European Council

Today we meet in Bratislava at a critical time for our European project. The Bratislava Summit of 27 Member States has been devoted to diagnose together the present state of the European Union and discuss our common future. We all agreed on the following general principles.

On 19 September 2016, the Council, by common accord with the President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, appointed Julian King as the new commissioner for security union. The appointment applies for the remainder of the current term of office of the Commission which ends on 31 October 2019.

Julian King is a British national and has been UK ambassador to France since January 2016. He replaces Jonathan Hill who resigned on 25 June 2016.

UN General Assembly, New York

Sunday 18 September 2016
(local time)
17.00 Meeting with UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon 

Monday 19 September 2016
(local time)
08.30 Opening ceremony of the High-Level Plenary Meeting on addressing large movements of refugees and migrants
09.30 Meeting with President of Egypt Abdel Fattah el-Sisi
10.00 Meeting with Prime Minister of New Zealand John Key
+/- 13.50 Speech at the High-Level Plenary Meeting
14.30 Meeting with Prime Minister of Kosovo Isa Mustafa
15.00 Meeting with Prime Minister of Norway Erna Solberg
15.30 Meeting with the President of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Gjorge Ivanov

Tuesday 20 September 2016
(local time)
09.00 Opening of the 71st UN General Assembly
12.00 Meeting with the Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bakir Izetbegović
12.30 Meeting with Prime Minister of Australia Malcolm Turnbull
13.15 Luncheon hosted by UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon
15.30 Leaders' summit on the global refugee crisis
ttbc Address at the Leaders' summit on the global refugee crisis
19.00 Reception at the EU delegation to the UN

Wednesday 21 September 2016
(local time)
+/- 12.15 Address at the 71st UN General Assembly debate
15.30 Meeting with Prime Minister of Iraq, Haider al-Abadi
16.00 Meeting with Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina
17.00 Meeting with Prime Minister of Republic of Moldova, Pavel Filip
17.30 Meeting with Prime Minister of Georgia Giorgi Kvirikashvili

We haven't come to Bratislava to comfort each other. Or even worse, to deny the real challenges we face. In this particular moment in the history of our community, after the vote in the UK, the only thing that makes sense is to have a sober and brutally honest assessment of the situation.

What we need today is an optimistic scenario for the future, no doubts. But it requires a realistic diagnosis of the causes of Brexit, and its political consequences for all Europe. One thing must be absolutely clear here in Bratislava: that we can't start our discussions tomorrow with this kind of blissful conviction that nothing is wrong, that everything was and is okay.

I am absolutely sure that we have to assure, here in Bratislava and also after our meeting, our citizens that we have learned the lessons from Brexit, and that we are able to bring back stability and a sense of security and effective protection. I hope that the so-called "Bratislava Roadmap" I will present tomorrow will be a first step in this direction.

It is true that Europe has recently been shaken by all kinds of crises but as the same time it is my feeling that the best motto for the Bratislava meeting is that we must not let these crises go to waste.

After my consultations with the leaders, as you may know I have talked to all of them in the last two weeks, I am absolutely sure that no-one thinks otherwise.

The Council prolonged by 6 months the application of EU restrictive measures targeting actions against Ukraine's territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence. These sanctions consist of an asset freeze and a travel ban against 146 persons and 37 entities. They have been extended until 15 March 2017.

The measures had been introduced in March 2014 and were last extended in March 2016.The assessment of the situation did not justify a change in the regime of sanctions nor in the list of persons and entities under restrictive measures. Information and statement of reasons for listing related to these persons and entities were updated as necessary.  

The legal acts are available in the EU Official Journal of 16 September 2016. The decision was adopted by written procedure.

Several EU measures are in place in response to the crisis in Ukraine including: 

- economic sanctions targeting specific sectors of the Russian economy, currently in place until 31 January 2017;

- restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, limited to the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol, currently in place until 23 June 2017.

Dear colleagues,

After having consulted most of you and in order to better prepare our summit in Bratislava, let me share some personal reflections. I think it is important that we make an honest assessment of the current situation to provide the best possible basis for building our future together.

I
We are meeting in Bratislava at a particularly historic moment. Twenty-seven leaders of Europe are to discuss the future of our Union, following the first ever decision of a country to leave the EU. We all feel that in these turbulent times marked by crises and conflicts, what we need more than ever before is a confirmation of the sense of our community, which will be celebrating its 60th anniversary in a few months' time.

Brexit not only challenges us with the task of negotiating new relations with the United Kingdom. In this respect, our position should remain clear and unambiguous ("No negotiations without notification"). The Treaty provisions drawn up in case of an EU exit protect the interests of the Union. Our objective in the future negotiations should be, on the one hand, to establish the best possible relations with the UK; on the other hand, however, we should stick to the Treaty and be coolheaded, consistent, and fully united as well as firm in insisting on a balance of rights and obligations. If we do so, there will be no room for doubt that it is a good thing to be a member of the Union.

II
While waiting for the UK government to trigger negotiations, we should diagnose the state and the prospects of a post-Brexit EU. It would be a fatal error to assume that the negative result in the UK referendum represents a specifically British issue; that British Euroscepticism is a symptom of political aberration or merely a cynical game of populists exploiting social frustrations. It is true that the Leave campaign was full of false arguments and unacceptable generalisations. But it is also true that the Brexit vote is a desperate attempt to answer the questions that millions of Europeans ask themselves daily, questions about the very essence of politics. Questions about the guarantees of security of the citizens and their territory, questions about the protection of their interests, cultural heritage and way of life. These are questions we would have to face even if the UK had voted to remain.

People in Europe want to know if the political elites are capable of restoring control over events and processes which overwhelm, disorientate, and sometimes terrify them. Today many people, not only in the UK, think that being part of the European Union stands in the way of stability and security.

People quite rightly expect their leaders to protect the space they live in and ensure their security. If the belief that we have abandoned this responsibility is further strengthened, they will start looking for alternatives. And they will find them. History has taught us that this can lead to a massive turn away from freedom and the other fundamental values that the European Union is founded upon. It is therefore crucial to restore the balance between the need for freedom and security, and between the need for openness and protection. In this context, the effective control of our external borders comes first, and has both a practical and a symbolic dimension.

III
The migration crisis was the tipping point. Last year's chaos on our borders, new images every day of hundreds of thousands of people moving across our continent without any control, created a feeling of threat among many Europeans. They had to wait too long for action to bring the situation under control, such as the closure of the Western Balkan route and the EU-Turkey deal. Instead, all too often they heard politically correct statements that Europe cannot become a fortress, that it must remain open. The lack of rapid action and of a uniform European strategy have weakened citizens' trust in their governments, the institutions and in the wider establishment, already undermined since the financial crisis. Rebuilding this trust has become an urgent necessity, which Brexit has demonstrated very clearly.

We do not have too much time to spare. Bratislava will have to be a turning point in terms of protecting the Union's external borders. We must demonstrate to our citizens that we are willing and able to protect them from a repeat of the chaos of 2015. This will require the full cooperation of all the governments and European institutions.

IV
It is equally important to combat terrorism effectively. In principle we all agree, and yet there are still too many practical and legislative obstacles. Someone must give back to Europeans their sense of security. The question is who and by what means. The main instruments in this field remain at national level, but we can and must do more together. We should cooperate more closely among our police forces and other services when it comes to the exchange of information and operations. We can also do more in terms of facilitating the cooperation of internet providers in removing content which incites hatred and promotes terrorism. At external borders, we must ensure that everybody is checked against our databases, so that potential terrorists cannot enter the EU unhindered. And in each of our countries we must do more to fight radicalisation. Without genuine determination to fight terrorist threats, we will fail to stem radical and increasingly aggressive behaviour and attitudes. These had until recently represented only a narrow margin of politics and public debate in Europe, but today are becoming mainstream with growing audacity.

The promise of a ruthless crackdown on terrorism has become one of the main slogans of right-wing extremists. Furthermore, the fact that despite our best efforts it was not possible to prevent a number of attacks makes their anti-European and anti-democratic rhetoric even more attractive.

V
Our citizens also expect the European Union to better protect their economic and social interests. Especially today, in the age of globalisation, the need for access to proper information, enforcing fair rules, setting clear standards, and the reassurance that their leaders (i.e. their governments and the European institutions) will stand by them in the confrontation with outside competitors, is visible more than ever. It is obvious that free trade and global competition lie in the interest of Europeans, but it is equally obvious that they pose significant and often unprecedented challenges.

This is why, while we continue to work on future trade deals, we must guarantee and reassure our citizens and European companies that we are above all representing and protecting their interests in this process. Europe has enough arguments to be a champion of global competition, but a sine qua non condition for this to happen is to reinstate the trust of the main actors, i.e. workers, consumers and entrepreneurs, in those who represent them. In this case time also plays a key role. Failing to reach trade agreements (and we are talking months, not years) will inevitably create an impression that Brexit has sparked a process of eliminating us from the global game. Today its biggest participants, as the G20 Summit has confirmed, respect and recognise Europe's position as a trade and economic power, and an attractive partner.

VI
I am aware that the future of Europe will depend not only on how we handle the migration crisis, terrorism, and the fears associated with globalisation. Bringing back the feeling of security and order, the trust of EU citizens in their political leadership as well as rebuilding the reputation of the Union as a synonym of protection and stability, are all crucial and indispensable, but they are insufficient. Bratislava should therefore also provide a road map for other equally important endeavours (such as economic and social development, jobs and opportunities for the young, the single market, the digital agenda and investments). We should take formal decisions on the above and other areas at our regular European Council summits in October and December. We will continue our informal work as 27 also in the winter of 2017. As I have already announced, our relations with Russia will be reviewed during a separate session at the October European Council summit. In December we will return to how to strengthen practical cooperation in defence to give it more substance without duplicating NATO. Later we will also have to come back to other important issues such as the Banking Union and the further development of the Economic and Monetary Union.

VII
Following Brexit, business as usual is not an option. We can either come out of this crisis weaker and conflicted, or stronger and more united. There is no fatalism hanging over our future, everything is still in our hands, hearts and minds. The economic and cultural potential of our twenty-seven countries, the talent and education of our citizens, is more than enough to believe in Europe and its ability to compete with the rest of the world in an effective and secure manner.

Our deficits, as compared with other global powers, are visible in "hard politics" (such as defense and executive powers). We will not, however, change the European Union into a single state. Therefore, it will be crucial for the Member States to better cooperate among one another, to bring our forces together in the Union. My talks with you clearly show that giving new powers to European institutions is not the desired recipe. National electorates want more influence on the decisions of the Union. Adopting this direction would nonetheless require a change of attitude of national governments towards the European Union as such.

Today the EU is often treated as a necessary evil, not a common good. The slogan "less power for Brussels", which sounds attractive in political campaigns, should translate as more responsibility for the Union in national capitals. This responsibility for the Union is nothing other than a readiness to sacrifice part of one's own interests for the sake of the community. It also means refraining from the constant accusations aimed at the Union, which sometimes are justified, but more often than not they serve as an easy excuse for one's own failures. This was also one of the reasons behind the Brexit vote.

The keys to a healthy balance between the priorities of Member States and those of the Union lie in national capitals. The institutions should support the priorities as agreed among Member States, and not impose their own ones. This is another conclusion I have drawn from my consultations with you.

VIII
Between the scepticism of the pessimists on the one hand, and the Euro-enthusiasm on the other there is ample room for "real optimism". Critical diagnosis must be at its source. We need to do everything not to let it degenerate into a blame game, so futile and so typical of recent years, or a bidding competition for best-sounding slogans, such as "better Europe", "less Europe" or "more Europe". After all, someone might eventually cut it short with "no more Europe".

IX
Today we are not in the situation of the heroes of The Leopard, a novel by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa. We do not have to change everything if we want things to stay as they are. We must rectify a number of things in order to preserve what is best. For that to succeed we need readiness to take several difficult, yet in fact simple decisions. This is not about new treaties or procedural changes. What we need is a strong political will and imagination. The time has come to rise to the challenge. In fact, there is no other way. Yours sincerely,

On 14 September 2016, the Council gave its final approval to the European Border and Coast Guard. The adoption of the regulation, which the Council approved by written procedure, paves the way for the Border and Coast Guard to begin its activities in mid-October. 

Robert Kaliňák, Minister for the Interior of Slovakia and President of the Council, said "I welcome the speed and the efficiency with which the Council and the Parliament have acted on this important issue. The way we manage our external borders directly affects the entire Schengen area, including its internal borders. The European Border and Coast Guard will help us better face today's challenges together. Only with effective management of our external borders can we return to normality within Schengen. There is no other way." 

The main role of the European Border and Coast Guard is to help provide integrated border management at the external borders. It will ensure the effective management of migration flows and provide a high level of security for the EU. At the same time it will help safeguard free movement within the EU and respect fully fundamental rights. 

It will consist of a European Border and Coast guard agency (the current Frontex agency with expanded tasks) and those national authorities responsible for border management. The main focus of its activities will be the establishment of an operational strategy for border management and the coordination of assistance from all member states.  

The tasks required to carry this out include: 

• drafting of vulnerability assessment of member states' border control capacity;
• organising joint operations and rapid border interventions to strengthen the capacity of the member states control the external borders, and to tackle challenges at the external border resulting from illegal immigration or cross-border crime
• assisting the Commission in the coordination of support teams when a member state faces disproportionate migratory pressures at specific points on their external border;
• ensuring a practical response in cases requiring urgent action at the external borders;
• providing technical and operational assistance in support of search and rescue operations for persons in distress at sea during border surveillance operations;
• helping establish a rapid reserve pool of at least 1500 border guards;
• appointing liaison officers of the agency in member states;
• organising, coordinating and conducting return operations and interventions;
• promoting operational cooperation between member states and third countries on border management.

 As part of an overall improvement in coast guard functions, there will be better cooperation between competent agencies. For this reason, the mandates of the European Fisheries Control Agency and the European Maritime Safety Agency have been aligned to that of the new European Border Guard.

The European Border and Coast Guard will start its activities once the regulation enters into force on 6 October 2016 (20 days after its publication in the Official Journal). The provisions related to the setting up of the reserve and technical equipment pools will enter into force two months after the rest of the regulation and those related to the return pools, three months after the rest of the regulation.

On 12 September 2016, the Council adopted its position on the draft EU budget for 2017. The Council's main objective is to ensure that the limited  financial resources available are directed towards the EU's top priorities. These are measures to address the migration crisis and its root causes, and actions to boost Europe's economy and create jobs. Overall the Council's aim is to secure a sustainable and effective budget at a time of continuing budgetary constraint.

"I believe that the Council's position reflects a balanced approach that makes the most effective use of the EU budget under the current circumstances and constraints. It targets the available financial resources on our current priorities, provides  enough financial leeway to react to unforeseen needs and avoids unnecessary burdens on member states' national budgets by striving to match the budget  to actual needs. I am confident that together with the European Parliament we can work towards securing a sustainable budget", said Vazil Hudák, chief negotiator for the EU budget of the Slovak Presidency of the Council.

Top priorities

The Council accepted all the figures put forward by the Commission for tackling the migration crisis. Heading 3 (security and citizenship) therefore benefits from an increase of 4.9% in commitments and 24.4% in payments compared to 2016. The Council also approved the figures proposed by the Commission within heading 4 (global Europe) for migration-related measures, such as the fight against the root causes of migration. The Council also agreed to the figures for humanitarian aid.

To help boost economic growth  and create new jobs the Council approved an increase in the  resources available under sub-heading 1a (competitiveness for growth and jobs) by almost 9% in both commitments and payments compared to 2016. This covers  instruments such as the European fund for strategic investments, the EU programme for the competitiveness of enterprises and Erasmus +.

Cautious reductions

Aside from these top priorities the Council identified a number of areas where it reduced the increases proposed by the Commission. This is particularly the case for budget lines where, on the basis of a technical analysis, the Council concluded that the Commission has over-estimated the actual needs. However those programmes which are performing well or starting to deliver are generally protected.

The Council also  scrutinized very carefully all administrative expenditure. It called on the other EU institutions to make every effort to reduce their staff by 5% by 2017 as  agreed in 2013.

A summary of the Council's position is set out in the table below:

 Description122/1Budget 2016
(AB No 1 to 2/2016 incl.)Council position on DB 2017Difference
(%)c/ap/ac/ap/ac/ap/a1Smart and inclusive growth69.866.374.356.1+6,36%-15,31%1.aCompetitiveness for growth and jobs19.017.420.719.0+8,95%+8,89%1.bEconomic, social and territorial cohesion50.848.853.637.1+5,39%-23,94%2Sustainable growth: natural resources62.555.158.755.0-6,02%-0,15%3Security and citizenship4.13.04.23.8+4,84%+24,42%4Global Europe9.210.29.39.2+1,74%-9,22%5Administration8.98.99.39.3+3,67%+3,70%MFF headings154.5143.5155.8133.4+0,88%-7,04%Emergency aid reserve0.30.30.30.3+1,94%+1,94%European globalisation adjustment fund0.20.030.20.03+2,00%-16,67%European Union solidarity fund0.050.050.050.05+0,00%+0,00%Special instruments0.50.40.50.4+1,78%+0,26%Total appropriations155.0143.9156.4133.8+0,89%-7,02%

in billion €; c/a: commitments, p/a: payments, AB: amending budget, DB: draft budget

Next steps

If the European Parliament adopts amendments to the Council's position by 27 October, a three-week conciliation period will start on 28 October 2016. The aim of this conciliation process is to reach a joint position of both institutions on the budget. This should happen by 17 November 2016 at the latest.

European Council meeting will take place on 20-21 October 2016 in Justus Lipsius building in Brussels. 

 Application deadline: 5 October, 12.00 (noon)
Procedure

• If this is your first registration, please make sure you have a recent ID-size photograph in JPEG format (.jpg) and the number of your passport or identity card ready before starting the online process.
• You will receive an acknowledgement of receipt by email. Please read it carefully as it includes the list of original documents you will be asked to provide when collecting your badge. Depending on your profile, the requested document will include: Passport or ID card, press card and/or a letter from your editor-in chief as well as the signed original of your authorisation for security screening (only for media representatives of Belgian nationality or resident in Belgium). The press centre may contact you to request additional information if necessary. No accreditation badge will be issued if you cannot provide all required documents.
• Under certain conditions it is possible to organise a group registration/collection of badges for journalists working for the same media. Select group registration at the beginning of the accreditation process and follow the instructions.
• Trainees with media organisations who do not possess a press card are not entitled to request accreditation

Journalists holding a 6-month badge (30.06.2016 - 31.12.2016) do not need to register

6-month badges can be collected at the accreditation centre of the LEX building during summits. Please ensure that you have all the required documents when collecting your badge.

Collection of badges

Accreditation badges must be collected in person from the LEX building (145 rue de la Loi, Brussels)  

• Wednesday 19 October - 9.30 - 13.00 and 14.00 - 18.00
• Thursday 20 October - 8.30 - 20.00 
• Friday 21 October , from 08.00 to the end of the final press conference (latest 22.00) 

Practical information on the press centre and the media programme will follow.

For more details on the European Council meeting, see the meeting page.

Monday 12 September 2016
Valletta
11.45 Meeting with Prime Minister Joseph Muscat
Madrid
16.30 Meeting with Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy

Tuesday 13 September
Warsaw
09.00 Meeting with Prime Minister Beata Szydło
Budapest
15.35 Meeting with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán

Wednesday 14 September 2016
Phone calls with Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka

Thursday 15 September 2016
Bratislava
19.00 Dinner with Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and European Parliament President Martin Schulz

Friday 16 September 2016
Bratislava
Informal meeting of the 27 heads of state or government
09.30 Joint welcome with Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico of the heads of state or government
10.00 First working session
12.45 Family photo
13.00 Informal lunch
16.00 Second working session
18.30 Press conference

Good afternoon. I am happy to be back again in Stockholm. And thank you Stefan for your warm hospitality.

My visit to Stockholm this time is prompted by the result of the UK referendum. Our meeting in Bratislava next week will mark the beginning of the reflection process and I am currently consulting the 27 on their ideas and expectations.

In short, to me the aim of the Bratislava summit is to bring back the political control of our common future. We need to come up with a diagnosis of the Union's current shortcomings. And more importantly, the Union and its Member States must demonstrate our strong determination and ability to address the major concerns and worries of its citizens. Based on my consultations so far, I have no doubt that the three main challenges are uncontrolled irregular migration, terrorism, and the fears of globalisation. These three challenges are not unique for Europe but they are essential for understanding the increasing lack of trust in the European Union. My ambition is that in Bratislava we can agree on the main priorities and what we need to do about them in the next few months.

For me it is clear that our first priority must be to secure our external borders. This is also a necessary precondition for a common European asylum policy. In Bratislava I would like to see a critical number of Member States sending border guards and equipment to help Bulgaria protect its border with Turkey. This would be a concrete example of support to an EU country that is seeing more migrants trying to cross illegally into the EU. And it would be an important signal that we are serious and will not hesitate to act if and when needed. Never again can we allow our borders to be overrun by waves of irregular migrants as in 2015.

Fighting the threat of terrorism in Europe and elsewhere is another priority, and where there is no alternative to greater European cooperation and coordination. In Bratislava I want us to pledge that all persons, including EU citizens, that cross the Union's external borders are checked against the relevant databases. It is a question of our security.

In a wider sense we also need to bring back control of globalisation to make sure that it is an opportunity and not a threat. We need to find a way to safeguard the interests of our citizens while remaining open to the world.

This is how I see the situation and how I suggest solving some of our collective problems. I look forward to discussing this with you, Stefan. Thank you.

I would like to thank Prime Minister Rõivas for his warm welcome and for taking time during what I know is an intense political season in Estonia.

I have travelled to Tallinn today to consult with the Prime Minister ahead of our summit of 27 leaders in Bratislava next week. We will be meeting to talk about what the European Union could and should look like after Brexit.

I know, that here, in Estonia the prospect of the UK leaving the Union is a shock, as the UK has been a great ally in questions you care about, such as free trade and the digital agenda, not to mention security policy. I am aware of questions that have arisen here because the UK will take the lead in deploying troops in Estonia as part of NATO's  reassurance measures. I talked yesterday with Prime Minister Theresa May and I can assure you that she shares our determination to keep the best and closest possible relations between the EU and the U.K.

The meeting in Bratislava, however, is not about Brexit per se but about how we organise the EU in the future. And this is exactly what I discussed today with Prime Minister Rõivas: It was important for me to hear your thoughts, Taavi, on how the EU could best respond to the concerns that so many Europeans have today: about irregular migration, the effects of globalisation, the slow recovery from the economic crisis, and the fear of terrorism, which has touched Estonia recently in a very direct way in Nice.

We need to show that we are aware, determined and capable of handling the biggest concerns. This is also why I will appeal to all 27 leaders next week in Bratislava to send concrete, operational support to Bulgaria to protect its border with Turkey, in the form of border guards and equipment.

To conclude, I would like to thank the Prime Minister and the Estonian government for having agreed to take on the task of the EU Presidency 6 months earlier than you had planned for. I am absolutely convinced that you will not only manage but will excel at it. The second half of 2017, when you will lead the work of the Council of the European Union, promises to be an intense and critical time for the EU. I can think of no one else I would rather have in my corner at that time. Thank you.

Good afternoon everyone. Thank you for joining us here at the Eurogroup press conference in Bratislava. I would like to take the opportunity to thank our Slovak hosts for the excellent organisation and the splendid venue where we are today. We welcomed to the Eurogroup Petteri Orpo, the newly appointed Finnish Minister of Finance. He was with us for the first time. We also welcomed Alenka Smerkolj who is the Acting Slovenian Minister of Finance.

So this was our first Eurogroup after the summer break, with many challenges ahead. Reading the newspapers which you (journalists) deliver to us, you sometimes feel that there is an atmosphere of doom and gloom over the eurozone. I would like to say that the economic recovery is progressing, growth has returned to almost all of our countries and becomes stronger year on year. Unemployement is going down in most countries so there are some very positive signes throughout the eurozone. Growth is keeping up with the US - that is also an interesting perspective to take - and the support of policies that we have in place: monetary policy, support for investments, structural reforms, improving the quality of public finances, on all of those areas we will continue to push the effectiveness of what we do and see what further steps are needed.

Today we discussed first of all the state of affairs in Greece. We took stock of the progress. There are number of milestones still pending to fully complete the first review and coupled with those are further disbursements. So we took stock of those and heard a little about the issues at stake. There was a general feeling that we must not lose time - the time scale that was drawn up and agreed in May 2016 - so more progress is needed and we strongly encouraged the Greek government as a whole to speed up the implementation of the remaining milestones. That of course could also help in ensuring a timely start and completion of the second review. The work on that will have to start very soon also. Against this background, we were happy to hear from our Greek colleague his commitment to do that work very quickly. We will be following  that closely in the coming weeks.

We also discussed three fiscal issues:

First of all, we looked at the issue of early and late submissions of the draft budgetary plans. We have looked at this a couple of times in recent years and I am glad to announce that all Ministers are committed from now on to submitting draft budgetary plans in the window of 1-15 October. So let's not have anymore early submissions, let alone late submissions. The draft budgets plans need to come in within that timeframe, and that will also allow the Commission to synchronise the horizontal assessment of the draft budgetary plans that then follow.

The issue on what a caretaker governement should do in that period was also discussed -the general line of course being that they can submit a no-policy-change-budget. On these two elements, the guidelines, I believe it is the two-pack, will have to be adjusted and that work will now proceed and come back to us in Ecofin.

Secondly, we took stock of the Commission preparations and the dialogue with the European Parliament in relation to the partial freezing of structural funds commitments following the Spanish and Portuguese EDPs. The Commission informed us on the state of play there and I think we all agree that that the process needs to be completed as soon as possible. As you know the Spanish and Portuguese governments need to, on top of their draft budgetary plans, submit by the latest on 15 October a specific report on the effective action that they need to take. I am sure that Commissioner will say more about that.

Third, we were informed on the progress on the technical work on making the stability and growth pact simpler, more predictable and understandable for all of us - this is about the indicators needed to see whether countries comply with the act. This is the debate we had in Amsterdam during the informal Ecofin and Eurogroup. There is good progress and we should be ready to take some decisions on these budgetary indicators later this year. We will come back to that, probably in November 2016.

Finally, we held another discussion on the quality of public finances in our countries, we have discussed it before - today we focused on spending reviews, which is for ministers of finance a very useful and effective way to get a better insight into improvements on the effectiveness of public spending - to assess priorities, and to ensure that public money is spent wisely and effectively. So we exchanged information and experiences on this topic, and number of ministers informed us how they use the instrument and how it works, and we have designed a number of common principles on the use of this instrument of expenditure reviews. We will come back to that in the first half of 2017 and on a regular base after that.

Those were the key issues today. Let me give a floor to Commissioner Moscovici.

The Eurogroup considers spending reviews to be a useful tool for improving the quality of public finances. They offer a complementary means of supporting fiscal responsibility through reviewing priorities in public expenditure, and can contribute to a more growth-friendly composition of the budget. They have particular relevance for the euro area, where sound fiscal policies are a key matter of common interest and whose Member States have chosen to closely coordinate fiscal policies. In times of high public debt and historically low economic growth rates, there is more need than ever to ensure that taxpayers' money is used efficiently. The Eurogroup therefore calls on euro area Member States to actively use spending reviews. 

The Eurogroup has looked at the experience with spending reviews in  euro area Member States and beyond, and noted a number of principles that need to be followed if spending reviews are to have an optimal impact on the quality of public spending. The Eurogroup therefore endorses the following set of common principles for improving the quality of public finances through the use of spending reviews: 

• Strong and sustained political commitment at a high national level, throughout the project, is essential for successfully carrying out spending reviews and implementing their findings into meaningful reforms.
• The designand implementation of spending reviews should follow best practices that include: (i) a clear strategic mandate specifying the objectives (potentially including quantified targets) the scope (a significant share of general goverment spending across several policies) and a centre of coordination, (ii) the use of pilots to build expertise, (iii) the provision of adequate resources and access to data, (iv) the use of guidelines for consistency in producing diagnosis, baselines, reform options and implementation roadmaps, (v) the use of fact-based analysis linking spending across budget and administrative structures to policy outcomes.
• Monitoring and communication to the public on the progress and outcome of reviews  should be regular and transparent.  Spending reviews themselves should be subject to independent ex-post evaluation to learn lessons for future reviews.
• The ambition and conclusions of a spending review should be consistent with annual and multiannual budget planning. The national fiscal framework should include the principle of running regular spending reviews to inform budget making.

The Eurogroup approves these common principles as a reference point for reviewing national reform efforts to improve the quality of public finances in euro area Member States. The Eurogroup thus invites the Commission to assess developments in this field within its usual processes and surveillance mechanisms, with a view to allowing periodic monitoring by the Eurogroup. Also to this end, the Eurogroup invites its preparatory committees and the Commission to develop a workstream on the exchange of best practices and lessons learnt on spending reviews undertaken in euro area Member States. The Eurogroup expects to revisit this workstream on a regular basis starting in the first half of 2017, drawing on further experiences made in Member States. 

Good afternoon. I am very happy to be back in Riga. In fact, it is my third visit here since becoming President of the European Council. I wish to thank Prime Minister Kučinskis for his warm welcome.

Today we will discuss the prospects for our summit next week in Bratislava. I am convinced that the summit must be about bringing back political control of our common future. And that it must be about bringing back a strong sense of political community.

It is a clear lesson from the outcome of the referendum in the UK - but one which is equally valid across Europe: people are worried about the phenomena which seem to be out of control - migration, terrorism, external threats, or the negative consequences of globalisation. We have to confront those issues and demonstrate our determination, and our capacity, to ensure on the one hand the openness of Europe, while on the other the protection of our citizens. Much of this is under the responsibility of Member States, but the EU can assist them. The European Union must help provide a renewed sense of security and stability to Europeans.

Earlier today I was in London, where I met Prime Minister May. I informed her of our meeting in Bratislava, and she informed me of the current thinking in the British government regarding Brexit.

I know that Brexit is a particular concern for Latvia, because so many of your citizens reside in the UK. Our goal is clear: to establish the closest possible relations between the EU and the UK. It is obvious that, once the negotiations begin, securing the rights of EU citizens living in the UK will also be a key objective for us. And it is equally clear that our future relationship with the UK requires a balance of rights and obligations - any access to the Single Market must be based on the four freedoms, including the freedom of movement.

But the negotiations cannot begin until the UK activates the process for withdrawal. Article 50 of the Treaty is very clear. In fact, it is there to protect the interests of the countries remaining in the EU. I told Prime Minister May that I am convinced that it is in everyone's best interest that we start negotiations soon, to reduce and eventually end the uncertainty. Thank you. 

Thank you Prime Minister for having me here today in London, at such a crucial time, both for the UK and for the European Union.

My intention is to tell you about the agenda of the Bratislava meeting of 27 leaders next week. We decided to organise this informal meeting to discuss and to assess the political consequences of Brexit for the EU community. This doesn't mean that we are going to discuss our future relations with the UK in Bratislava. For this, and especially for the start of the negotiations, we need your formal notification, I mean Article 50. And this is the position shared by all 27 Member States.

To put it simply, the ball is now in your court. I am aware that it is not easy, but I still hope you will be ready to start the process as soon as possible. But I am convinced that at the end of the day our common strategy goal will be to establish the best possible relations between the UK and the European Union.

The Stabilisation and Association Council (SA Council) between Albania and the European Union held its eighth meeting on 8 September 2016. 

The SA Council noted that the Commission report 2015 on Albania concluded that the country made further progress towards meeting the political criteria for membership and, overall, steady progress continued in the five key priorities for the opening of accession negotiations. 

The SA Council noted the conclusions of the General Affairs Council of 15 December 2015, which recognised Albania's continued commitment on the reform agenda. On that occasion, the Council underlined that judicial reform remained key to further forward movement on Albania's EU accession process and could also be transformative for other reforms. 

The SA Council confirmed that Albania maintained an overall sustained pace in the implementation of public administration reform measures. The EU welcomed the unanimous adoption in July of a set of constitutional amendments for a thorough and comprehensive reform of the justice system. The SA Council took note of the recent adoption of the law on the vetting of judges and prosecutors, which represents an important step forward for the implementation of the justice reform. It is essential to proceed with a swift implementation of the reform. The EU also welcomed that Albania took further steps in the fight against corruption and organised crime, as well as on human rights matters. 

The SA Council welcomed the continued active participation of Albania in regional initiatives and structures in South Eastern Europe and its good neighbourly relations and constructive regional stance. The EU acknowledged Albania's role in the region as a pro-active and constructive partner, and underlined the importance of Albania's commitment to a positive engagement in the region, including through the conclusion of bilateral conventions, and to further promoting regional cooperation. The EU reiterated that good neighbourly relations and regional stability are essential elements of the Stabilisation and Association process. 

The SA Council welcomed the full alignment of Albania to Council decisions and in the field of Common Foreign and Security Policy.

The meeting was chaired by the Prime Minister of Albania, Edi Rama. The EU delegation was led by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy / Vice-President of the Commission, Federica Mogherini. The Commissioner for Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement negotiations, Johannes Hahn, represented the European Commission. The Albanian delegation included the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ditmir Bushati, the Minister for European Integration, Klajda Gjosha, and the Chair of the European Integration Committee of the Albanian Parliament, Majlinda Bregu, as representative of the opposition.

Good afternoon. It is great to be here in Dublin. I would like to thank the Taoiseach, not only for his warm Irish welcome, but also for our excellent co-operation over the past years. Ireland is, and always has been, a respected voice around the European table. After the dark days of the banking crisis, your return from the edge to be the fastest growing economy in Europe is really remarkable. Enda, you are a symbol in Europe of effective crisis management. Without Ireland's sacrifice and example, the European Union would be in a worse situation now. And we know it.

No one in Europe should question that the reasons for the success of your country are wise political leadership, and the hard work, creativity, and the determination of the Irish people.

I am in Dublin today to consult with the Taoiseach ahead of our summit of 27 leaders in Bratislava next week. We will be meeting to discuss what Brexit means politically for the future of the European Union. I know that Brexit is a very disorientating prospect for Ireland. You are a committed EU member. Sooner or later, your biggest trading partner - and the country with which you share a long history- will not be. The consequences of this are serious, also for the situation in Northern Ireland. The Taoiseach and I are working together closely to ensure that your country does not suffer from a decision that it did not make. Enda, I know you are in constant touch with Prime Minister May. You will also be the first leader that I brief after my own meeting in London tomorrow.

The Bratislava summit is not about Brexit per se. It is about bringing back political control of our common future. People are turning against what they perceive as an irrational openness. They see the world around them getting more chaotic: uncontrolled migration, terrorism, injustices linked to globalisation. We have to confront such issues with real and uniform political leadership. And by saying leadership I don't mean the institutions but first of all the community of member states and their leaders. What must be delivered is a sense of security and order. We in Europe cannot build a political community only on the concept of mandatory and total openness for everyone. The Union also has to be about protection - protection of our freedoms, our security, our quality and way of life. Our goal is to regain the sense that globalisation is an opportunity and not a threat. There is a balance to be restored. I think the Union is one of the best tools we have to do it.

Bratislava needs to show that the political elites in Europe are not detached from reality. That we will be open to the outside world, but always bearing in mind the best interests of our own citizens. That is why I want our leaders to have a political discussion without any taboos about the future.

To conclude, I know there has been a tremendous debate already here over the European Commission's decision in the Apple case. The Taoiseach has explained to me the reasons why the Irish government wants to take the issue to court. I will not comment on this case because this will now be up to the Court. But let me add that I don't expect taxation to be a major issue in Bratislava. Thank you.

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today at your Annual Meetings. A few months ago I spoke to Guntram (Wolf) about this event and about a possible topic for my remarks. There are elections coming up in France, Germany and my country, the Netherlands. At the same time, the polls - not to mention the outcome of the Brexit referendum - highlight the appeal of populists all over Europe. My remarks today will focus on what Europe's agenda should be to counter these populist trends.

Where are we today?

Let me first talk briefly about where we are.

Despite global headwinds, our economy is recovering. Growth has returned to almost all EU countries. Growth in the eurozone in the last quarters was higher than in the US. Unemployment is expected to decrease to slightly over 10% this year which is still far too high. And our deficits are falling as well; 19 countries left the EDP since 2011 and debt levels are steadily declining. The general government deficit in the euro area in 2009 was over 6%, and is expected to decrease to slightly below 2% in 2016.

So, all in all, there are many positive developments to report. However, reading today's newspapers you would guess differently. In fact, you'd encounter quite a lot of doom and gloom.

-     'Europe is old and inward-looking'
-     'Europe's economy is in a bad shape'
-     'Europe is slow, expensive and inefficient'

I could go on for a while.

According to Europe's populists, the solutions are relatively simple and straightforward. Just close the borders, leave the eurozone, leave the EU and don't sign any more trade deals in the future.

So where is all this pessimism coming from?

To answer this, let us first go back a few years, to the end of 2008, when we were faced with something unprecedented: a huge banking crisis. Which then became a sovereign debt crisis. We are still recovering from this, and then last year, we were faced with a big refugee crisis.

Using the word crisis, is beginning to be inflated. It is used too much. I'm beginning to wonder if we are not suffering from a post-traumatic stress syndrome. Every event that occurs is immediately framed as the next big crisis. Take the volatility in the stock markets at the beginning of this year, for example. Or how the markets behaved ahead of the Brexit vote. Even the slightest headwind seems to be framed as the beginning of the next crisis.

This preoccupation stemming from the trauma of 2008 - 2010 blurs our vision on the real issues at stake.

It is true, in my mind, the EU has failed to deliver on its main tasks.

The EU, and the euro area in particular, is a unique construct in the world, but in recent years it underperformed. The refugee crisis and the threat of terrorism, coming on top of the financial crisis, made it painfully clear that we were unable to guarantee people the prosperity and security that they rightly ask of us. Today, whilst the EU has become more and more intrusive, people feel that the EU has not been the solution to their problems.

The EU is also unique because of its high standard of socioeconomic security. That's something we can - and should - be very proud of. The welfare state is part our core social-cultural heritage, it is part of our identity. We, policy makers, should be much more aware of this. And yet, this social system cannot remain static. Our welfare state is under increased pressure due to several reasons.

Firstly, the economic and financial crisis created pressure. All member states have to increase competitiveness while bringing back their finances on a sustainable footing at the same time. This requires  for politicians to make difficult choices between solidarity and investing in future growth. Preferably keeping the both together.

Secondly, demographic ageing forces us to define the scope of our solidarity even further. Our population is turning increasingly grey, which poses a challenge to our public finances, for example due to the costs of health care, long-term care and pensions.

But also the ratio of people over 65 and those aged between 15-64 that changes drastically, making our social welfare state unaffordable without adaption.

Thirdly, migration may seem to offer an attractive solution to ageing, but it would be hard to realise this in practice. Immigrants face barriers because of their language or cultural backgrounds.

Their skills don't match many of the new jobs in our societies.

Without a job they rightfully receive income support benefits and this can put pressure on our welfare states, again. And, when immigrants do enter the labour force they tend to occupy jobs in the lower segment. This means that natives face increased competition, which can put further pressure on their wages and reduce their employment opportunities. Indeed, these concerns played a major role during the Brexit debate in the UK.

And lastly, globalisation. Globalisation can be seen as another threat to our welfare state although it has brought many benefits.  Take for example the rise of China,. Not only have millions of Chinese people been lifted out of extreme poverty, but lower prices for many goods have also boosted growth in advanced economies. However, too often we have focused on these aggregate gains which conceal substantial redistributive effects. Workers in sectors which competed directly with countries like China have seen their factories close and have faced lower wages or unemployment.

We often assumed that the transition to new sectors would take place automatically. But this has proven harder than predicted and the workers who have lost out have become sceptical of free trade.

We may have underestimated these side effects of globalisation. We have to face up to the fact that some have simply benefitted more than others.

So what does this mean for our agenda today?

First of all, let me say this; in recent years politicians in all our countries embarked on lots of reforms to solve problems, despite the risk of losing elections. Sometimes we were forced by external factors, implosion of banks, risk of defaults of sovereigns. Sometimes we forced each other to reform, like in programme countries. These reforms have been perceived and sometimes skillfully framed as an attack on the social security system. They have been framed as an abuse of the crisis to get rid of governments. Feeding directly into populism.

My direct response to populism would therefore be to ensure fairness and equity, between the generations, between insiders and outsiders, and between globalisation's winners and losers. Because inequality is not a given. Because ageing and migration don't require us to dismantle the European social model. And because implementing reforms doesn't mean we have to diminish our social welfare state. Fairness and equity are not the answer to everything, but they surely have a vital role to play, also to understand the rise of populism in Europe. We need well-designed and well-timed reforms to increase fairness along different dimensions.

Let me mention a few.

First, fairness of people's opportunities. Here education is the most important investment for people to get ahead. High quality education give our children the opportunity to become smarter and more productive. Training gives adults the chance to develop new skills to adapt to a changing world. The OECD's 2016 'Going for Growth' report indicated that the biggest gains in labour productivity are achieved through educational reforms. Oo little attentioj is given to that. So we need to invest in education, vocational training, improving the quality of our teachers and providing early childhood education. This is by far the most socially beneficial type of reform. It will promote fairness and equal opportunities for all. And it will help both migrants and their children. And those who are at risk of losing out from free trade.

Secondly, fairness is also about who pays the bill at the end of the day. Each and every individual or company should contribute its fair share. Let me give a few concrete examples what this entails. It means multinationals that profit from a well-functioning educational and judicial systems, also contribute by paying for these services.

This is at the top of our agenda today. If we were part of the problem in the past, now The Netherlands need to be part of the solution. We need to fix our tax systems, also in the Netherlands.

That means fighting tax avoidance and increasing tax compliance. This is a fundamental issue to fairness. A fair and effective way to allocate the costs also means if a bank fails, the investors who took the risk should carry the burden. The well-known shift from bail-out to bail-in. If you want the profits in good times, you will carry the losses in bad times.

Another example of “who pays the bill” in relation to fairness is about sharing burdens across generations. Ageing comes at a price. We share the burden of this equally over generations by linking life expectancy to retirement age.

Thirdly, we need fairness in adapting to globalisation. In this respect ensuring fairness between globalisation's winners and losers requires on the one hand that we acknowledge that trade deals will bring benefits but also concentrated costs. So we will need to provide short-term social support as well as also long-term labor market reforms to stimulate employment shifts between sectors. On the other hand it will also be necessary to ensure other countries do not compete by lowering their labour standards or ignoring environmental  standards. We'll need to protect our standards in the trade deals we sign. There is a third element - to avoid a race to the bottom - the free movement of labour also requires we assure employees from elsewhere cannot work here by undercutting our national minimum wage.

Fourth, we need to reform our tax systems, true for almost all countries in the eurozone, to reduce the tax burden on labour. Taking on a worker is still very expensive in Europe. We can help fix the labor market and improve income equality by reforming our taxes, if we focus our efforts on the lower parts of the labour market.

To conclude, I would be the first to say that fighting the different types of inequality is not the sole solution to today's populism. But I'm absolutely convinced that inequality is one of the biggest drivers of people's concerns. And many populist parties understand that very well and put the social welfare state on their agenda. Let's take it back. So, fairness and equity should be the leitmotif in our approach today.

Solving the real underlying problems is one thing we have to do. Another is avoiding to repeat old mistakes. The EU has in past decades been built by taking big, historic steps. Taking a lot of risks of weakening the whole construct. So let's not take any more big leaps in the dark as we have done in the past.

As I said the EU is a unique construct with no simple governing structure. And yet questions of migration and globalization are too big for individual member states. My response to populism is not a lecture on how we can improve the governing framework of the EU. It is not to think of another big project that requires a deep dive in the pool of integration. Not now, at a time when our fundamentals are so unstable and people question the legitimacy of the EU as a whole. The worst response to real problems is to simply repeat the old answer of more and deeper integration.

Let's take a pragmatic and yet fundamental approach. Let's take on the questions of migration, globalization, ageing and technological disruption from the angle of equity and fairness, to reduce the many threats to our electorates. Security and prosperity should again be the key deliverables of the EU. Step by step.

Strengthen what we have and actually complete it. Secure our outside borders in order to manage migration and integration. Reform our welfare state so it becomes and remains beneficial for all generations. And finish projects such as the Banking Union, so it really protects tax payers, the Capital Markets Union, so capital becomes available to smaller companies and start-ups, and the Single Market, which can still contribute to growth.

Explain what Europe is and isn't. And stop using Europe as the convenient scapegoat for the difficult decisions we need to take.

Thank you.

On 7 September 2016 the governments of the EU member states appointed 14 judges to the General Court and one advocate-general to the Court of Justice.

Seven of the 14 appointments are related to the partial renewal of the General Court that takes place every three years. Six are linked to the reform of the General Court agreed in 2015. One follows the resignation of a judge.

Partial renewal 

In the framework of the partial renewal the following persons were appointed judges for a term of office ending on 31 August 2022: 

• Mr Barna Berke (Hungary)
• Mr Ricardo da Silva Passos (Portugal)
• Ms Octavia Spineanu-Matei (Romania)
• Mr Zoltán Csehi (Hungary)
• Mr Constantinos Iliopoulos (Greece)
• Ms Anna Marcoulli (Cyprus)
• Mr Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg)

Another two judges (from Poland and Slovakia) will have to be appointed to complete the 2016 partial renewal. 

Reform of the General Court 

As part of the reform of the General Court the member states' governments appointed the following judges: 

in the context of the first stage of the reform for a term of office ending on 31 August 2019 

• Mr Jan Passer (Czech Republic)

in the context of the second stage of the reform

• Mr Alexander Kornezov (Bulgaria)
• Mr Ezio Perillo (Italy)
• Mr René Barents (the Netherlands)
• Ms Maria José Costeira (Portugal)
• Mr Jesper Svenningsen (Denmark)

The mandates of the first two judges end on 31 August 2019 and the term of office of the last three on 31 August 2022. 

To complete the second stage of the reform of the General Court another two judges (from Ireland and Belgium) will have to be appointed. 

Resignation

In place of Mr Carl Wetter who resigned as a judge of the General Court the member states' governments appointed Mr Ulf Öberg (Sweden) for a term of office ending on 31 August 2019. 

Advocate-general

Mr Evgeni Tanchev (Bulgaria) was appointed as advocate-general of the Court of Justice for a period ending on 6 October 2021. This completes the 2015 partial renewal of the Court of Justice.