Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.
 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 95 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee [1], Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty [2], Whereas:
(1) The disparities between the laws or administrative measures adopted by the Member States in relation to the ecodesign of energy-using products can create barriers to trade and distort competition in the Community and may thus have a direct impact on the establishment and functioning of the internal market. 
 The harmonisation of national laws is the only means to prevent such barriers to trade and unfair competition.
(2) Energy-using products (EuPs) account for a large proportion of the consumption of natural resources and energy in the Community. 
 They also have a number of other important environmental impacts. 
 For the vast majority of product categories available on the Community market, very different degrees of environmental impact can be noted though they provide similar functional performances. 
 In the interest of sustainable development, continuous improvement in the overall environmental impact of those products should be encouraged, notably by identifying the major sources of negative environmental impacts and avoiding transfer of pollution, when this improvement does not entail excessive costs. 
(3) The ecodesign of products is a crucial factor in the Community strategy on Integrated Product Policy. 
 As a preventive approach, designed to optimise the environmental performance of products, while maintaining their functional qualities, it provides genuine new opportunities for manufacturers, for consumers and for society as a whole.
(4) Energy efficiency improvement — with one of the available options being more efficient end use of electricity — is regarded as contributing substantially to the achievement of greenhouse gas emission targets in the Community. 
 Electricity demand is the fastest growing energy end use category and is projected to grow within the next 20 to 30 years, in the absence of any policy action to counteract this trend. 
 A significant reduction in energy consumption as suggested by the Commission in its European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) is possible. 
 Climate change is one of the priorities of the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, laid down by Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [3]. 
 Energy saving is the most cost-effective way to increase security of supply and reduce import dependency. 
 Therefore, substantial demand side measures and targets should be adopted. 
(5) Action should be taken during the design phase of EuPs, since it appears that the pollution caused during a product's life cycle is determined at that stage, and most of the costs involved are committed then.
(6) A coherent framework for the application of Community ecodesign requirements for EuPs should be established with the aim of ensuring the free movement of those products which comply and of improving their overall environmental impact. 
 Such Community requirements should respect the principles of fair competition and international trade. 
(7) Ecodesign requirements should be set bearing in mind the goals and priorities of the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, including as appropriate applicable goals of the relevant thematic strategies of that Programme.
(8) This Directive seeks to achieve a high level of protection for the environment by reducing the potential environmental impact of EuPs, which will ultimately be beneficial to consumers and other end-users. 
 Sustainable development also requires proper consideration of the health, social and economic impact of the measures envisaged. 
Improving the energy efficiency of products contributes to the security of the energy supply, which is a precondition of sound economic activity and therefore of sustainable development.
(9) A Member State deeming it necessary to maintain national provisions on grounds of major needs relating to the protection of the environment, or to introduce new ones based on new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment on grounds of a problem specific to that Member State arising after the adoption of the applicable implementing measure, may do so following the conditions laid down in Article 95(4), (5) and (6) of the Treaty, that provides for a prior notification to and approval from the Commission.
(10) In order to maximise the environmental benefits from improved design it may be necessary to inform consumers about the environmental characteristics and performance of EuPs and to advise them about how to use products in a manner which is environmentally friendly.
(11) The approach set out in the Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy, which is a major innovative element of the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, aims to reduce the environmental impacts of products across the whole of their life cycle. 
 Considering at the design stage a product's environmental impact throughout its whole life cycle has a high potential to facilitate environmental improvement in a cost-effective way. 
 There should be sufficient flexibility to enable this factor to be integrated in product design whilst taking account of technical, functional and economic considerations.
(12) Although a comprehensive approach to environmental performance is desirable, greenhouse gas mitigation through increased energy efficiency should be considered a priority environmental goal pending the adoption of a working plan.
(13) It may be necessary and justified to establish specific quantified ecodesign requirements for some products or environmental aspects thereof in order to ensure that their environmental impact is minimised. 
 Given the urgent need to contribute to the achievement of the commitments in the framework of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and without prejudice to the integrated approach promoted in this Directive, some priority should be given to those measures with a high potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions at low cost. 
 Such measures can also contribute to a sustainable use of resources and constitute a major contribution to the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable production and consumption agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in September 2002.
(14) As a general principle, the energy consumption of EuPs in stand-by or off-mode should be reduced to the minimum necessary for their proper functioning.
(15) While the best-performing products or technologies available on the market, including on international markets, should be taken as reference, the level of ecodesign requirements should be established on the basis of technical, economic and environmental analysis. 
 Flexibility in the method for establishing the level of requirements can make swift improvement of environmental performance easier. 
Interested parties involved should be consulted and cooperate actively in this analysis. 
 The setting of mandatory measures requires proper consultation of the parties involved. 
 Such consultation may highlight the need for a phased introduction or transitional measures. 
 The introduction of interim targets increases the predictability of the policy, allows for accommodating product development cycles and facilitates long term planning for interested parties.
(16) Priority should be given to alternative courses of action such as self-regulation by the industry where such action is likely to deliver the policy objectives faster or in a less costly manner than mandatory requirements. 
 Legislative measures may be needed where market forces fail to evolve in the right direction or at an acceptable speed.
(17) Self-regulation, including voluntary agreements offered as unilateral commitments by industry, can provide for quick progress due to rapid and cost-effective implementation, and allows for flexible and appropriate adaptation to technological options and market sensitivities.
(18) For the assessment of voluntary agreements or other self-regulation measures presented as alternatives to implementing measures, information on at least the following issues should be available: 
 openness of participation, added value, representativeness, quantified and staged objectives, involvement of civil society, monitoring and reporting, cost-effectiveness of administering a self-regulatory initiative, sustainability.
(19) Chapter 6 of the Commission's "Communication on Environmental Agreements at Community level within the Framework of the Action Plan on the Simplification and Improvement of the Regulatory Environment" could provide useful guidance when assessing self-regulation by industry in the context of this Directive.
(20) This Directive should also encourage the integration of ecodesign in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and very small firms. 
 Such integration could be facilitated by wide availability of and easy access to information relating to the sustainability of their products.
(21) EuPs complying with the ecodesign requirements laid down in implementing measures to this Directive should bear the "CE" marking and associated information, in order to enable them to be placed on the internal market and move freely. 
 The rigorous enforcement of implementing measures is necessary to reduce the environmental impact of regulated EuPs and to ensure fair competition.
(22) When preparing implementing measures and its working plan the Commission should consult Member States' representatives as well as interested parties concerned with the product group, such as industry, including SMEs and craft industry, trade unions, traders, retailers, importers, environmental protection groups and consumer organisations.
 When preparing implementing measures, the Commission should also take due account of existing national environmental legislation, in particular concerning toxic substances, which Member States have indicated that they consider should be preserved, without reducing the existing and justified levels of protection in the Member States.
 Regard should be given to the modules and rules intended for use in technical harmonisation Directives set out in Council Decision 93/465/EEC of 22 July 1993 concerning the modules for the various phases of the conformity assessment procedures and the rules for the
affixing and use of the CE conformity marking, which are intended to be used in the technical harmonisation directives.
 Surveillance authorities should exchange information on the measures envisaged within the scope of this Directive with a view to improving surveillance of the market.
Such cooperation should make the utmost use of electronic means of communication and relevant Community programmes. 
The exchange of information on environmental life cycle performance and on the achievements of design solutions should be facilitated.
The accumulation and dissemination of the body of
knowledge generated by the ecodesign efforts of
manufacturers is one of the crucial benefits of this
Directive.
(26) A competent body is usually a public or private body,
designated by the public authorities, and presenting the
necessary guarantees for impartiality and availability of
technical expertise for carrying out verification of the
product with regard to its compliance with the applicable
implementing measures.
(27) Noting the importance of avoiding non-compliance,
Member States should ensure that the necessary means
are available for effective market surveillance.
(28) In respect of training and information on ecodesign for
SMEs, it may be appropriate to consider accompanying
activities.
(29) It is in the interest of the functioning of the internal
market to have standards which have been harmonised at
Community level. Once the reference to such a standard
has been published in the Official Journal of the European
Union, compliance with it should raise a presumption of
conformity with the corresponding requirements set out
in the implementing measure adopted on the basis of this
Directive, although other means of demonstrating such
conformity should be permitted.
(30) One of the main roles of harmonised standards should
be to help manufacturers in applying the implementing
measures adopted under this Directive. Such standards
could be essential in establishing measuring and testing
methods. In the case of generic ecodesign requirements
harmonised standards could contribute considerably to
guiding manufacturers in establishing the ecological
profile of their products in accordance with the
requirements of the applicable implementing measure.
These standards should clearly indicate the relationship
between their clauses and the requirements dealt with.
The purpose of harmonised standards should not be to
fix limits for environmental aspects.
(31) For the purpose of definitions used in this Directive it is
useful to refer to relevant international standards such as
ISO 14040.
(32) This Directive is in accordance with certain principles for
the implementation of the new approach as set out in the
Council Resolution of 7 May 1985 on a new approach to
technical harmonisation and standards and of making
reference to harmonised European standards. The
Council Resolution of 28 October 1999 on the role of
standardisation in Europe recommended that the
Commission should examine whether the New
Approach principle could be extended to sectors not
yet covered as a means of improving and simplifying
legislation wherever possible.
(33) This Directive is complementary to existing Community
instruments such as Council Directive 92/75/EEC of
22 September 1992 on the indication by labelling and
standard product information of the consumption of
energy and other resources by household appliances,
Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 on a
revised Community eco-label award scheme, Regulation
(EC) No 2422/2001 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 6 November 2001 on a Community
energy efficiency labelling programme for office equipment,
 Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste
electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), Directive
2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use
of certain hazardous substances in electrical and
electronic equipment and Council Directive 76/769/
EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of
certain dangerous substances and preparations. Synergies
between this Directive and the existing Community
instruments should contribute to increasing their
respective impacts and building coherent requirements
for manufacturers to apply.
(34) Since Council Directive 92/42/EEC of 21 May 1992 on efficiency requirements for new hot-water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous fuels, Directive 96/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 September 1996 on energy efficiency requirements for household electric refrigerators, freezers and combinations thereof and Directive 2000/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on energy efficiency requirements for ballasts for fluorescent lighting already contain provisions for the revision of the energy efficiency requirements, they should be integrated into the present framework.
(35) Directive 92/42/EEC provides for a star rating system intended to ascertain the energy performance of boilers.
Since Member States and the industry agree that the star rating system has proved not to deliver the expected result, Directive 92/42/EEC should be amended to open the way for more effective schemes.
(36) The requirements laid down in Council Directive 78/170/EEC of 13 February 1978 on the performance of heat generators for space heating and the production of hot water in new or existing non-industrial buildings and on the insulation of heat and domestic hot-water distribution in new non-industrial buildings have been superseded by provisions of Directive 92/42/EEC, Council Directive 90/396/EEC of 29 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to appliances burning gaseous fuels and Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings. Directive 78/170/EEC should therefore be repealed.

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).
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; 
- 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.
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.
Tables 1a and 1b summarise developments in the counterfeiting of euro banknotes and coins.
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 1998[1]. 
On that basis, the Council adopted a basic Regulation in 2001[2], laying the institutional foundations for the protection structure; 
that was preceded by a Council Framework Decision[3], 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 counterfeiting[4]. 
With regard to criminal sanctions, the Commission has published two reports[5] 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 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.
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 conclusions[6]:
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.