF ACTION 2002 – 2005 

Financial 
year 
2002 
2003 
2004 

2005 
(intentions) 

TOTAL 
(estimates) 

Conferenc
e-type 

Staff 
exchange 

Studies 

Total 

6 

11 

10 

12 

39 

1 

4 

5 

5 

15 

- 

1 

- 

1 

2 

7 

16 

15 

18 

56 

Almost  2600  persons  participated  in  these  events.  In  earlier  periods  the  large  majority  of 
participants  were  law  enforcement  agents,  reflecting  the  priority  to  establish  closer 
professional  ties  for  a  more  efficient  fight  against  euro  counterfeiting.  In  that  respect,  the 
evaluation  report  (p.  10  and  11)  shows  that,  until  March  2004,  65%  of  participants  were 
mainly  from  law  enforcement  agencies.  As  of  2003,  a  greater  involvement  of  judiciary 
authorities is observed, while as of 2004 and 2005, there is a more pronounced participation 
of  the  financial  sector  (public  sector  financial  intermediaries,  National  Central  Banks, 
commercial  banking  and  other  financial  institutions).  This  development  is  in  line  with  the 
recommendation  of  the  evaluator,  while  the  organisation  of  more  technical  seminars  is  also 
being  promoted.  In  managing  the  programme,  it  was  sought  to  avoid  overlapping  in 
participation; and the evaluation report notes that this was achieved.  

In  terms  of  origin  of  the  participants,  the  evaluation  report  notes  that  these  came  from  76 
countries,  with  a  majority  from  Member  States.  It  was  noted  that  some  countries  showed  a 
low  level  of  participation,  among  them  some  of  the  euro  area  countries.  This  situation  may 
reflect  organisational  rather  than  structural  situations  and  an  effort  to  balance  it  is  currently 
under way. Some countries are more active in organising events, with Italy representing over 
21% of the total number of activities. As of 2005, the new Member States became active in 
organising Pericles actions. 

As the evaluation report also mentions (p. 14) that the organisation of Pericles actions covered 
all  the  areas  relevant  to  the  protection  of  the  euro:  law  enforcement,  judicial,  financial  and 
technical  and  promoted  particularly  the  creation  of  networks  useful  for  achieving  greater 
efficiency in the fight against the crime of counterfeiting. Contributions at the Pericles actions 
are ensured by the ECB, the Commission, Europol and, in some cases, Eurojust, Interpol and 
the US Secret Service. With regard to the aspects of euro protection, where the responsibility 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
belongs  to  the  Member  States,  expertise  was  systematically  sought  in  their  specialised 
services. 

The  Pericles  actions  take  place  mostly  inside  the  EU.  However,  a  number  of  actions  have 
been organised in third or candidate countries, reflecting the specific needs to protect the euro. 
Such is the case with actions undertaken in Colombia, for all South American countries and 
Bulgaria, also including other South-Eastern European countries. 

As a result, the transnationality and multidisciplinarity required under Article 3 of the Pericles 
Decision  have  been  respected,  with  the  latter  pursued  both  at  the  level  of  professional 
background of the participants and in terms of the content of the actions.  

In line with Article 5 of the Pericles Decision, the programme is implemented and coordinated 
by the Commission and the Member States working closely together. The coordination of the 
Pericles  and  other  training  actions  is  carried  out  at  the  Commission’s  Euro  Counterfeiting 
Experts  Group,  which  brings  together  experts  from  all  Member  States  and  candidate 
countries, with participation of Europol, the ECB and Interpol. This is in also line with Recital 
(7) of the Pericles Decision. 

Pericles has now practically centralised Community level carried out by the Commission and 
Member States action with respect to the protection of the euro and has also largely replaced 
the  Commission’s  specific  ‘Protection  of  the  euro’  budget  line.  A  small  number  of  actions 
geared  on  the  protection  against  currency  counterfeiting  are  carried  out  under  other 
Community  programmes,  such  as  TAIEX  and  Twinning.  Such  actions  are  mainly  single-
country  or  single-subject  actions  (i.e.  not  eligible  under  Pericles)  and  are  systematically 
coordinated  with  Pericles  by  the  competent  service  in  the  Commission  in  coordination  with 
Member States.  

In addition to their awareness and training content, the Pericles actions have led to a number 
of structural and other improvements in Member Sates and in third countries. Among others, 
National Central Offices for the fight against counterfeiting were created in several countries; 
two Pericles seminars assisted the (then) acceding countries in their efforts to apply the acquis 
in the  specific area;  a  code  of  conduct was drawn with respect to press  and  communication 
issues;  and  one  of  the  workshops  led  to  a  proposal,  by  Member  States,  for  a  Council 
recommendation. 

* * * 

In line with the above analysis and in the light of the conclusions of the evaluator of Pericles, 
this  Communication  is  accompanied  by  a  proposal  for  the  adaptation  and  continuation  of 
Pericles. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

In line with Article 13 of Council Decision of 17 December 2001 establishing an exchange, 
assistance  and  training  programme  for  the  protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting  (the 
‘Pericles’ programme) and based on the Pericles evaluation report of 30 November 2004, it is 
proposed that the Council Decision be extended and amended. 

The  proposed  period  for  extension  is  six  years  and  the  reference  amount  unchanged  at  one 
million euro per year. The adaptations proposed concern the increase of the proportion of co-
financing  by  the  Community  budget;  the  introduction  of  flexibility  in  the  number  of 
applications  by  each  Member  State  and  consequent  coordination;  and  the  extension  of  the 
content  of  the  technical  and  operational  back-up  to  administrative  support  for  active 
investigations, with intermediation by Europol. 

Proposed extension and amount 

In line also with the recommendation of the evaluator of Pericles, it is appropriate to extend 
the Pericles programme, based on the need to: 

–  continue  vigilance  in  order  to  maintain  or  reduce  the  current  level  of  euro  banknote 
counterfeiting and avoid any increase in euro coin counterfeiting that would undermine the 
confidence of the public; 

–  train/inform new staff and extend the training to sectors that have less benefited from the 

Pericles programme, namely financial agents, prosecutors and technical staff; 

–  train relevant staff in the features of the new generation of the euro banknotes, to be issued 

at the end of this decade; 

–  particularly  insist  on  training  and  technical  assistance  in  the  new  Member  States,  with 

priority to those who will first introduce the euro as their single currency. 

The complete consumption of the Pericles programme in the last three years of its programme 
shows the importance of maintaining this facility. 

The  question  of  the  extension  of  Pericles  was  discussed  at  the  Commission’s  Euro 
Counterfeiting  Experts  Group,  which  considered,  at  its  meeting  of  16  November  2004,  a 
presentation made by the Pericles evaluator. The Group unanimously supports the extension 
of the programme. 

It is proposed to extend the programme for a further six years – until the end of 2011. This is 
founded on: 

–  the  need,  perceived  in  the  evaluation,  to  cover  new  entries  in  the  euro  area.  Current 
prospects are that some of the recent entrants to the EU would join the euro area in the year 
2010. The programme should last at least a year after the last wave of euro entry; 

–  the  need  to  have  a  stable  framework  for  training/information  exchange  and  technical 
assistance. Member States normally have a national training programme designed for the 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
ground-level  staff,  which  is  completed  by  a  European  level  training,  under  Pericles.  The 
need to efficiently manage both levels requires a sufficiently long medium-term European 
framework. 

With regard to the amount of the programme, account is taken on the one hand of the larger 
number of potential beneficiaries and, on the other, of the fact that part of the relevant staff 
has  already  been  trained  and  that  a  further  rationalisation  of  the  expenditure  is  likely.  The 
conjunction of the two factors points to the proposal for an unchanged yearly amount of one 
million euro per year – 6 million euro in total. 

In line with the above, it is proposed to modify Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Pericles Decision 
to  define  as  new  end-date  31  December  2011;  and  article  6  to  set  the  reference  amount  at 
EUR 6 million. 

Adaptations proposed 

1. 

The maximum proportion of Community financing to be raised to 80% (Articles 10 
and 11) 

Practice  has  shown  that  Member  States  encounter  organisational  difficulties  in  coping  with 
the  national  contribution  of  30%,  particularly  the  ones  with  more  limited  financing 
possibilities. This has meant that a number of actions that were considered to be useful were 
not carried out or were carried out as a Commission initiative. Moreover, in the course of the 
course  of  assessment  of  the  projects,  the  relevant  committee  sometimes  considered  cases 
where  the  contribution  of  Member  States  seemed  artificially  high  and  recommended 
appropriate modification. The Pericles evaluator also identified the need for rationalisation of 
the cost in some of the projects. 

To  the  extent  that  Member  States  have  now  acquired  more  experience  in  implementing 
Pericles, it is likely that this proposed modification would not lead to an overall increase in 
the subsidy amount disbursed.  

The  limit  of  80%  also  applies  to  the  similar  Community  Programme  Hercules  for  the 
protection of the Community’s financial interests7, as far as grants to public administrations 
are concerned. 

Consequently, it is proposed to modify Articles 10 and 11 by replacing the reference to 70% 
with 80%.  

2. 

Flexibility in the limitation of one country-one seminar-type project (Article 12) 

The provision that Member States may present no more than one seminar-type project a year 
has introduced an asymmetry in the implementation of the programme, to the extent that the 
training  and  cooperation  needs  and  the  equivalent  possibilities  vary  among  countries. 
Typically,  larger  countries,  due  to  the  need  to  train  larger  number  of  staff,  devote  ampler 
financial and other means for training and conferences including under Pericles.  

7 

Decision  N°  804/2004/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  21  April  2004,  OJ  L  143, 
30.4.2004, p. 9. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
This  has  meant,  under  the  current  Pericles  programme,  that  countries  wishing  to  carry  out 
more than one project per year have had to artificially group the actions in one project, which 
complicated the assessment and the implementation of the action. As a result, it is proposed to 
introduce flexibility to that restriction, by modifying the second sub-paragraph of Article 12 
paragraph 1 to provide that “As a rule, Member States may present …”.  

The alleviation of that restriction means that, in the event more than one project is submitted 
by  one  country,  then  coordination  would  need  to  be  ensured  by  the  competent  national 
authority  in  that  Member  State.  An  additional  sub-paragraph  is  proposed  to  that  effect  in 
Article 12 paragraph 1. 

3. 

Possibility 
to 
investigations (Article 3(3)) 

finance  administrative  expenditure 

related 

to  cross-border 

The  current  Pericles  programme  does  not  explicitly  provide  for  financing  of  administrative 
support related to cross-border investigations. This financing refers to practices necessary for 
police  investigations  (information  rewards  etc)  or  actions  such  as  hiring  cars,  renting  of 
equipment,  travel  and  subsistence  of  police  or  other  agents  etc.  Until  now,  it  has  been  of 
modest  amounts  (below  50 000  euro)  and  is  currently  provided  by  the  ECB  concerning 
counterfeit  euro  banknotes.  There  is  a  prospect  that  the  ECB  would  hand  over  this 
responsibility  to  Europol,  as  regards  police  operations.  There  would  nonetheless  remain  a 
need  to  finance  similar  expenditure  in  areas  not  covered  by  the  ECB  financing,  such  as 
counterfeit  euro  coins,  as  well  as  expenditure  related  to  non  police  staff  (judiciary,  customs 
etc).  

It is therefore proposed to add a point (d) in Article 3, paragraph 3, concerning the possibility 
to co-finance, subject to prior assessment by Europol, administrative support to cross-border 
investigations,  when  not  covered  by  financing  from  other  European  institutions.  This 
possibility was discussed and supported by the Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group based on 
requests  by  Europol  and  Member  States,  particularly  as  regards  coin-related  expenditure. 
Financing  under  that  heading  should  give  priority  to  actions  outside  the  euro  area  and  not 
exceed 100 000 euro annually. 

4. 

Modification of deadlines 

It is proposed to modify the deadlines referred to in Article 13, paragraph 3 as follows: 

–  in point (a) replace “30 June 2005” with “30 June 2011”; 

–  in point (b) define an additional deadline at 30 June 2012. 

The date of application in Article 15 should be 1 January 2006. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
2005/0029 (CNS) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL DECISION 

amending and extending Council Decision of 17 December 2001 establishing an 
exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against 
counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles’ programme)  

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the third 
sentence of Article 123(4) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission8, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament9, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank10, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

According to Article 13(a) of Council Decision (2001/923/EC) of 17 December 200111 
establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the 
euro against counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles’ programme), the Commission shall send to 
the European Parliament and to the Council “by 30 June 2005 a report, which shall be 
independent of the  programme manager, evaluating the relevance, the efficiency and 
the effectiveness of the programme and a communication on whether this programme 
should be continued and adapted, accompanied by an appropriate proposal”. 

The evaluation report provided for in line with Article 13 of that Decision was issued 
on  30  November  2004.  It  concludes  that  the  programme  has  been  achieving  its 
objectives and recommends the continuation of the programme for a further four years 
at least with the same yearly budget of one million euro. 

A financial reference amount, within the meaning of point 34 of the interinstitutional 
Agreement  of  6  May  1999  between  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the 
Commission on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure is 
inserted in this Decision for the entire duration of the programme, without the powers 
of the budgetary authority as defined by the Treaty being affected thereby. 

8 
9 
10 
11 

OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
OJ L 339, 21.12.2001, p.50-54. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

The continuation of the programme reflects the need for continuing vigilance, training 
and technical assistance necessary to sustain the protection of the euro. An extension 
of  six  years,  subject  to  approval  of  the  new  financial  perspectives,  could  provide  a 
stable framework for the planning of Member States programmes, particularly over a 
period during which new countries become participants in the euro. 

The  efficiency  of  the  programme  in  protecting  the  euro  could  be  enhanced  if  the 
technical support were enlarged to also provide, with the involvement of Europol, for 
administrative support for cross border investigations; and could benefit from a greater 
flexibility in the proportion of the costs the Community may bear and in the number of 
projects one Member State may present. 

(6) 

Council Decision 2001/923/EC should therefore be amended accordingly, 

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: 

Article 1 
Amendments 

Council Decision (2001/923/EC) of 17 December 2001 establishing an exchange, assistance 
and  training  programme  for  the  protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting  (the  ‘Pericles’ 
programme) is amended as follows: 

1. 

The following sentence is inserted at the end of Article 1(2): 

“The  programme  shall  run  for  an  additional  period  from  1  January  2006  to  31 
December 2011.”. 

2. 

The following point (d) is added to Article 3, paragraph 3: 

“(d)  administrative  support  for  cross  border  investigations,  subject  to  prior 
assessment  by  Europol,  when  such  support  is  not  available  by  other  European 
institutions.”. 

3. 

Article 6, first paragraph is replaced by the following: 

“The  financial  reference  amount  for  the  implementation  of  the  Community 
programme of action for the period referred to in Article 1(2) last sentence shall be 
EUR 6 million.”. 

4. 

Article 10(1) first sentence is replaced by the following: 

“The Community shall bear up to 80% of the cost of the operational support referred 
to in Article 3(2) by way of co-financing, in particular:”. 

In Article 11 the reference to the percentage 70% is replaced by “80%”. 

The  following  words  are  added  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  sub-paragraph  of 
Article 12(1): “As a rule,”. 

The following third sub-paragraph is added to Article 12(1): 

5. 

6. 

7. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
8. 

9. 

“In case more than one proposals are presented by one Member State, coordination is 
carried out by the national competent authority defined in Article 2(b) fourth indent 
of Regulation 1338/2001.”. 

In Article 13(3) point (a) the reference to the date “30 June 2005” is replaced by “30 
June 2011”. 

Article 13(3) point (b) is replaced by the following: 

“on  completion  of  the  initial  and  the  additional  periods  of  the  programme  and  no 
later 
the 
than  30  June  2006  and  2012  respectively,  detailed  reports  on 
implementation and the results of the programme setting out in particular the added 
value of the Community’s financial assistance.”. 

Article 2 
Applicability 

This  Decision  shall  have  effect  in  the  participating  Member  States  as  defined  in  Regulation 
(EC) No 974/98. 

Article 3 
Entry into force 

This  Decision  shall  take  effect  on  the  day  of  its  publication  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the 
European Communities. 

It shall apply from 1 January 2006. 

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
2005/0030 (CNS) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL DECISION 

extending to the non-participating Member States the application of Council Decision 
amending and extending Council Decision of 17 December 2001 establishing an 
exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against 
counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles’ programme)  

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

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

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission12, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament13, 

Whereas: 

(1)  When  adopting  Decision  […]14  the  Council  indicated  that  it  should  apply  in  the 
participating  Member  States  as  defined  in  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  974/98  of  3 
May 1998 on the introduction of the euro15 

(2) 

However,  the  exchange  of  information  and  staff  and  the  assistance  and  training 
measures  implemented  under  the  Pericles  programme  should  be  uniform  throughout 
the Community and the requisite provisions should therefore be taken to guarantee the 
same level of protection for the euro in the Member States where the euro is not their 
official currency, 

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: 

The  application  of  Decision  […]  shall  be  extended  to  Member  States  other  than  the 
participating Member States as defined in Regulation (EC) No 974/1998. 

Article 1 

12 
13 
14 
15 

OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
See page [x] of this Official Journal. 
OJ L 139, 11.5.1998, p.1. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Article 2 

This  Decision  shall  take  effect  on  the  day  of  its  publication  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the 
European Communities. 

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

1. 

NAME OF THE PROPOSAL : 

Council  Decision  of  […]  amending  and  extending  Council  Decision  of  17  December  2001 
establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against 
counterfeiting (the ‘Pericles’ programme)  

2. 

ABM / ABB FRAMEWORK 

Policy Area(s) concerned and associated Activity/Activities: Fight against fraud. 

3. 

BUDGET LINES 

3.1. 

Budget lines (operational lines and related technical and administrative assistance lines (ex- 
B..A lines)) including headings : 

24 02 02 Pericles 

3.2. 

Duration of the action and of the financial impact: 

From 1 January 2006 until 31 December 2011 

3.3. 

Budgetary characteristics (add rows if necessary) : 

Budget 
line 

24 02 02 

Type of expenditure 

New 

EFTA 
contribution 

Contributions 
from applicant 
countries 

Heading in 
financial 
perspective 

Non 
Comp 

Diff 

 NO 

NO 

NO 

No 3 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
4. 

SUMMARY OF RESOURCES 

4.1. 

Financial Resources 

4.1.1.  Summary of commitment appropriations (CA) and payment appropriations (PA) 

Expenditure type 

Secti
on 
no. 

Operational expenditure16 

Commitment 
Appropriations (CA) 

8.1 

Payment  Appropriations 
(PA) 

a 

b 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Year n 

n + 1 

n + 2 

n + 3 

n + 4 

n + 5 
and 
later 

Total 

1,000  1,000  1,000  1,000  1,000  1,000  6,000 

0,500  1,000  1,000  1,000  1,000  1,500  6,000 

Administrative expenditure within reference amount17: none 

TTOOTTAALL  RREEFFEERREENNCCEE  AAMMOOUUNNTT  

Commitment 
Appropriations 

a+c  1,000  1,000  1,000  1,000  1,000  1,000  6,000 

Payment Appropriations 

b+c  0,500  1,000  1,000  1,000  1,000  1,500  6,000 

 Administrative expenditure not included in reference amount18 

Human 
associated 
(NDA) 

resources 

and 
expenditure 

Administrative  costs,  other 
than  human  resources  and 
associated 
not 
included in reference amount 
(NDA) 

costs, 

0,207  0,207  0,207  0,207  0,207  0,207  1,242 

0,090  0,090  0,090  0,090  0,090  0,090  0,540 

8.2.5 

d 

8.2.6 

e 

Total indicative financial cost of intervention  

TOTAL  CA 
cost 
Resources 

of 

TOTAL  PA 
cost 
Resources 

of 

including 
Human 

including 
Human 

a+c+d
+e 

b+c+
d+e 

1,297  1,297  1,297  1,297  1,297  1,297  7,782 

0,797  1,297  1,297  1,297  1,297  1,797  7,782 

16 
17 
18 

Expenditure that does not fall under Chapter xx 01 of the Title xx concerned. 
Expenditure within article xx 01 04 of Title xx. 
Expenditure within chapter xx 01 other than articles xx 01 04 or xx 01 05. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Co-financing details 

If the proposal involves co-financing by Member States, or other bodies (please specify which), an 
estimate of the level of this co-financing should be indicated in the table below (additional lines may 
be added if different bodies are foreseen for the provision of the co-financing):  

The programme will be implemented as a Commission initiative by 20% and as initiative of Member 
States  by  80%.  In  view  of  the  proposed  co-financing  proportions  (80%  Community  –  20% 
beneficiary) the amount of subsidy is increased proportionally by the national contribution. 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Co-financing body 

Competent national 
authorities 

n + 1 

n + 2 

n + 3 

n + 4 

Year 
n 

n + 5 
and 
later 

Total 

20% by Member States 

f 

0,324  0,324 

0,324 

0,324 

0,324 

0,324 

1,944 

TOTAL CA including co-
financing 

a+c
+d+
e+f 

1,621  1,621 

1,621 

1,621 

1,621 

1,621 

9,726 

4.1.2.  Compatibility with Financial Programming 

(cid:59) 
The  proposal  is  compatible  with  existing  financial  programming  for  the  first  year  of  its 
implementation.  For  the  remainder  of  the  period  the  financial  perspectives  are  currently  under 
discussion.  

4.1.3.  Financial impact on Revenue 

(cid:59) 

5. 

Proposal has no financial implications on revenue 

CHARACTERISTICS AND OBJECTIVES 

Details  of  the  context  of  the  proposal  are  required  in  the  Explanatory  Memorandum.  This 
section  of  the  Legislative  Financial  Statement  should  include  the  following  specific 
complementary information: 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Need  to  be  met  in  the  short  or  long  term:  Continuation  of  the  facility  for  training  and 
technical assistance for the protection of the euro; provision of a medium term framework 
for the planning of Member States. 

Value-added of Community involvement and coherence of the proposal with other financial 
instruments and possible synergy: Emphasis on the Community dimension of the protection 
of the euro; strengthening cooperation and awareness on the importance of the protection of 
the euro against counterfeiting. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3. 

Objectives,  expected  results  and  related  indicators  of  the  proposal  in  the  context  of  the 
ABM framework: Maintain the current overall level of training and technical assistance in 
the form of Pericles actions. 

5.4. 

Method of Implementation (indicative) 

Show below the method(s)19 chosen for the implementation of the action. 

(cid:59) 

(cid:59) 

6. 

Centralised Management 

Directly by the Commission 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

6.1. 

Monitoring system 

The  Commission  keeps  detailed  the  Pericles  projects  and  analyses  periodically  its 
implementation. 

6.2. 

Evaluation 

6.2.1.  Ex-ante evaluation 

The  proposal  for  the  extension  of  Pericles  is  based  on  the  evaluation  of  the  programme 
during  the  first  years  of  its  implementation.  This  is  summarised  in  section  3  of  the 
Communication  (p.  4).  In  particular,  the  evaluator  recommended  that:  the  programme 
should continue for a further 4 years at least with the same budget (€ 1 million per year); the 
programme should give priority to those Member States with low participation or who did 
not organise actions in the first programme, as well as the new Member States. Emphasis 
should  be  put  on  practical  training.  There  should  be  a  prioritisation  in  favour  of  staff 
exchanges and specific training, including case studies. Co-operation between the European 
institutions/bodies  (Commission/OLAF,  ECB  and  Europol)  should  be  further  developed. 
With a view to enabling the assessment of the effect of the programme, among others on the 
convergence of high level training for trainers, the evaluator recommends the preparation of 
a strategy document, to be finalised before the new Pericles enters into effect. 

With  regard  to  individual  projects,  an  ex-ante  evaluation  is  carried  out  by  the  Pericles 
Evaluation Committee (Commission). 

6.2.2.  Measures taken following an intermediate/ex-post evaluation (lessons learned from similar 

experiences in the past):  

The proposal for the extension of Pericles takes into consideration the conclusions reached 
by the programme evaluator (section 3, p. 4) namely:  

19 

If more than one method is indicated please provide additional details in the "Relevant comments" section of 
this point 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  The programme has improved awareness of the Community dimension of the euro and 
has also developed a greater understanding amongst the participants of the related laws 
and instruments and in particular of the relevant Community and broader European law. 

–  With  regard  to  the  range  of  information  exchanges  and  methodologies/measures,  most 

have been presented in the various workshops, meetings and seminars. 

–  The  target  groups  for  the  programme  have  been  reached  in  part  with  a  very  high 
participation  by  law  enforcement  officials;  attendance  by  commercial  banking  sector, 
specialist lawyers or chambers of commerce was not sufficient. 

–  The activities examined were considered relevant to and among the main objectives of 

the programme. 

–  In terms of costs, the evaluator found that some of the projects were particularly costly 

and highlighted specific cost items. 

With regard to individual projects, the beneficiaries of each project selected submit a final 
and  a  financial  report  to  the  Commission.  The  Commission  analyses  the  reports  and 
evaluates, also on the basis of its attendance in the actions, the way in which they have been 
implemented and the impact they have had in order to gauge whether the objectives have 
been achieved. 

6.2.3.  Terms  and  frequency  of  future  evaluation.  The  programme  will  undergo  an  independent 
evaluation in 2011 and a detailed report on its implementation will be sent to the Council 
and the European Parliament by June 2012. 

7. 

ANTI-FRAUD MEASURES 

The careful examination at the Evaluation Committee, the discussions at the Commission’s relevant 
group and the financial analysis constitute guarantees against fraud. In addition, the beneficiaries are 
government agencies, usually law enforcement, which minimises the likelihood of fraud. 

The  Commission  may  carry  out  on-the-spot  checks  and  inspections  under  this  programme  in 
accordance with Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) N° 2185/9620. Where necessary, investigations 
are  conducted  by  the  European  Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF)  and  governed  by  European  Parliament 
and Council Regulation (EC) N° 1073/199921. 

The  beneficiary  of  an  operation  grant  must  keep  available  for  the  Commission  all  the  supporting 
documents,  including  the  audited  financial  statement,  regarding  expenditure  incurred  during  the 
grant  year  for  a  period  of  five  years  following  the  last  payment.  The  beneficiary  of  a  grant  must 
ensure  that,  where  applicable,  supporting  documents  in  the  possession  of  partners  or  members  are 
made available to the Commission.

20 
21 

OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p. 2. 
OJ L 136 du 31.5.1999, p. 1. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
8. 

DETAILS OF RESOURCES 

8.1. 

Objectives of the proposal in terms of their financial cost 

(Headings  of  Objectives, 
actions  and  outputs  should 
be provided) 

OPERATIONAL 
OBJECTIVE  Maintenance  of 
the  current  overall  level  of 
training 
technical 
and 
assistance 

Action 1  

- Output 1 

- Output 2 

- Output 3 

Action 2  

- Output 1 

- Output 2 

- Output 3 

Sub-total Objective  

TOTAL COST 

EN 

Type of 
output 

Av. 
cost 

Year 
n 

Year 
n+1 

Year 
n+2 

Year  
n+3 

Year 
n+4 

Year n+5 and 
later 

TOTAL 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

No. 
outputs 

Total 
cost 

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Grants 

Seminar-
type 

Staff 
exchange 

Studies  – 
tech assist 

COM 

Seminar-
type 

Staff 
exchange 

Studies  – 
tech assist 

7 

6 

1 

2 

1 

1 

0,450 

7 

0,450 

7 

0,450 

7 

0,450 

7 

0,450 

7 

0,450 

42 

2,700 

0,300 

6 

0,300 

6 

0,300 

6 

0,300 

6 

0,300 

6 

0,300 

36 

1,800 

0,050 

1 

0,050 

1 

0,050 

1 

0,050 

1 

0,050 

1 

0,050 

6 

0,300 

0,100 

2 

0,100 

2 

0,100 

2 

0,100 

2 

0,100 

2 

0,100 

12 

0,600 

0,050 

1 

0,050 

1 

0,050 

1 

0,050 

1 

0,050 

1 

0,050 

6 

0,300 

0,050 

1 

0,050 

1 

0,050 

1 

0,050 

1 

0,050 

1 

0,050 

6 

0,300 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

6,000 

18 

1,000 

18 

1,000 

18 

1,000 

18 

1,000 

18 

1,000 

18 

1,000 

90 

6,000 

21 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8.2. 

Administrative Expenditure 

8.2.1.  Number and type of human resources 

Types of 
post 

Staff to be assigned to management of the action using existing resources (number 
of posts/FTEs) 

Year n 

Year n+1 

Year n+2 

Year n+3 

Year n+4 

Year n+5 

Officials 
or 
temporary 
staff22 
(A3 01 
01) 

A*/AD 

0,25A 

0,25A 

0,25A 

0,25A 

0,25A 

0,25A 

B*, 
C*/AST 

1B 

1B 

1B 

1B 

1B 

1B 

0,25C 

0,25C 

0,25C 

0,25C 

0,25C 

0,25C 

Staff  financed23  by 
art. A3 01 02 

1END 

1END 

1END 

1END 

1END 

1END 

TOTAL 

2,5 

2,5 

2,5 

2,5 

2,5 

2,5 

The needs for human and administrative resources shall be covered within the allocation granted to 
the managing service in the framework of the annual allocation procedure. 

8.2.2.  Description of tasks deriving from the action 

Evaluation  of  applications:  management  of  the  evaluation  committee,  contacts  with  applicants; 
participation at events. 

Coordination: continuous monitoring of the implementation of Pericles; presentations at the relevant 
groups (Member States, ECB, Europol); contribution to the preparation of projects. 

Preparation and implementation of the Pericles actions under a Commission initiative. 

8.2.3.  Sources of human resources (statutory) 

(When more than one source is stated, please indicate the number of posts originating from each of 
the sources) 

(cid:133) 

Posts currently allocated to the management of the programme to be replaced or extended 

8.2.4.  Other Administrative expenditure included in reference amount (XX 01 04/05 – Expenditure on 

administrative management) 

22 
23 

Cost of which is NOT covered by the reference amount 
Cost of which is NOT covered by the reference amount 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Budget line 

(number and heading) 

Year 
n 

Year 
n+1 

Year 
n+2 

Year 
n+3 

Year 
n+4 

Year 
n+5  

and later 

TOTAL 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Technical 

1 
and 
assistance (including related staff costs) 

administrative 

Executive agencies 

Other 

technical 

and 

administrative 

assistance 

- intra muros  

- extra muros 

Total  Technical  and  administrative 
assistance 

8.2.5.  Financial cost of human resources and associated costs not included in the reference amount 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Type of human resources 

Year n 

Year n+1  Year n+2  Year n+3  Year n+4 

Year n+5 

and later 

Officials and temporary staff (A3 01 01) 

0,162 

0,162 

0,162 

0,162 

0,162 

0,162 

Staff  financed  by  Art  A3  01  02  (auxiliary, 
END, contract staff, etc.) 

0,045 

0,045 

0,045 

0,045 

0,045 

0,045 

(specify budget line) 

Total cost of Human Resources and 
associated costs (NOT in reference 
amount) 

0,207 

0,207 

0,207 

0,207 

0,207 

0,207 

Calculation– Officials and Temporary agents 

Reference should be made to Point 8.2.1, if applicable 

0,25A x 108.000 € +1B x 108.000 + 0,25C x 108.000 = 162.000 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Calculation– Staff financed under art. A3 01 02 

Reference should be made to Point 8.2.1, if applicable 

1 END x 45.000 

8.2.6 Other administrative expenditure not included in reference amount 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Year 
n+1 

Year 
n+2 

Year 
n+3 

Year 
n+4 

Year 
n 

Year 
n+5 

and 
later 

TOTAL 

XX 01 02 11 01 – Missions 

0,030 

0,030 

0,030 

0,030 

0,030 

0,030 

0,180 

XX 01 02 11 02 – Meetings & Conferences 

XX 01 02 11 03 – Committees  

0,060 

0,060 

0,060 

0,060 

0,060 

0,060 

0,360 

XX 01 02 11 04 – Studies & consultations 

XX 01 02 11 05 - Information systems 

 2  Total Other Management 
Expenditure (A3 01 02 11) 

Total Administrative expenditure, other 
than human resources and associated 
costs (NOT included in reference 
amount) 

0,090 

0,090 

0,090 

0,090 

0,090 

0,090 

0,540 

0,090 

0,090 

0,090 

0,090 

0,090 

0,090 

0,540 

Calculation - Other administrative expenditure not included in reference amount 

Missions 20 x 1.500 € and 4 meetings x 15.000 € 

EN 

24 

   EN