Category Archives: Industrialised Countries

RELATIONS WITH INDUSTRIALISED COUNTRIES
United States
Canada
Framework of cooperation in higher education, training and youth with Canada
Agreement with Canada
Instruments
Financing instrument for cooperation with industrialised and other high-income countries and territories (2007-2013)
Archives
Sectoral cooperation
Towards a strategy for the Arctic
Cooperation with Non-EU Member Countries on nuclear safety
RELATIONS WITH EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA COUNTRIES (EEA)
Agreement on the European Economic Area
Agreement on the surrender procedure between the EU Member States, Iceland and Norway
Under the Kyoto Protocol, the industrialised countries have undertaken to reduce their emissions of six greenhouse gases.

Industrialised countries

Leave a reply

Industrialised countries

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Industrialised countries

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

External relations > Industrialised countries

Industrialised countries

RELATIONS WITH INDUSTRIALISED COUNTRIES

United States

Agreement with the United States on extradition
Agreement between the European Union and the United States on the transfer of financial messaging data
Programme for cooperation in higher education and vocational education and training with the United States
Container security: EU/US agreements
Agreement on the processing and transfer of passenger name record data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security (2007 PNR Agreement)
‘Open Skies’ agreement between Europe and the United States
Agreement with the United States on mutual legal assistance

Canada

Framework of cooperation in higher education, training and youth with Canada
Agreement with Canada

Instruments

Financing instrument for cooperation with industrialised and other high-income countries and territories (2007-2013)

Sectoral cooperation

Towards a strategy for the Arctic
Cooperation with Non-EU Member Countries on nuclear safety

RELATIONS WITH EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA COUNTRIES (EEA)

Agreement on the European Economic Area
Agreement on the surrender procedure between the EU Member States, Iceland and Norway

Agreement on the processing and transfer of passenger name record data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security

Leave a reply

Agreement on the processing and transfer of passenger name record data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Agreement on the processing and transfer of passenger name record data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

External relations > Industrialised countries

Agreement on the processing and transfer of passenger name record data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security (2007 PNR Agreement)

Document or Iniciative

Council Decision 2007/551/CFSP/JHA of 23 July 2007 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of an Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (2007 PNR Agreement)

Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (2007 PNR Agreement).

Summary

The purpose of sharing passenger name record (PNR) data is to combat terrorism and organised crime, protect people’s vital interests and prevent the flight of individuals from warrants or custody issued against them.

This Decision consists of the Agreement, the accompanying letter from the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the letter of the European Union (EU) in reply. Applicable for seven years, it requires airlines to transfer data to DHS concerning passengers transported to or from the United States. In return, DHS undertakes to guarantee a high level of protection. The Decision advocates the application of security measures on data transfers and calls on the parties to respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of passengers.

Type of passenger name record (PNR) data collected

DHS obtains PNR data from the air carriers, flight tickets and travel documents. The data collected concern:

APIS information (name, civil status, date of birth, nationality, country of residence, etc.);
the journey (date of reservation/issue of ticket, travel date, itinerary, baggage, seat number, travel status of passenger, travel agency used);
the flight ticket (free tickets, upgrades, ticket issue, price, number, form of payment used and billing);
PNR (record locator code, names on PNR, split/divided PNR information and all historical changes made to PNR);
all available contact information;
OSI (Other Service Information), SSI and SSR (Special Services) data.

“Sensitive” PNR data

Sensitive PNR data relate to ethnic origin, philosophical, political or religious beliefs, trade union membership and the health and sex life of the individual. Once this information has been received, DHS employs an automatic system to filter the sensitive codes and terms. DHS undertakes not to use this information and to delete it promptly.

However, where lives are in danger and the passenger has supplied such information, DHS is authorised to use it, provided that it maintains a log of access to these data and deletes them within thirty days. It is required to inform the European Commission (within 48 hours) that it has accessed these data.

PNR data protection and transmission

The letter from DHS accompanying the Agreement explains how the latter collects, uses and stores PNR data. It treats the information as sensitive and confidential. DHS may transmit it to the US authorities responsible for law enforcement, public security or counterterrorism and to countries capable of ensuring data protection, but only for the same purposes as those for which DHS received the data (mainly to combat terrorism and organised crime).

If the air carriers have a system complying with DHS technical requirements, they will transmit the data to DHS via a ‘push’ system. On the other hand, they will transmit the data via a ‘pull’ system if the carrier has not implemented such a system. It is for the carriers to initiate the transition to a ‘push’ system.

DHS receives PNR data 72 hours before the scheduled departure. It may ask to receive them earlier if necessary. It nevertheless undertakes to make this type of request judiciously and with proportionality.

DHS retains the data in an analytical database for 7 years, after which time the data are stored for a further 8 years, but in dormant, non-operational status. They may be accessed only with approval of a senior DHS official. The two parties will reach agreement to determine when PNR data must be destroyed. Only those related to a specific investigation in progress may be retained.

Right of access and right of inspection

DHS extends the American Privacy Act provisions to PNR in its possession. Administrative, civil and penal sanctions are therefore provided for in the event of failure to respect privacy and unauthorised disclosure.

The EU, US and the aviation industry cooperate so that passengers are informed about how the governments may use the information concerning them. DHS informs and replies to questions from the public on PNR data through publications in the Federal Register and standard notices made available and published on its website.

DHS undertakes not to disclose PNR data to the public (apart from the persons concerned).

Cooperation and reciprocity

DHS transmits analytical data flowing from PNR data to the European police and judicial authorities concerned, Europol and Eurojust. The European authorities do the same to the US authorities.

Both parties ensure that their systems work effectively. The Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security (EU) periodically review the application of this decision.

Background

The transfer to the US authorities of PNR data held by European airlines has been the subject of successive agreements. The most recent is dated 19 October 2006 and expired on 31 July 2007. For this reason, the Council decided (on 22 February 2007) to authorise the Presidency to open negotiations, which gave rise to the present Agreement.

This Agreement is applicable as of the date of signature. It enters into force on the first day of the month after the date on which the parties have notified one another that they have completed their internal procedures.

References

Act	Entry into force – Date of expiry	Deadline for transposition in the Member States	Official Journal
Decision 2007/551/CFSP/JHA	23.7.2007	–	OJ L 204 of 4.8.2007

Related Acts

Council Decision 2006/729/CFSP/JHA

of 16 October 2006 on the signing of an Agreement between the EU and the USA on the processing and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by air carriers to the DHS – Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by air carriers to the DHS [Official Journal L 298 of 27.10.2006]

Council Decision 2004/496/EC

of 17 May 2004 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR data by Air Carriers to the DHS, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection – Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR data by Air Carriers to the DHS, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection [Official Journal L 183 of 20.5.2004].

Agreement on the surrender procedure between the EU Member States, Iceland and Norway

Leave a reply

Agreement on the surrender procedure between the EU Member States, Iceland and Norway

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Agreement on the surrender procedure between the EU Member States, Iceland and Norway

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

External relations > Industrialised countries

Agreement on the surrender procedure between the EU Member States, Iceland and Norway

Document or Iniciative

Council Decision 2006/697/EC of 27 June 2006 on the signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway on the surrender procedure between the Member States of the European Union and Iceland and Norway.

Summary

The object of this Agreement is to improve judicial cooperation in criminal matters between the Member States of the European Union (EU), Iceland and Norway. More specifically, it aims to institute a surrender system to speed up the transfer of suspects and persons in custody and to ensure sufficient controls on the execution of arrest warrants.

The Parties to this Agreement undertake to respect fundamental rights, to protect personal data and to refuse to surrender any person suspected on the basis of discriminatory reasons. They also express their mutual confidence in their legal systems and their ability to guarantee a fair trial.

Scope

The arrest warrant may be issued either for acts punishable by a custodial sentence or detention order of at least 12 months or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention order made, for a sentence of at least 4 months.

For offences punishable by a custodial sentence of at least three years, the Parties can make a declaration to the effect that they do not require the condition of double criminality. These include: participation in a criminal organisation, terrorism, trafficking in human beings, child pornography, illicit trafficking in human organs, narcotics, arms, explosives or nuclear material, corruption, computer-related crime, racism, crimes against the environment, rape, abduction, counterfeiting, etc. The list of offences is the same as that used by the Member States in the European Arrest Warrant.

Grounds for non-execution of the arrest warrant

The judicial authorities will refuse to execute an arrest warrant if the offence on which it is based is covered by an amnesty, if the person has already been tried for the same acts and the sentence has been or is being served, or if the person cannot be held criminally responsible owing to his age.

On the other hand, the States are free to refuse to execute an arrest warrant if:

the acts on which the warrant is based do not constitute an offence in the executing State (except in relation to taxes, duties, customs and exchange);
the person is being prosecuted in the executing State for the same act;
the State has passed a final judgement in respect of the same acts, which prevents further proceedings;
the authorities in the executing State have decided not to prosecute the person or have halted proceedings
the criminal prosecution or punishment of the requested person is statute-barred in the executing State;
the requested person is a national or resident of the executing State and that State undertakes to execute the sentence;
the offences were committed outside the territory of the issuing State or the law of the executing State does not permit prosecution for those offences.

The General Secretariat of the Council must be notified of the grounds for non-execution that are mandatory in a Member State, and will forward this information to the Commission and the Member States.

Arrest warrant

The arrest warrant contains details of the identity of the requested person, the issuing authority, the sentence and the nature of the offence. It is transmitted as soon as the requested person is found, and communicated to the Schengen Information System (SIS) or, if this is not possible, to Interpol.

If the person consents to his surrender, the final decision on the execution of the arrest warrant should be taken within ten days; otherwise it should be taken within sixty days of the arrest. If this is not possible, the issuing authorities must be informed of the reason for the delay and the time limit may be extended by thirty days.

Surrender procedure

When the person is arrested, he must be informed of the arrest warrant and its contents, the possibility of consenting to surrender to the issuing authority, and his right to be assisted by legal counsel and an interpreter. He may remain in detention or be released provisionally (provided that measures are taken to prevent him absconding).

The hearing is conducted according to the law of the executing State and in conditions fixed by common agreement. The person can choose whether or not to consent to his surrender, if this choice is expressed voluntarily and in full awareness of the consequences.

The person should be surrendered within ten days of the decision to execute the warrant or, if that is impossible, within ten days of the surrender date agreed between the authorities. If he is still in custody at the end of that time, he must be released.

The executing authority will seize and hand over property that may serve as evidence or that has been acquired by the person as a result of the offence.

Surrender of the requested person

The Contracting Parties will permit the transit through their territory of a person being surrendered, provided that they have been given information on the identity of the person, the existence of the arrest warrant, the nature of the offence and a description of the circumstances.

A person who has been surrendered to the issuing State may be surrendered to a State other than the executing State for an offence committed prior to the surrender if that person has not, although he could have done so, left the territory of the State to which he was surrendered within 45 days of his release, or has returned to the territory having left it, or if he consents to be surrendered to a State other than the executing State, or if he is not subject to the specialty rule.

Particular cases

Execution may not be refused on the grounds that the offence is a political one. This general rule may, however, be limited to the crimes covered by the Framework Decision on combating terrorism and by Articles 1 and 2 of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism.

The execution of the arrest warrant may be subject to certain conditions, where the sentence was rendered in absentia and a new trial has been ordered or the sentence is for life imprisonment (subject to the guarantee of a review or measures of clemency being applied) or where the person is a national or resident of the executing State.

The Parties may consent to the prosecution, sentencing or detention of a person, before his surrender, for an offence other than that for which the arrest warrant was issued. If the person has already been surrendered, however, he cannot be prosecuted for a prior offence except in certain specific cases.

General and final provisions

All expenses are borne by the issuing State, except those incurred in the territory of the executing State in connection with the execution of an arrest warrant.

Any disputes with regard to the interpretation and application of this Agreement should be referred to a meeting of representatives of the governments of the Contracting Parties and should be settled within six months.

The Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union will make public any notification or declaration made concerning this Agreement, of which he is the depository.

The Parties will keep under review the development of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and of the case law of the competent courts of Iceland and Norway, and will carry out a review of the Agreement no later than five years after it comes into force.

This Agreement will come into force three months after the Secretary-General of the Council has established that all the requirements concerning the expression of the consent of the Contracting Parties to be bound by this Agreement have been fulfilled. Entry into force depends on completion of the relevant constitutional procedures in the individual Member States, in accordance with Article 24(5) of the Treaty establishing the European Union (FR).

References

Act	Entry into force – Date of expiry	Deadline for transposition in the Member States	Official Journal
Council Decision 2006/697/EC	27.6.2006	–	OJ L 292 of 21.10.2006

Cooperation with industrialised countries

Leave a reply

Cooperation with industrialised countries

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Cooperation with industrialised countries

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

External relations > Industrialised countries

Cooperation with industrialised countries (2001-2006)

The European Community pursues cooperation and trade relations with the industrialised countries * of North America, the Far East and Australasia.

Document or Iniciative

Council Regulation (EC) No 382/2001 of 26 February 2001 concerning the implementation of projects promoting cooperation and commercial relations between the European Union and the industrialised countries of North America, the Far East and Australasia and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1035/1999 [See amending acts].

Repealed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1934/2006 of 21 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for cooperation with industrialised and other high-income countries and territories [Official Journal L 405 of 30.12.2006].

Summary

On the basis of Articles 133 and 308 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Community implements actions to promote cooperation and trade with the industrialised countries of North America, the Far East and Australasia.

This regulation provides a legal framework for engaging in such cooperative actions. It also comes under the bilateral relations already established with:

The United States of America: these relations are based on the 1990 Transatlantic Declaration, the 1995 New Transatlantic Agenda, the 1998 Transatlantic Economic Partnership and the 1999 Bonn Declaration;
Canada: these relations are based on the 1976 Framework Agreement for commercial and economic cooperation, the 1990 Declaration on EC-Canada Relations, the 1996 Joint Action Plan and Joint Political Declaration, and the Ottawa Summit partnership agenda [PDF ] adopted on 18 March 2004;
Japan: these relations are based on the 1991 Joint Declaration and the 2001 EU-Japan Action Plan;
The Republic of Korea: these relations are based on the Framework Agreement on trade and cooperation, which entered into force in 2001;
Australia: these relations are based on the 1997 Joint Declaration, revised in 2003;
New Zealand: these relations are based on the 1999 Joint Declaration, revised in 2004.

This regulation aims to promote cooperation under the various bilateral instruments between the EU and the partner countries by creating a more favourable climate for the conduct and further development of these relations.

Financing will cover in particular the following activities:

education and information of the public about the bilateral relations;
strengthening cultural, academic and people-to-people links;
promotion of the dialogue between political, economic and social partners;
research work and studies destined to provide input to the Commission’s work;
cooperative projects in science and technology, energy, transport and environmental matters;
enhancing customs cooperation;
enhancing the visibility of the EU in the partner countries;
pilot schemes, which could subsequently lead to new activities to be financed.

The financing of cooperation projects will be provided entirely from the Community budget or will take the form of cofinancing with other sources in the partner countries and/or the EU.

Some projects directly concern individuals, in the fields of education and training for instance. Grants and study awards may be paid to natural persons in such cases.

With Japan, and to a lesser extent Korea, the Community will implement a specific programme of measures and actions to improve the Member States’ commercial presence on the Japanese and Korean markets. The regulation provides for support for various actions, namely:

the participation of European commercial executives in actions carried out in Japan and in Korea (executive training programmes involving Japan and Korea);
the collection of information and policy advice on trade-related issues with Japan;
conferences and seminars to promote trade and investment;
recruitment, training, preparation of missions to facilitate access to the Japanese market by Community companies (Gateway to Japan).

The Commission will be assisted by a committee in implementing actions in the trade field.

The Commission will submit a bi-annual report on the implementation of the regulation to Parliament and the Council. The Commission will also evaluate the actions and programmes concerned in order to determine whether they have achieved their objectives.

The regulation will expire on 31 December 2007. It has been extended pending a new legal framework.

Key terms used in the act
Industrialised countries: the United States, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia, New Zealand.

References

Act	Entry into force – Date of expiry	Deadline for transposition in the Member States	Official Journal
Regulation (EC) No 382/2001	20.03.2001 – 31.12.2006	–	OJ L 57 of 27.2.2001

Amending act(s)	Entry into force	Deadline for transposition in the Member States	Official Journal
Regulation (EC) No 1900/2005	12.12.2005	–	OJ L 303 of 22.11.2005

A stronger economic and political partnership for the 21st century

Leave a reply

A stronger economic and political partnership for the 21st century

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about A stronger economic and political partnership for the 21st century

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

External relations > Industrialised countries

A stronger economic and political partnership for the 21st century

Document or Iniciative

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee of 18 May 2005: A stronger EU-US partnership and a more open market for the 21st century [COM(2005) 196 – Not published in the Official Journal]

Summary

The European Commission wants to give new quality to the economic partnership between the European Union (EU) and the United States. In this initial stage of reviewing a global partnership, which is designed to include a barrier-free market, the proposals in question focus mainly on trade and investment, the highest volume of which worldwide is generated as a result of the relationship between the EU and the United States. In 2003, trade in goods and services came to almost EUR 600 billion and related principally to foreign direct investment (FDI).

The Commission’s proposals form the basis for boosting growth and employment while respecting sustainable development and removing the barriers to trade and investment. They also seek to provide a new framework which can be used to meet common challenges such as international competition.

Improving the functioning of the transatlantic partnership

The Commission is proposing a number of initiatives in order to improve the functioning of the transatlantic partnership in three areas: regulation, knowledge and innovation, and border control.

The initiatives relating to regulation are based principally on policy cooperation, which is to be extended to a greater number of sectors in order to promote the transatlantic market. Policy cooperation within a well-defined regulatory framework is designed to guarantee fair competition in a situation in which the volume of trade is high, and forms part of the efforts to ensure a high level of consumer protection.

However, a certain degree of flexibility is needed in view of the difficulty of using the same model for all the sectors concerned. Cooperation can also vary in intensity, ranging from the exchange of information to the adoption of binding standards and including the establishment of ties on a formal or informal basis.

Other regulatory initiatives to strengthen cooperation between the two parties should also be envisaged in order to eliminate barriers to trade and thus promote competitiveness. They include the following:

facilitation of investment, in particular by eliminating ownership restrictions in the United States;
competition policy for those concerned based on the coordination of enforcement activities and the exchange of non-confidential information in an appropriate framework;
the opening-up of procurement markets between the United States and the EU despite the barriers which EU companies still face when trying to access the American market; this calls for the deepening of relations between the two partners at bilateral level and the definition of a clear framework at multilateral level, such as within the World Trade Organization (WTO);
the negotiation of a comprehensive agreement on aviation services between the EU and the United States, which are currently confined within a regulatory framework reflecting the political and technological landscape of the 1940s; an agreement of this kind would provide a sound economic and legal basis for transatlantic air services;
maritime transport, which carries 90% of all international trade: cooperation in this field should be strengthened and could include issues such as the law of the sea, data exchange, maritime security and environmental protection;
financial markets: access to capital is fundamental to investment and innovation, which is why functional equivalence should be encouraged in various financial areas, such as accounting standards and insurance, and should be promoted and strengthened in order to achieve true integration of the European and US financial markets;
the free movement of persons is essential: it has not been fully achieved for nationals of certain Member States or for companies and their affiliates; the possibility of granting affiliates the special status of “trusted persons” should be examined in order to facilitate international movement of travellers while bearing in mind security procedures;
the mutual recognition of professional qualifications should be encouraged, particularly in economic sectors.

Initiatives relating to knowledge and innovation will contribute fully to the growth and integration of the European and US economies. They relate to the following:

new technologies. as regards information and communication technologies (ICT) between the EU and the United States, coordination of the regulators, going beyond EU-US dialogue on the information society, should be strengthened in order to prevent the emergence of new obstacles in a rapidly evolving area; with regard to space, a structured dialogue should take place covering key areas such as Galileo and GPS, and the elimination of barriers to the creation of a properly functioning transatlantic market for the space industry;
the protection of intellectual property rights as a fundamental economic objective shared by both the EU and the US: the strengthening of cooperation in this area involves efforts at domestic and international level to combat counterfeiting and piracy; it also involves observance of the standards established by the WTO;
research and development: as these are key elements of the renewed Lisbon programme and generate growth, they will be the subject of greater cooperation between the two partners under the 7th framework programme for research and development (7th FPRD) in areas such as industrial materials, fuel cells and biotechnology;
energy: the EU and the US should work together more closely by means of policy dialogues in order to face new challenges and find alternatives to traditional energy sources, such as by developing clean technologies and renewable energies;
higher education and vocational training: as the current agreement on higher education and vocational training expires at the end of 2005, it should be renewed and reinforced in order to promote exchanges of university teachers, researchers and students and develop measures on issues concerning the quality and compatibility of education and training systems.

New security measures for border controls were imposed in the aftermath of the attacks of 11 September 2001. The Commission feels that the right balance must be struck between heightened security requirements and the continuation of open and secure trade and passenger transport.

While reconciling trade and security requirements, the transatlantic market will be based mainly on the principles of reciprocity and mutual recognition. These principles will apply to the following areas:

implementing the agreement on enhanced customs cooperation in the area of transport security, for example with regard to the concept of single points of access and e-customs;
exchanging best practice in order to achieve equivalence between the European concept of “authorised economic operator” (AEO) and the US Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT);
avoiding duplications of controls which arise from the application of parallel sets of – sometimes contradictory – existing standards;
reducing the risk of trade barriers associated with the implementation of the new US law to combat bioterrorism;
developing global security standards, notably by promoting the security standards agreed between the EU and the US through the World Customs Organization (WCO), the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO);
combating corporate fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, corruption and the financing of terrorism.

Political involvement essential

The New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA), which was established in 1995, should be renewed. Its most important goals have been achieved regarding the intensity of exchanges between the EU and the United States on a vast range of subjects. Regular dialogue has been established between interlocutors who previously had very little contact. There has also been increased cooperation on foreign policy issues.

However, economic cooperation has had a limited impact, particularly with regard to the legislative and regulatory involvement of the stakeholders. In the same way, the EU-US dialogue has suffered from a relative lack of political commitment, with the EU sometimes being poorly understood.

This is why none of the economic initiatives presented in this communication can be successful without real political intent translated into practical action. This could include the following, for example:

a high-level regulatory cooperation forum, which would meet before EU-US Summits and submit an annual roadmap with appropriate objectives and priorities;
a dialogue between European and US legislators on the priorities for regulatory cooperation;
cooperation to address joint concerns regarding international policy or even to advance bilateral proposals in international fora;
the conclusion of binding sectoral agreements.

For them to have a full impact on dialogue, transatlantic relations should be more strategic and effective in order to realise a shared vision of a more democratic, peaceful and prosperous international order. A new transatlantic declaration could be drawn up underlining the values and developing the priorities of joint action based on the recognition of the economic interdependence of the United States and the EU.

Context

This communication is in line with the “EU-US Declaration on Strengthening our Economic Partnership” (PDF ), which was adopted at the EU-US Summit at Dromoland Castle (Ireland) in 2004, during which the parties concerned put forward ideas on how to strengthen transatlantic economic integration. Reviewing and strengthening the partnership in this way can lend new impetus to relations between the EU and the United States.

The Commission is proposing that an economic declaration be adopted and that political oversight be put in place to ensure that these commitments are effective, particularly through the adoption of binding agreements.

Moreover, prior to the drawing up of a joint economic declaration, a public consultation was launched by the Commission in 2004 in order to identify the areas with which the present communication deals.

Related Acts

EU-US Declaration, of 20 June 2005, at the Washington Summit: “Initiative to Enhance Transatlantic Economic Integration and Growth” (PDF )

The EU and the United States declared that they wished to remove the impediments to trade and investment and enhance growth and innovation with a view to making further progress towards integration of the transatlantic market and providing more opportunities for businesses.
In the Declaration, the two partners listed ten points covering areas in which action should be taken and which are dealt with in greater detail in the Initiative annexed to the Declaration:

promoting regulatory cooperation and standards by identifying cooperation and coordination mechanisms in order to improve regulatory quality and reduce divergences; exchanges of experience and the sharing of knowledge are encouraged through a high-level dialogue in accordance with the roadmap for EU-US regulatory cooperation (PDF )and through a high-level forum bringing together regulators representing both partners;
stimulation of open and competitive capital markets in order to ensure that transatlantic financial markets operate seamlessly; the main areas for action include efforts to combat financial fraud and money laundering, the reform of financial markets and the improvement of dialogue on macroeconomic and structural issues of common interest;
spurring innovation and technological development, which are a source of growth and prosperity, by promoting cooperation, for example, in basic research, space research, nanotechnologies, transport, cyber-security and IT; the initiatives would affect sectors relating to higher education and vocational training, commerce, information and even medicine;
enhancing trade, development and security by strengthening customs cooperation in order to ensure the security of persons and goods in transit; in this regard, the WCO already offers a framework of standards on the security of world trade; cooperation between the two partners should also be strengthened by adopting security standards, particularly as regards air cargo traffic, improved cooperation in research and development of security-related technologies, better compatibility of the EU’s Authorised Economic Operator concept and the US Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), measures to facilitate business and tourist travel (“trusted persons” initiative) and a policy of reciprocal visa exempt travel for short-term stays;
promoting energy efficiency, energy security, renewable energies and economic development and encouraging new clean energy technologies for sustainable and coordinated policies; the two partners also stated that they would support developing countries in this area;
protecting intellectual property rights by actively combating piracy and counterfeiting, applying international standards and ensuring the efficient application of standards on patents;
facilitating investment by providing efficient, comprehensive and easily accessible information on investment regimes and policies and by removing existing obstacles;
improving coordination on competition policy and the enforcement of competition rules, in particular by exploring ways of exchanging confidential information, which does not currently take place;
strengthening coordination and cooperation on procurement;
encouraging cooperation in the field of services, in particular with regard to aviation services and the mutual recognition of professional qualifications.

Responsibility for implementing these initiatives and establishing the work programmes lies with the senior levels of EU and US government, with progress to be reviewed at the EU-US Summits. At the same time, cooperation between legislators and stakeholder consultation will also be encouraged in order to help strengthen the partnership.

Towards a strategy for the Arctic

Leave a reply

Towards a strategy for the Arctic

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Towards a strategy for the Arctic

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

External relations > Industrialised countries

Towards a strategy for the Arctic

Document or Iniciative

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – The European Union and the arctic region [COM(2008) 763 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

Summary

The European Union (EU) wishes to develop a new policy for the Arctic, in cooperation with the different States and territories of that region.

The EU is closely linked to the Arctic region because some Member States have territories there. In addition, some of the States in the region are members of the European Economic Area (EEA), and some are strategic partners of the EU (Canada, United States, Russia).

The priority objective of this policy must be to preserve the environment, whilst ensuring the sustainable use of resources.

Preserving the Arctic region

The fight against climate change represents a challenge of paramount importance for the future of the region. Appropriate strategies should allow ecosystems and human activities to be managed in a sustainable way, as well as international processes (the transport of pollutants, etc.). Crisis management should also be improved in view of the fragility of the environment, the low demographic density and the lack of existing infrastructure.

The Commission proposes, in particular, to:

assess the effectiveness of policies and international agreements on the environment;
maintain permanent dialogue with associations;
promote high environmental standards and coordinate the management of sea areas;
cooperate at international level as regards disaster management;
cooperate on energy efficiency and primary energy savings.

The living conditions of indigenous peoples and the local population may be particularly affected by climate change and globalisation. The Commission therefore proposes to:

engage the population in regular political dialogue;
support self-driven development and lifestyle protection;
protect marine mammals whilst authorising their regulated hunting for the subsistence needs of the population.

The Arctic region must be a priority area for research, but also for the monitoring and assessment of environmental processes. In this regard, the Commission proposes to:

better assess the melting of ice and its effects on ecosystems;
develop infrastructures;
coordinate activities at international level;
develop surveillance from space (GMES system), and create an Arctic component in the Global Earth Observing System of Systems.

Sustainable use of resources

There are untapped hydrocarbon reserves in the Exclusive Economic Zone of Arctic States. However, their exploitation is subject to risks due to climate conditions and the fragility of the environment. The EU possesses sustainable exploitation technologies, and the Commission proposes, in particular, to:

cooperate on exploitation and the sustainable transport of resources, particularly with Norway and Russia;
comply with strict environmental standards with a binding international dimension;
promote research and development;
create groups associating universities, research centres and enterprises, in order to foster innovation.

Fisheries may be modified by climate change. Some sea areas are not covered by an international conservation and sustainable exploitation regime. The Commission therefore proposes to regulate the Arctic high seas area and extend the mandate of the organisations managing marine resources.

Concerning transport, the melting of ice opens up new opportunities for navigation. Such waterways would allow energy savings to made, emissions to be reduced, and congestion in current channels to be alleviated. The Commission encourages the gradual introduction of commercial navigation in the Arctic, whilst complying with:

mandatory international navigation rules on maritime safety, the environment and labour legislation;
the prohibition of discrimination by Arctic States as regards merchant vessels from third countries;
competition law.

Furthermore, in view of developments in tourism in the Arctic, the Commission supports improvements in passenger safety, and respect for the environment and the local population.

International governance

The North Pole and the Arctic Ocean are subject to an international legal framework. This framework comprises mainly the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and general provisions on the exploitation of resources and protection of the environment. High seas areas are managed by the International Seabed Authority.

Countries participating in the Arctic Council and the Nordic Council cooperate at regional level. Similarly, the EU is applying the Northern Dimension policy to develop its cooperation with Norway, Iceland and Russia.

The EU wishes to uphold the development of a cooperative Arctic governance system at global level, by improving existing legal instruments. In this context, the Commission proposes to:

assess international agreements and maritime delimitation processes;
improve ecosystem management, and create a Marine Protected Area Network;
increase the EU’s contribution to the Arctic Council;
promote cross-border and regional cooperation;
apply the European strategy for the marine environment in the EEA and part of the Arctic Ocean.

This summary is provided for information purposes only. It does not aim to interpret or replace the reference document, which shall remain the only legally binding instrument.

Agreement between the European Union and the United States on the transfer of financial messaging data

Leave a reply

Agreement between the European Union and the United States on the transfer of financial messaging data

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Agreement between the European Union and the United States on the transfer of financial messaging data

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

External relations > Industrialised countries

Agreement between the European Union and the United States on the transfer of financial messaging data

Document or Iniciative

Council Decision 2010/412/EU of 13 July 2010 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the European Union to the United States for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.

Summary

For the purpose of preventing, investigating, detecting or prosecuting terrorism or terrorist financing, this agreement between the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (U.S.) provides for the transfer of:

financial payment messages that refer to financial transfers and related data, which are stored in the EU by international financial payment messaging service providers (designated providers), to the U.S. Treasury Department;
relevant information acquired from the U.S. Treasury Department’s Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP) to EU countries’ law enforcement, public security or counter terrorism authorities, or to Europol or Eurojust.

To obtain the necessary data stored in the EU, the U.S. Treasury Department makes a request, and sends any supplemental documents, to a designated provider on U.S. territory. At the same time, it provides a copy of these documents to Europol, which verifies the compliance of the request with the requirements of the agreement and notifies the designated provider accordingly. Once the compliance of the request is confirmed, it will have binding legal effect and the designated provider is required to transfer the requested data to the U.S. Treasury Department.

The U.S. Treasury Department must ensure that certain safeguards, particularly in relation to the protection of personal data, are applied when the provided data is processed. The data may only be processed for the purpose of preventing, investigating, detecting or prosecuting terrorism or terrorist financing. It must be secured from unauthorised access, disclosure and loss, as well as from any unauthorised form of processing. A search of the provided data may only be initiated where there is pre-existing information or evidence indicating that the subject of the search might be connected to terrorism or its financing. All searches and the reasons thereof must be recorded.

The U.S. Treasury Department must delete non-extracted data:

no longer necessary for the fight against terrorism, based on (at least) an annual evaluation;
transmitted without having been requested;
by 20 July 2012 at the latest, if it was received before 20 July 2007;
no later than five years after receipt, if it was received after 20 July 2007.

Extracted data may be retained for only as long as is necessary to fulfil the purpose for which it was requested. The agreement also defines safeguards to limit the onward transfers of extracted data.

The U.S. Treasury Department must make information obtained through the TFTP that may contribute to the EU’s actions against terrorism available to the relevant authorities of the EU countries concerned and, as appropriate, to Europol and Eurojust. If any follow-on information is deemed as necessary to the U.S.’s fight against terrorism, it must be similarly conveyed back. To facilitate these exchanges of information, a Europol liaison officer may be delegated to the U.S. Treasury Department.

A relevant EU country authority, Europol or Eurojust may provide the U.S. Treasury Department with a request to search data acquired through the TFTP and to transfer relevant information if there is reason to believe that a person or entity is connected to terrorism or its financing as defined by the framework decision on combating terrorism and the directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for money laundering.

During the term of the agreement, the Commission will examine the options available for establishing an EU system equivalent to the U.S. TFTP. Once the European system is established, there will be the need to review and possibly modify this agreement and ensure the complementariness of the two systems.

Independent overseers will monitor compliance with the limitations and safeguards of the agreement. They have the authority to review, query and block searches of provided data, as well as to request for additional justifications on the connection to terrorism. One of these overseers will be appointed by the Commission.

Via the national data protection authority, a person has the right to request confirmation that his/her personal data has been processed in compliance with data protection rights. Disclosure of this information may be refused or restricted if necessary for the fight against terrorism or the protection of public or national security. In such cases, a written explanation will be given to the person, together with information on the possibility to seek administrative and judicial redress in the U.S. A person also has the right to request the rectification, erasure or blocking of inaccurate or wrongly processed personal data. To maintain the accuracy of information received or transmitted under this agreement, the data may be supplemented, deleted or corrected by each party. The U.S. Treasury Department provides information on the TFTP on a public website, including on the right of redress.

This agreement enters into force on 1 August 2010 and will remain in force for a period of five years. Afterwards, it will be automatically extended for subsequent periods of one year, unless one of the parties notifies of its intention not to extend it.

References

Act	Entry into force	Deadline for transposition in the Member States	Official Journal
Decision 2010/412/EU	13.7.2010	–	OJ L 195, 27.7.2010

Container security: EU/US agreements

Leave a reply

Container security: EU/US agreements

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Container security: EU/US agreements

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

External relations > Industrialised countries

Container security: EU/US agreements

Document or Iniciative

Council Decision 2004/634/EC of 30 March 2004 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on intensifying and broadening the scope of the Agreement on customs cooperation and mutual assistance in customs matters to include cooperation on container security and related matters.

Summary

The 1997 Agreement on customs cooperation and mutual assistance in customs matters (CMAA) was designed to establish smooth trade relations between the European Community and the United States. To achieve the objective of the Agreement, the two parties undertook to develop customs cooperation of the widest possible scope. Article 3 of the Agreement provides for the possibility of expanding its scope by mutual consent.

On 22 April 2004, the two parties signed an Agreement which extended the scope of the 1997 Agreement. In order to cover supply-chain security of transatlantic trade, the EU and the United States would expand customs cooperation to ensure that general customs control takes due account of security concerns.

The Agreement provides for the prompt expansion of the Container Security Initiative to all ports in the Community that meet relevant requirements. It aims to improve cargo security on a reciprocal basis for both the EU and the US, whilst ensuring equal treatment of US and EU ports and operators. It also sets out a work programme for the implementation of the following measures:

the development of standards for risk management techniques;
information required to identify high-risk shipments imported by the parties;
industry partnership programmes.

The external coordination of customs control standards with the United States is also necessary to guarantee supply-chain security and ensure the continued flow of legitimate trade in containers. The customs authorities of the importing country work together with customs authorities involved in earlier parts of the supply chain to use timely information and inspection technology to target and screen high-risk containers before they are shipped from their ports or places of loading or transhipment in the respective countries. It is essential to ensure that all ports can participate in the Container Security Initiative on the basis of uniform principles. The adoption of comparable standards should also be promoted in US ports.

The Agreement aims to improve security on a reciprocal basis so as to ensure cooperation in the development of action in the specific areas of control for which the Community is competent. Such cooperation must also facilitate the legitimate trade of both parties.

The Member States must be able to extend the Container Security Initiative (CSI) to all Community ports in collaboration with the United States. To do so, Member States must identify the ports participating in the initiative and provide for the stationing of US customs officials in these ports or maintain the existing declarations of principle on this point in accordance with the Treaty and the extended CMAA.

In order to continue to broaden and intensify customs cooperation between the Community and the United States, cooperation between the Member States and the Community institutions is necessary. A consultation procedure has therefore been put in place whereby Member States that negotiate arrangements with the United States in the fields governed by the extended CMAA must consult the Commission and the other Member States beforehand. The purpose of these consultations is to facilitate information exchange and ensure that the agreed arrangements comply with the Treaty, common policies and the extended CMAA. If the Commission considers that an arrangement which a Member State wishes to include in cooperation with the United States does not comply, it informs the Member State concerned. Similarly, the Member State is informed when a subject has to be dealt with under the extended CMAA.

The EU-US Joint Customs Cooperation Committee is mandated with finding an appropriate form and content for documents and measures with a view to continuing to implement intensified and broadened customs cooperation under the Agreement.

The Agreement sets up a working group composed of representatives of the US customs authorities assisted by interested EU Member States. This group has the task of examining and making recommendations in, among others, the following areas:

defining minimum standards, in particular in view of participating in CSI, and recommending methods by which those standards may be met;
identifying and broadening the application of best practices concerning security controls of international trade, especially those developed under CSI;
defining and establishing standards for the information required to identify and control high-risk shipments imported into, transhipped through, or transiting the United States and the European Community;
improving and establishing standards for targeting and screening such high-risk shipments, to include information exchange, the use of automated targeting systems, and the development of minimum standards for inspection technologies and screening methodologies;
improving and establishing standards for industry partnership programmes designed to improve supply-chain security and facilitate legitimate trade;
identifying any regulatory or legislative changes that would be necessary to implement the recommendations of the Working Group;
considering the type of documents and measures to further implement intensified and broadened customs cooperation on the issues set out in the annex to the Agreement.

This Working Group reports regularly to the Joint Committee, the Commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection and the Director-General of DG Taxation and Customs Union of the Commission.

On 15 November 2004, the European Community and the United States adopted, via the Joint Committee, recommendations on strengthening the security of the maritime transport of containers under the Agreement.

The adoption of these recommendations contributes to the full implementation of the EC-US Agreement on ICS. The EU-US Joint Customs Cooperation Committee suggests that the working group continue to pursue the aim of mutual recognition and reciprocity of measures and standards. It must also present the initial results of the proposed activities and other recommendations in spring 2005. The results will pave the way for comparable measures applicable to all modes of transport.

References

Act	Entry into force	Deadline for transposition in the Member States	Official Journal
Decision 2004/634/EC	28.4.2004	–	OJ L 304 of 30.9.2004

Programme for cooperation in higher education and vocational education and training with the United States

Leave a reply

Programme for cooperation in higher education and vocational education and training with the United States

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Programme for cooperation in higher education and vocational education and training with the United States

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

External relations > Industrialised countries

Programme for cooperation in higher education and vocational education and training with the United States

Document or Iniciative

Council Decision 2006/910/EC of 4 December 2006 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America renewing a programme of cooperation in higher education and vocational education and training.

Summary

This agreement is set against the dual background of the European Union’s action to support higher education, and EU/US relations. The EU’s action is intended to make European higher education a world reference for relevance and excellence, while bilateral relations call for greater cooperation in education.

The programme will support some 274 projects over an eight year period. Approximately 6000 EU and US citizens will participate in mobility activities over the duration of the programme.

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME

The programme for cooperation in higher education and vocational education and training pursues a number of objectives.

As general objectives, it aims to promote mutual understanding between the two partners, including through language, culture and institutions, and to improve the quality of human resource development in order to meet the challenges of the global knowledge-based economy.

It also has the following specific objectives:

enhancing cooperation between the European Community and the United States;
contributing to the development of higher education and vocational training institutions;
contributing to individual participants’ personal development for their own sake and as a way to achieve its general objectives;
fostering transatlantic exchanges between the citizens of the two partners.

Its operational objectives are to:

support higher education and vocational training institutions with a view to promoting joint study programmes and mobility;
improve the quality of transatlantic student mobility through transparency, mutual recognition of qualifications, periods of study and training, and portability of academic credits;
support collaboration between public and private organisations active in the field of higher education and vocational training with a view to encouraging discussion and exchange of experience;
support transatlantic mobility of professionals with a view to improving mutual understanding of issues between the two partners.

LINES OF ACTION

The agreement sets out five lines of action to achieve the programme’s objectives.

Action 1: Consortia projects

Action on consortia projects is aimed at higher education and vocational training institutions and organisations, and their staff, students and trainees.

Joint consortia projects should normally involve transatlantic mobility of students in joint study programmes. Flows in each direction should be equal and they should plan for the language and cultural preparation which will be needed.

This type of project provides support for double or joint degrees set up and run by multilateral consortia of EU and US higher education institutions, including scholarships for students, academic and administrative staff.

Action 2: Excellence mobility projects

The support provided by the programme is intended mainly for consortia projects run by higher education and vocational training institutions with a proven record of excellence, including those funded under the previous agreements.

Action 3: Policy-oriented measures

This action is targeted at organisations dealing with higher education and vocational training. Activities under this category include study sessions, conferences, seminars, working groups and benchmarking exercises.

Action 4: “Schuman-Fulbright” individual mobility grants

This action is intended for professionals (including professionals in training) who wish to study or train in areas of specific relevance to EU/US relations. The professionals it is aimed at include, in particular, decision makers, representatives of the social partners and journalists.

Action 5: Alumni Association

Action by the programme in this area is aimed at alumni associations whose members participated in exchanges supported by the programme.

PROGRAMME ADMINISTRATION

A Joint Committee has been established. It consists of an equal number of representatives from each party. Decisions are reached by consensus. Its role is to:

review the cooperation activities envisaged under this agreement;
provide an annual report to the parties on the level, status and effectiveness of cooperation undertaken under this agreement.

Activities under this programme will be financed on an equal basis. The proposed programme would cost a maximum of 46 million over the period 2006-2013, provided that matching funds are made available by the US.

BACKGROUND

On 18 May 2005 the Commission adopted a communication on a stronger EU-US partnership, which, in line with the Lisbon strategy, identified cooperation in education and training as an important tool for stimulating knowledge and innovation, and called for the renewal and reinforcement of the current agreement on higher education and vocational training.

This agreement renews the cooperation programme for 2000-2005 originally established under the 1995 Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America.

References

Act	Entry into force	Deadline for transposition in the Member States	Official Journal
Decision 2006/910/EC	The first day of the month following notification	–	OJ L 346 of 09.12.2006

Related Acts

Agreement between the European Community and the United States renewing a cooperation programme in higher education and vocational education and training [Official Journal L 346 of 9.12.2006].

Communication from th Commission of 27 June 2005 on the evaluation of the cooperation programmes between the European Community and the United States of America in the field of higher education and vocational education and training and between the European Community and Canada in the field of higher education and training [COM (2005) 0274 – Not published in the Official Journal].

This is the Commission’s interim report on implementation of the EU-US cooperation programme. On the basis of positive external evaluations, the Commission states that the programme has widely succeeded in establishing long-term transatlantic partnerships in higher education and vocational training. Almost all the projects established exchanges of students based on joint programmes of study or programmes drawn up together. The report notes that the programmes achieved the objectives of improving the quality of education and training systems.
The Commission presents the suggestions made by the experts with a view to improving certain aspects of the programmes, but emphasises the absence of major shortcomings. It also mentions that some of the potential has remained unexploited for want of sufficient budgetary resources.

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee of 18 May 2005: A stronger EU-US Partnership and a more open market for the 21st century [COM (2005) 196 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

Framework of cooperation in higher education, training and youth with Canada

Leave a reply

Framework of cooperation in higher education, training and youth with Canada

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Framework of cooperation in higher education, training and youth with Canada

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

External relations > Industrialised countries

Framework of cooperation in higher education, training and youth with Canada

Document or Iniciative

Council Decision 2006/964/EC of 18 December 2006 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Canada establishing a framework for cooperation in higher education, training and youth.

Summary

This eight-year agreement forms part of relations between the European Union (EU) and Canada. The partners plan to boost their cooperation in the areas of higher education, vocational training and youth.

The Commission will grant a budget of around EUR 18 million to the cooperation programme in order to support some 210 projects and the involvement of 4 430 European and Canadian citizens in mobility activities during the period of the new agreement.

New and innovative joint studies and new training programmes will be launched, exchanges of students, teachers and other professionals encouraged and collaboration between youth organisations promoted.

OBJECTIVES OF THE AGREEMENT

This agreement has general, specific and operational objectives.

The general objectives are to promote mutual understanding between the populations of the two partners, in particular by way of their respective languages, cultures and institutions, and to improve the quality of human resources in order to meet the challenges of a knowledge-based global economy.

The specific objectives are to:

step up cooperation between the European Community and Canada in higher education, training and youth;
contribute to transatlantic exchanges between EU and Canadian citizens;
contribute to the development of higher education and training institutions, as well as youth organisations;
consolidate partnerships between those involved in higher education, training and youth work in the EU and Canada;
support the professional development of individuals while achieving the general objectives of the agreement;
increase dialogue and exchanges on youth policy and youth work.

The operational objectives are to:

support collaboration between higher education and training institutions with a view to promoting joint study programmes and mobility of students;
improve the quality of transatlantic student mobility by promoting transparency, the mutual recognition of qualifications and periods of study and training, and the portability of credits;
support collaboration among public and private organisations active in the areas of higher education, training and youth with a view to encouraging discussion and the exchange of experiences;
support transatlantic mobility of professionals with a view to improving mutual understanding of issues relevant to EU/Canada relations;
support collaboration among youth organisations as well as youth workers and others involved in this field with a view to promoting exchanges of good practices and developing networks.

ACTIONS

Three types of action are planned in the new agreement to achieve these objectives: projects carried out by joint consortia, joint activities in favour of young people and complementary actions.

Joint consortia projects

These projects * are intended for higher education and training institutions.

They support multilateral partnerships between institutions in at least two Member States of the EU and at least two Canadian provinces or territories in order to set up joint study programmes.

In principle, these projects should normally involve transatlantic mobility of students in the framework of joint study programmes, with a goal of parity in the flows in each direction, and should provide for mutual credit recognition and linguistic and cultural preparation.

Financial support for student mobility may also be granted to joint consortia of higher education and vocational training institutions that have a proven track record of excellence in the implementation of joint projects funded by the two partners.

Joint activities in favour of young people

This action concerns youth organisations, youth leaders and other actors in this sector.

The activities may include seminars, training courses and work observation visits. They will relate to, amongst others, the following subjects:

citizens’ rights;
cultural diversity;
social or voluntary work;
the recognition of non-formal and informal training.

Complementary actions

The agreement provides for three complementary actions:

policy-orientated measures. The target public of this action is organisations involved in higher education, training and youth. Activities under this category include studies, conferences, seminars, working groups and comparative assessments. They will touch on questions relating to higher education, vocational training and youth, promoting dialogue on the recognition of qualifications and the portability of credits within the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS);
mobility grants. The action concerns professionals, including those in training, who want to study or follow training programmes in sectors with particular relevance to relations between the two partners;
an alumni association. This action concerns students who have participated in exchanges organised by the joint consortia in the areas of higher education and vocational training. The association may be managed by one or more organisations appointed by the parties.

MANAGING THE FRAMEWORK OF COOPERATION

The agreement creates a joint committee comprising representatives from each party. It meets every two years, alternately in the EU and in Canada. Its decisions are reached by consensus, and it has the following functions:

reviewing the cooperation envisaged under the agreement;
presenting to the parties the level, status and effectiveness of the cooperation under the agreement;
sharing information on recent developments, policies, new trends or innovative practices related to higher education, training and youth.

The cooperation will be monitored and evaluated in order to fine-tune the cooperation activities, if necessary, in line with any new needs.

Financing will be on the basis of an overall matching of funds between the partners. Moreover, the European Community will provide support to the European Community project partners, and Canada will support the Canadian partners.

BACKGROUND

The EU and Canada have had a cooperation programme in higher education and vocational training since 1995. The aim of this programme is to create joint study programmes and to set up exchanges of students over a wide range of disciplines.

The agreement between the European Community and the Government of Canada setting up a programme of cooperation in the field of higher education and training was renewed in 2001 for five years (2000-2005). This agreement renews it for a further period of eight years and adds to it cooperation in the field of youth.

Key terms used in the act
Consortium: collaboration between several parties in a joint project or programme with the aim of achieving a result.

References

Act	Entry into force	Deadline for transposition in the Member States	Official Journal
Decision 2006/964/EC	The first day of the month following notification (1 March 2007)	–	OJ L 397, 30.12.2006

Related Acts

Council Decision of 2001/197/EC of 26 February 2001 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Canada renewing a cooperation programme in higher education and training [Official Journal L71, 13 March 2001].