Communication from the Commission

the program of communication作文the program of communication 英语单词： correspondence，翻译成中文就是邮件。

邮件，是用来传递信息和交流思想感情、互通信息的工具，也可以说是书信的合称。

一般在邮件中的开头会有 to 结尾的介绍或者是明确的subject 旨在强调这封信写给谁，所以不同的主题决定了不同的内容，一般会有比较具体的地址，人物，事情等。

邮件里面会包含一些很具体细致的信息，甚至还有上级领导对自己的指示与期望。

不管是怎样的一种邮件类型，一定要在第一时间将文字排版好，然后仔细校对好格式和措辞，只有精益求精才能更加出色，否则就变得十分普通。

我们要做到写一篇文章需要在三个方面下功夫，首先是要把握住整体的结构框架，因为每一句话都影响着全文；其次是遣词造句的表达技巧，用最准确生动的语言去描述，而且要有适当的抒情或者是记叙；再者就是关于素材的积累了，如何在短时间之内获取大量的资料并进行组织是非常重要的。

虽然说写作过程中素材的搜集比较简单直接但是使用起来却难度系数很高，既然有捷径，那么花费时间去研究学习是必须的。

此外还要有足够丰富的知识储备和掌握相应的文化背景，不仅让你在脑海中快速形成相应画面，还可以在书本上找寻模仿。

不论是哪种编辑，对内容一定要认真仔细，尤其是首段和末段要抓住重点，总体布局要和谐统一，并没有特别规律性的东西，一切顺其自然即可。

但是一旦开始敲击键盘便千万不要随意改动内容，一定要按照之前设计好的结构完成任务，修改时注意别破坏原有结构。

如果你想成为一名优秀的编辑，请一定努力学习相关课程，多阅读相关杂志报纸或网络新闻，从不同角度审视问题，锻炼自身敏锐洞察力及鉴赏水平，建立自身丰富的知识库，加强沟通协调能力，保持良好心态，愿你拥有自由的梦想。

乌克兰危机专题研究乌克兰－欧盟联系国协定与乌克兰危机*周明内容提要：乌克兰危机的爆发，起源于2013年11月乌克兰总统亚努科维奇宣布暂停与欧盟签署联系国协定。

作为欧盟“东方伙伴关系”计划的核心组成部分，联系国协定一旦签署，将为伙伴国与成员国之间建立更紧密的政治和经济联系奠定基础。

乌拒签联系国协定之所以引发了一场影响深远的政治危机，在一定程度上是因为受到俄罗斯和欧盟之间在前苏联空间展开的地缘政治竞争的影响。

在乌克兰危机的演变过程中，欧盟对乌反对派无条件的支持，也对乌局势的发展演变产生了一定的影响。

乌新政府最近与欧盟签署了联系国协定，意味着欧盟与乌克兰的关系回到了危机爆发前的原点。

然而，无论是欧盟还是乌克兰，抑或是欧盟与俄罗斯之间的关系，已经而且还将受到乌克兰危机的深刻影响。

关键词：乌克兰危机联系国协定欧盟俄罗斯地缘政治欧盟当前面临的最大安全威胁，无疑是乌克兰危机以及由此导致的俄罗斯与欧盟关系的恶化。

自乌克兰危机爆发———其标志是2014年2月22日乌克兰总统亚努科维奇（Viktor Yanukovychy）政府在民众抗议其拒绝签署与欧盟达成的联系国协定（the Association Agreement）声中垮台———以来，欧盟就成为影响乌克兰危机走向的重要外部力量。

在亚努科维奇政府被推翻后，乌局势急转直下，3月18日克里米亚和塞瓦斯托波尔市正式并入俄罗斯，以欧盟和美国为代表的西方随即启动了对俄罗斯的制裁；尔后乌东部顿巴斯地区（包括顿涅茨克州与卢甘斯克州）爆发了分裂主义运动，西方*本文系国家社科基金青年项目（项目批准号为14CGJ016）以及兰州大学重点研究基地团队建设项目（项目编号为14LZUJBWTD003）的阶段性研究成果。

感谢《欧洲研究》匿名审稿专家提出的修改意见，文中错漏之处由作者负责。

加强了对俄罗斯的制裁；乌于2014年5月25日举行了总统选举，波罗申科当选乌第五任总统，并加强对顿巴斯地区分离主义武装的攻势；为了削弱俄罗斯对顿巴斯地区武装的支持，西方在继续加强对俄罗斯制裁的同时加大了对波罗申科政府的支持力度。

This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents ►B ►C1 REGULATION (EC) No 850/2004 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCILof 29 April 2004on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC ◄ (OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 7)Amended by:Official Journal No page date ►M1 Council Regulation (EC) No 1195/2006 of 18 July 2006 L 217 1 8.8.2006 ►M2 Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2007 of 16 February 2007 L55 1 23.2.2007 ►M3 Commission Regulation (EC) No 323/2007 of 26 March 2007 L85 3 27.3.2007 ►M4 Regulation (EC) No 219/2009 of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 11 March 2009 L 87 109 31.3.2009 ►M5 Commission Regulation (EC) No 304/2009 of 14 April 2009 L96 33 15.4.2009 ►M6 Commission Regulation (EU) No 756/2010 of 24 August 2010 L223 20 25.8.2010 ►M7 Commission Regulation (EU) No 757/2010 of 24 August 2010 L223 29 25.8.2010 ►M8 Commission Regulation (EU) No 519/2012 of 19 June 2012 L159 1 20.6.2012Corrected by: ►C1 Corrigendum, OJ L 229, 29.6.2004, p. 5 (850/2004)▼C1REGULATION (EC) No 850/2004 OF THE EUROPEANPARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCILof 29 April 2004on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive79/117/EECTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 175(1) thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and SocialCommittee ( 1 ),After consulting the Committee of the Regions,Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of theTreaty ( 2 ),Whereas:(1) This Regulation primarily concerns environmental protection andthe protection of human health. The legal basis is therefore Article 175(1) of the Treaty.(2) The Community is seriously concerned by the continuous releaseof persistent organic pollutants into the environment. These chemical substances are transported across international boundaries far from their sources and they persist in the environ ­ment, bioaccumulate through the food web, and pose a risk to human health and the environment. Further measures need therefore to be taken in order to protect human health and the environment against these pollutants.(3) In view of its responsibilities for the protection of the environ ­ment, the Community signed on 24 June 1998 the Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants, hereinafter ‘the Protocol’, and on 22 May 2001 the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, hereinafter ‘the Convention’.(4) While legislation at Community level relating to persistentorganic pollutants has been put in place, its main deficiencies are that there is an absence of, or incomplete legislation on, prohibition of the production and use of any of the currently listed chemicals, that there is no framework to subject additional persistent organic pollutant substances to prohibitions, restrictions or elimination, nor any framework to prevent the production and use of new substances that exhibit persistent organic pollutant characteristics. No emission reduction targets, as such, have been set at Community level and the current release inventories do not cover all sources of persistent organic pollutants. ( 1 ) OJ C 32, 5.2.2004, p. 45. ( 2 ) Opinion of the European Parliament of 26 February 2004 (not yet published in the Official Journal) and Decision of the Council of 26 April 2004.(5) In order to ensure coherent and effective implementation of theCommunity's obligations under the Protocol and the Convention, it is necessary to establish a common legal framework, within which to take measures designed in particular to eliminate the production, placing on the market and use of intentionally produced persistent organic pollutants. Furthermore, persistent organic pollutants' characteristics should be taken into consider ­ation in the framework of the relevant Community assessment and authorisation schemes.(6) Coordination and coherence should be ensured when implemen ­ting at Community level the provisions of the Rotterdam ( 1), Stockholm and Basel Conventions ( 2 ) and when participating inthe development of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) within the United Nations framework.(7) Moreover, considering that the provisions of this Regulation areunderpinned by the precautionary principle as set forth in the Treaty, and mindful of Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and in view of the aim of elim ­ination, where feasible, of the release of persistent organic pollutants into the environment, it is appropriate in certain cases to provide for control measures stricter than those under the Protocol and the Convention.(8) In the future, the proposed REACH Regulation could be anappropriate instrument by which to implement the necessary control measures on production, placing on the market and use of the listed substances and the control measures on existing and new chemicals and pesticides exhibiting persistent organic pollutants' characteristics. However, without prejudice to the future REACH Regulation and since it is important to implement these control measures on the listed substances of the Protocol and the Convention as soon as possible, this Regu ­lation should for now implement those measures.(9)In the Community, the placing on the market and use of most of the persistent organic pollutants listed in the Protocol or the Convention has already been phased out as a result of the prohi ­bitions laid down in Council Directive 79/117/EEC of 21 December 1978 prohibiting the placing on the market and use of plant protection products containing certain activesubstances ( 3) and Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and admin ­istrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances andpreparations ( 4). However, in order to fulfil the Community's obli ­gations under the Protocol and the Convention and to minimise the release of persistent organic pollutants, it is necessary and appropriate also to prohibit the production of those substances and to restrict exemptions to a minimum so that exemptions only apply where a substance fulfils an essential function in a specific application. ( 1 ) Convention on the prior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade.( 2 ) Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal.( 3 ) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979, p. 36. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 807/2003 (OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 36). ( 4 ) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 201. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2004/21/EC (OJ L 57, 25.2.2004, p. 4).(10)Exports of substances covered by the Convention and exports oflindane are regulated by Regulation (EC) No 304/2003 of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals (1).(11) The production and use of hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH),including lindane, is subject to restrictions under the Protocolbut not totally prohibited. That substance is still used in someMember States and therefore it is not possible to prohibit im­mediately all existing uses. However, in view of the harmfulproperties of HCH and the possible risks related to its releaseinto the environment, its production and uses should be confinedto a minimum and ultimately phased out by the end of 2007 atthe latest.(12)Obsolete or carelessly managed stockpiles of persistent organicpollutants may seriously endanger the environment and humanhealth through, for instance, contamination of soil and groundwater. It is appropriate, therefore, to adopt provisions that gobeyond the provisions laid down in the Convention. Stockpilesof prohibited substances should be treated as waste, whilestockpiles of substances the production or use of which is stillallowed should be notified to the authorities and properlysupervised. In particular, existing stockpiles which consist of orcontain banned persistent organic pollutants should be managedas waste as soon as possible. If other substances are banned inthe future, their stocks should also be destroyed without delayand no new stockpiles should be built up. In view of theparticular problems of certain new Member States, adequatefinancial and technical assistance should be provided throughexisting Community financial instruments, such as the Cohesionand Structural Funds.(13)In line with the Communication from the Commission on theCommunity Strategy for Dioxins, Furans and PolychlorinatedBiphenyls (PCBs) (2), and with the Protocol and the Convention,releases of persistent organic pollutants which are unintentionalby-products of industrial processes should be identified andreduced as soon as possible with the ultimate aim of elimination,where feasible. Appropriate national action plans, covering allsources and measures, including those provided for underexisting Community legislation, should be drawn up and im­plemented to reduce the releases continuously and cost-effectively as soon as possible. To this end, appropriatetools should be developed in the framework of the Convention.(14) In line with that Communication, appropriate programmes andmechanisms should be established to provide adequate moni­toring data on the presence of dioxins, furans and PCBs in theenvironment. However, it is necessary to ensure that appropriatetools are available and can be used under economically and tech­nically viable conditions.(1) OJ L 63, 6.3.2003, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by CommissionRegulation (EC) No 775/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 27).(2) OJ C 322, 17.11.2001, p. 2.(15)Under the Convention, the persistent organic pollutant content inwaste is to be destroyed or irreversibly transformed into substances that do not exhibit similar characteristics, unlessother operations are environmentally preferable. Since currentCommunity legislation on waste does not lay down specificrules as regards those substances, they should be laid down inthis Regulation. To ensure a high level of protection, commonconcentration limits for the substances in waste should be estab­lished before 31 December 2005.(16) The importance of identifying and separating waste consisting of,containing or contaminated by persistent organic pollutants atsource in order to minimise the spreading of these chemicalsinto other waste is recognised. Council Directive 91/689/EECof 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (1) established Community rules on the management of hazardous waste obliging Member States to take the necessary measures torequire that establishments and undertakings which dispose of,recover, collect or transport hazardous waste do not mixdifferent categories of hazardous waste or mix hazardous wastewith non-hazardous waste.(17) The Convention provides that each Party is to draw up a plan forthe implementation of its obligations under the Convention.Member States should provide opportunities for public partici­pation in drawing up their implementation plans. Since theCommunity and the Member States share competence in thatregard, implementation plans should be drawn up both atnational and Community level. Cooperation and an exchange ofinformation between the Commission and the authorities of theMember States should be promoted.(18)In accordance with the Convention and the Protocol, informationon persistent organic pollutants should be provided to otherParties. The exchange of information with third countries notparty to those Agreements should also be promoted.(19) Public awareness of the hazards that persistent organic pollutantspose to the health of present and future generations as well as tothe environment, particularly in developing countries, is oftenlacking, and wide-scale information is therefore needed toincrease the level of caution and gain support for restrictionsand bans. In accordance with the Convention, public awarenessprogrammes on these substances, especially for the most vulnerable groups, as well as training of workers, scientists,educators, technical and managerial personnel should be promoted and facilitated, as appropriate.(1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20. Directive as amended by Directive 94/31/EC(OJ L 168, 2.7.1994, p. 28).(20) Upon request and within available resources, the Commission andthe Member States should cooperate in providing appropriate andtimely technical assistance designed especially to strengthen thecapacity of developing countries and countries with economies intransition to implement the Convention. Technical assistanceshould include the development and implementation of suitablealternative products, methods and strategies, inter alia, to the useof DDT in disease vector control which, under the Convention,can only be used in accordance with World Health Organisationrecommendations and guidelines and when locally safe, effectiveand affordable alternatives are not available to the country inquestion.(21)There should be regular evaluation of the effectiveness of themeasures taken to reduce releases of persistent organic pollutants.To that end, Member States should report regularly to theCommission, in particular as regards release inventories, notified stockpiles and the production and placing on themarket of restricted substances. The Commission, in cooperationwith Member States, should develop a common format forMember States' reports.(22) The Convention and the Protocol provide that Parties thereto maypropose other substances for international action and conse­quently additional substances may be listed under those Agreements, in which case this Regulation should be amendedaccordingly. Furthermore, it should be possible to modify theexisting entries in Annexes to this Regulation, inter alia for thepurposes of adapting them to scientific and technical progress.(23)When Annexes to this Regulation are amended to implement anylistings of an additional, intentionally produced persistent organicpollutant in the Protocol or in the Convention, it should beincluded in Annex II, instead of Annex I, only in exceptionalcases and when duly justified.(24) The measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulationshould be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures forthe exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (1).(25) In order to ensure transparency, impartiality and consistency atthe level of enforcement activities, Member States should laydown rules on penalties applicable to infringements of theprovisions of this Regulation and ensure that they are implemen­ted. Those penalties should be effective, proportionate anddissuasive, since non-compliance can result in damage to human health and the environment. Information on infringementsof the provisions of this Regulation should be made public, whereappropriate.(1) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.(26) Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely to protect theenvironment and human health from persistent organic pollutants,cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, owing tothe transboundary effects of those pollutants, and can therefore bebetter achieved at Community level, the Community may adoptmeasures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as setout in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle ofproportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does notgo beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.(27)In the light of the above, Directive 79/117/EEC should beamended,HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:Article 1Objective and scopeprecautionarythetheprinciple,in1. Takingintoaccount,particular,objective of this Regulation is to protect human health and the environ­ment from persistent organic pollutants by prohibiting, phasing out as soon as possible, or restricting the production, placing on the market and use of substances subject to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, hereinafter ‘the Convention’, or the 1998 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants, hereinafter ‘the Protocol’, and by minimising, with a view to eliminating where feasible as soon as possible, releases of such substances, and by establishing provisions regarding waste consisting of, containing or contaminated by any of these substances.2. Articles 3 and 4 shall not apply to waste consisting of, containing or contaminated by any substance listed in Annexes I or II.Article 2DefinitionsFor the purposes of this Regulation:(a) ‘placing on the market’ means supplying or making available tothird persons against payment or free of charge. Imports into the customs territory of the Community shall also be deemed to be placed on the market;(b) ‘article’ means an object composed of one or more substancesand/or preparations which during production is given a specific shape, surface or design determining its end use function to a greater extent than its chemical composition does;(c) ‘substance’ is as defined in Article 2 of Council Directive 67/548/­EEC (1);(d) ‘preparation’ is as defined in Article 2 of Directive 67/548/EEC;(e) ‘waste’ is as defined in Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/­EEC (2);(f) ‘disposal’ is as defined in Article 1(e) of Directive 75/442/EEC;(g) ‘recovery’ is as defined in Article 1(f) of Directive 75/442/EEC.Article 3Control of production, placing on the market and useuseandmarketlistedofsubstances1. Theproduction,placingonthein Annex I, whether on their own, in preparations or as constituents of articles, shall be prohibited.useandsubstanceslistedofonmarketproduction,2. Thetheplacingin Annex II, whether on their own, in preparations or as constituents of articles, shall be restricted in accordance with the conditions set out in that Annex.3. Member States and the Commission shall, within the assessment and authorisation schemes for existing and new chemicals and pesticides under the relevant Community legislation, take into consideration the criteria set out in paragraph 1 of Annex D to the Convention and take appropriate measures to control existing chemicals and pesticides and prevent the production, placing on the market and use of new chemicals and pesticides, which exhibit characteristics of persistent organic pollutants.Article 4Exemptions from control measuresthecaseinof:1. Article3applyshallnot(a) a substance used for laboratory-scale research or as a referencestandard;(b) a substance occurring as an unintentional trace contaminant insubstances, preparations or articles.2. Article 3 shall not apply in respect of substances occurring as a constituent of articles produced before or on the date of entry into forceof this Regulation until six months after the date of its entry into force.Article 3 shall not apply in the case of a substance occurring as a constituent of articles already in use before or on the date of entry into force of this Regulation.However, immediately upon becoming aware of articles referred to in the first and second subparagraph, a Member State shall inform the Commission accordingly.(1) Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation oflaws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ P 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1).Directive as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 807/2003.(2) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ L 194,25.7.1975, p. 39). Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC)No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 284,31.10.2003, p. 1).Whenever the Commission is so informed or otherwise learns of such articles, it shall, where appropriate, notify the Secretariat of the Convention accordingly without further delay.3. Where a substance is listed in Part A of Annex I or in Part A of Annex II, a Member State wishing to permit, until the deadline specified in the relevant Annex, the production and use of that substance as a closed-system site-limited intermediate shall notify accordingly the Secretariat of the Convention.However, such notification may be made only if the following conditions are satisfied:(a) an annotation has been entered in the relevant Annex expressly tothe effect that such production and use of that substance may be permitted;(b) the manufacturing process will transform the substance into one ormore other substances that do not exhibit the characteristics of a persistent organic pollutant;(c) it is not expected that either humans or the environment will beexposed to any significant quantities of the substance during its production and use, as shown through assessment of that closed system in accordance with Commission Directive 2001/59/EC (1). The notification shall be communicated also to the other Member States and to the Commission and shall give details of actual or estimated total production and use of the substance concerned and the nature of the closed-system site-limited process, specifying the amount of any non-transformed and unintentional trace contamination by any persistent organic pollutant starting material in the final product.The deadlines referred to in the first subparagraph may be amended in cases where, following a repeat notification from the Member State concerned to the Secretariat of the Convention, express or tacit consent is issued under the Convention for the continued production and use of the substance for another period.Article 5Stockpiles1. The holder of a stockpile, which consists of or contains any substance listed in Annex I or Annex II, for which no use is permitted, shall manage that stockpile as waste and in accordance with Article 7.2. The holder of a stockpile greater than 50 kg, consisting of or containing any substance listed in Annex I or Annex II, and the use of which is permitted shall provide the competent authority of the Member State in which the stockpile is established with information concerning the nature and size of that stockpile. Such information shall be provided within 12 months of the entry into force of this Regulation and of amendments to Annexes I or II and annually thereafter until the deadline specified in Annex I or II for restricted use. The holder shall manage the stockpile in a safe, efficient and environ­mentally sound manner.(1) Commission Directive 2001/59/EC of 6 August 2001 adapting to technicalprogress for the 28th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approxi­mation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ L 225,21.8.2001, p. 1).and3. MemberofnotifiedusemanagementStatesshallmonitorthestockpiles.Article 6Release reduction, minimisation and elimination1. Within two years of the date of entry into force of this Regulation, Member States shall draw up and maintain release inventories for the substances listed in Annex III into air, water and land in accordance with their obligations under the Convention and the Protocol.2. A Member State shall communicate its action plan on measures to identify, characterise and minimise with a view to eliminating where feasible as soon as possible the total releases developed in accordance with its obligations under the Convention, to both the Commission and the other Member States as part of its national implementation plan, pursuant to Article 8.The action plan shall include measures to promote the development and, where it deems appropriate, shall require the use of substitute or modified materials, products and processes to prevent the formation and release of the substances listed in Annex III.proposalstonewconstructconsidering3. MemberwhenStatesshall,facilities or significantly to modify existing facilities using processes that release chemicals listed in Annex III, without prejudice to Council Directive 1996/61/EC (1), give priority consideration to alter­native processes, techniques or practices that have similar usefulness but which avoid the formation and release of substances listed in Annex III.Article 7Waste management1. Producers and holders of waste shall undertake all reasonable efforts to avoid, where feasible, contamination of this waste with substances listed in Annex IV.(2), waste consisting of, 2. Notwithstanding Directive 96/59/ECcontaining or contaminated by any substance listed in Annex IV shall be disposed of or recovered, without undue delay and in accordance with Annex V, part 1 in such a way as to ensure that the persistent organic pollutant content is destroyed or irreversibly transformed so that the remaining waste and releases do not exhibit the characteristics of persistent organic pollutants.In carrying out such a disposal or recovery, any substance listed in Annex IV may be isolated from the waste, provided that this substance is subsequently disposed of in accordance with the first sub­paragraph.(1) Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integratedpollution prevention and control (OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003.(2) Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of poly­chlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (OJ L 243,24.9.1996, p. 31).3. Disposal or recovery operations that may lead to recovery,recycling, reclamation or re-use of the substances listed in Annex IVshall be prohibited.fromparagraph2:derogationof4. Byway▼M4(a) waste containing or contaminated by any substance listed inAnnex IV may be otherwise disposed of or recovered in accordancewith the relevant Community legislation, provided that the contentof the listed substances in the waste is below the concentrationlimits to be specified in Annex IV. Those measures, designed toamend non-essential elements of this Regulation, shall be adopted inaccordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred toin Article 17(3). Until such time as concentration limits are estab­lished in accordance with such procedure, the competent authorityof a Member State may adopt or apply concentration limits orspecific technical requirements in respect of the disposal orrecovery of waste under this point.▼C1(b) a Member State or the competent authority designated by thatMember State may, in exceptional cases, allow wastes listed inAnnex V, part 2 containing or contaminated by any substancelisted in Annex IV up to concentration limits to be specified inAnnex V, part 2, to be otherwise dealt with in accordance with amethod listed in Annex V, part 2 provided that:(i) the holder concerned has demonstrated to the satisfaction of thecompetent authority of the Member State concerned that decon­tamination of the waste in relation to substances listed inAnnex IV was not feasible, and that destruction or irreversibletransformation of the persistent organic pollutant content,performed in accordance with best environmental practice orbest available techniques, does not represent the environ­mentally preferable option and the competent authority hassubsequently authorised the alternative operation;(ii) this operation is in accordance with the relevant Community legislation and the conditions laid down in relevant additionalmeasures referred to in paragraph 6; and(iii) the Member State concerned has informed the other Member States and the Commission of its authorisation and the justifi­cation for it.5.►M4 Concentration limits in Annex V, part 2 shall be estab­Article. Those measures, designed to amend non-essential elements ofthis Regulation, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatoryprocedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 17(3). ◄Until such time as these concentration limits are established:(a) the competent authority may adopt or apply concentration limits orspecific technical requirements in respect of waste being dealt withunder paragraph 4(b);(b) where waste is being dealt with under paragraph 4(b), the holdersconcerned shall provide information on the persistent organicpollutant content of the waste to the competent authority.。

EUROPEANCOMMISSIONBrussels, 10.3.2020COM(2020) 102 finalCOMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THEREGIONSA New Industrial Strategy for Europe1.Europe has always been the home of industry. For centuries, it has been a pioneer in industrial innovation and has helped improve the way people around the world produce, consume and do business. Based on a strong internal market, the European industry has long powered our economy, providing a stable living for millions and creating the social hubs around which our communities are built.Throughout its long history, industry has proven its ability to lead change. And it must now do the same as Europe embarks on its transition towards climate neutrality and digital leadership in an ever-changing and ever more unpredictable world.The twin ecological and digital transitions will affect every part of our economy, society and industry. They will require new technologies, with investment and innovation to match. They will create new products, services, markets and business models. They will shape new types of jobs that do not yet exist which need skills that we do not yet have. And they will entail a shift from linear production to a circular economy.These transitions will take place in a time of moving geopolitical plates which affect the nature of competition.The need for Europe to affirm its voice, uphold its values and fight for a level playing field is more important than ever.The breadth and depth, the scale and speed, the nature and necessity of the twin transitions are unprecedented. Political Guidelines, the 2019-2024. The European Green Deal1Strategy on Shaping2 set the ambition, speed and direction of travel for the years to come. We now need a new industrial way for Europe, fit for the ambitions of today and the realities of tomorrow. At the heart of this is the ability of to lead the twin transitions and drive our competitiveness. It cannot afford to simply adapt it must now become the accelerator and enabler of change and innovation. Our industrial policy must help make this ambition a reality.must reflect our values and social market traditions. We and creators. We need a European industrial policy based on competition, open markets, world-leading research and technologies and a strong single market which brings down barriers and cuts red tape. And we must resist the simplistic temptations that come with protectionism or market distortions, while not being naïve in the face of unfair competition. This strategy recognises the strength and the role of the European Union, primarily as an enabler and regulator. Setting the framework and providing political and policy direction is crucial to offer the certainty needed for investors, innovators and industry alike.Our new industrial strategy is entrepreneurial in spirit and in action. The Commission is ready to co-design and co-create solutions with industry itself, as well as with social partners and all other stakeholders. This will be supported by a new focus on industrial ecosystems,1COM(2019) 640 final.2COM(2020) 67 final.taking into account all players within a value chain. This is our new approach and reflects the need for new ways of thinking and working to lead the twin transitions.This strategy shows the direction of travel and the route we will take to get there. It lays out the vision of what we want to achieve by 2030 and beyond, and the fundamentals that will take us there. In times of transition and major change for our Union, one simple reality will remain the same: Europe will always be the home of industry. And with this strategy, the European Commission is ready to do what it takes to make sure it stays that way.2.Industry is central to progress and prosperity. It makes up more than 20% ofaround 35 million people, with many millions more jobs linked to it at home and abroad. It accounts for 80% of goods exports and is a key reasonforeign direct investment. Small and medium sized businesses (SMEs) account for over 99% of all European firms the vast majority of which are family run companies and are our economic and social backbone3.has a global competitive advantage on high value-added products and services. It leads by example complying with the highest social, labour and environmental standards, allowing Europe to project its values. Thanks to a strong innovation capacity, it is also a world leader in green technology patents and other high tech sectors. Our single market empowers European companies of all sizes to innovate, scale-up and employ more people. These strengths need to be channelled towards gaining leadership in areas where the EU still lags behind, such as on cloud and data applications.European industry is already undergoing a significant transformation. There is a pronounced shift from products to services and from exclusive to shared ownership of products and services. The pressure on natural resources is already leading to a more circular approach to manufacturing. Thanks to disruptive technologies like 3D printing, Europe also needs to make the most of localisation as an opportunity to bring more manufacturing back to the EU in some sectors.In order to bring our ambitions to life, Europe needs an industry that becomes greener and more digital while remaining competitive on the global stage. This will help transform and grow traditional and new industries, support SMEs and drive our competitive sustainability across the EU. This is equally as important for services as it for goods.economic growth goes hand-in-hand with improved social and living standards and good working conditions. The European Pillar of Social Rights will continue to be our compass and ensure the twin transitions are socially fair. With its strong, innovative and integrated industrial base, Europe is well placed to take the global lead.3 A dedicated SME strategy is adopted in parallel with this Communication SME strategy for a sustainable and digital Europe, COM (2020) 103 final.2.1 A globally competitive and world-leading industryNew and ever-industry. Global competition, protectionism, market distortions, trade tensions and challenges to the rules-based system are all on the rise. New powers and competitors are emerging. More established partners are choosing new paths. Coupled with a period of global economic off on the twin ecological and digital transitions.Faced with thes response cannot be to erect more barriers, shield uncompetitive industries or mimic the protectionist or distortive policies of others. Being competitive requires competition both at home and in the world. It needs the right conditions for entrepreneurs to turn their ideas into actions and for companies of all sizes to thrive and grow.At the same time, the EU needs to be able to strengthen its strategic interests abroad through economic outreach and diplomacy. The EU must leverage the impact, the size and the integration of its single market to set global standards. Being able to forge global high-quality standards which bear values and principles will only Europe will also continue to rely on free and fair trade with partners from around the world. The rules-based multilateral trading system and the World Trade Organization are indispensable to ensure open markets and a level playing field. The EU will continue efforts to uphold, update and upgrade the world trading system so it is fitchallenges and realities.2.2 An industry that paves the way to climate-neutrality-neutral continent by 2050.Industry has a leading role to play in what is the greatest challenge and opportunity of our times. All industrial value chains, including energy-intensive sectors, will have a key role to play. They will all have to work on reducing their own carbon footprints but also accelerate the transition by providing affordable, clean technology solutions and by developing new business models.To become more competitive as it becomes greener and more circular, industry will need a secure supply of clean and affordable energy and raw materials. Stepping up investment in research, innovation, deployment and up-to-date infrastructure will help develop new production processes and create jobs in the process.In the entrepreneurial spirit of this strategy, EU institutions, Member States, regions, industry and all other relevant players should work together to create lead markets in clean technologies and ensure our industry is a global frontrunner. Regulatory policies, public procurement, fair competition and the full involvement of SMEs will be essential to make this happen.These efforts should be supported by policies and financial instruments at EU and national level, as well as the private sector. Those who move first and move fastest will hold the greater competitive advantage.2.3 An industryDigital technologies are changing the face of industry and the way we do business. They create new business models, allow industry to be more productive, provide workers with new skills and support the decarbonisation of our economy. The digital sector will also contribute to the European Green Deal, both as a source of clean technology solutions and by reducing its own carbon footprint.With its Strategy on , the Commission set out its vision for how Europe can retain its technological and digital sovereignty and be the global digital leader. Recognising that scalability is key in a digitalised economy, strengthening the digital singleEurope must also speed up investment in research and the deployment of technology, in areas such as artificial intelligence, 5G, data and metadata analytics. In 2018, only around one in ten EU companies analysed big data, while only one in four used cloud computing services.As set European Strategy for Data4, Europe needs a framework to allow businesses to create, pool and use data to improve products and compete internationally in a way that upholds our values and respects the rights and privacy of all. The EU must also enhance its industrial capacity in critical digital infrastructure. The successful roll-out of highly secured and state-of-the-art 5G network will be a major enabler for future digital services and be at the heart of the industrial data wave. Europe must now invest if it wants to be a frontrunner in 6G networks.In the entrepreneurial spirit of this industrial strategy, Europe must pool its strengths to do collectively what no one can do alone. Recent examples of doing so have shown the potential and the value of this approach. Europe is now home to one of the top three fastest supercomputers in the world and has reversed a downward trend in micro-electronics. Europe has everything it takes to lead this new technology race. It must build on its strengths, including a robust industrial base, high quality research, skilled workers, a vibrant start-up ecosystem, mature infrastructure and a leading position in the use of industrial data.3.The fundamentalsThe three drivers outlined above show the extent of transformation Europe will undergo. It takes a generation to transform an industrial sector and all the value chains it forms part of. But in a competitive and dynamic environment there is no time to waste. The next five years will be decisive to set the right enabling conditions for this transition.Underpinning this strategy are a set of fundamentals for industrial transformation. Some of these renew or expand on existing approaches in innovation, investment, standards or levelling the playing field. Others reflect the need for new ways of working for Europe to strengthen its industry for the transitions, whether it be on skills or circularity.The fundamentals reflect the fact that there is no silver-bullet or standalone solution they are each inter-connected and reinforce each other. But they also reflect the reality that, while a lot can be done at the European level to enable and provide certainty, many of the levers are in the hands of others. A partnership approach will therefore be essential.4COM(2020) 66 final.3.1 Creating certainty for industry: A deeper and more digital single marketThanks to our unique single market, EU companies benefit from a springboard to compete globally. By providing a common regulatory space and scale, the single market is the driver of competitiveness and facilitates the integration of companies of all sizes in European and global value chains.To allow the single market to propel our industry forward, legislation must be implemented and enforced across the board. The Single Market Enforcement Action Plan5 adopted today puts forward concrete proposals to strengthen joint efforts in this area, notably the creation of a Single Market Enforcement Task Force.The Single Market Barriers Report6 shows the need to break down the barriers facing businesses when selling goods or more acutely when providing services cross-border. Enhancing tax harmonisation would help remove one of the main obstacles faced by business when operating cross-border, notably by making a common consolidated corporate tax base a reality.Single market legislation must also be reviewed and updated to ensure that it is fit for the digital age. This includes the revision of EU rules on product safety, the implementation of the European Data Strategy and the adoption of the Digital Services Act.An will also be essential. The growing number of young, tech-savvy SMEs can help more established industrial firms to adapt their business models and develop new forms of work for the digital age. This has already created new opportunities and start-ups should be supported to help build the platform economy. But new forms of work must come with modern and improved forms of protections, including for those working on online platforms.The single market depends on robust, well-functioning systems for standardisation and certification. These help to increase the size of markets and provide legal certainty. Developing new standards and technical regulations, coupled with increased EU participation in international standardisation bodies, will be essential to boost competitiveness. The EU also needs to ensure that its Intellectual Property policy helps to uphold and strengthen tech sovereignty and promote global level playing field. IP helps to determine the market value and competitiveness of firms. This is their intangibles, such as brands, designs, patents, data, know-how, and algorithms. Smart IP policies are essential to help all companies to grow, create jobs and to protect and develop what makes them unique and competitive.An independent EU competition policy has served Europe well by helping to level the playing field, driving innovation and giving consumers more choice. Competition brings the best out of our companies and enables them to stay competitive globally. In a fast changing world, and a time when Europe is embarking on its major twin transitions, we should ensure that competition rules remain fit for world.With this in mind, the Commission is currently reviewing the EU competition framework. This is looking at how current competition rules are applied, notably in relation to anti-trust 5Communication and its accompanying Report on Identifying and addressing barriers to the single market, COM(2020) 93 final.6Long term action plan for better implementation and enforcement of single market rules, COM(2020) 94 final.remedies, and whether rules governing horizontal and vertical agreements and the market definition notice are still fit for purpose.It will also look at how to improve case detection and speed up investigations.The Commission will use the tool of sector inquiries in new and emerging markets that are shaping our economy and society.The ongoing evaluation of merger control and the check of various State aid guidelines are also part of this review. State aid rules ensure a level playing field within Europe, avoiding a fratricidal subsidies race while supporting important public interest objectives. The Commission will ensure revised State aid rules are in place in 2021 in a number of priority areas, including energy and environmental aid.3.2 Upholding a global level playing fieldThe openness economy is at the source of its prosperity and competitiveness. Although, EU industry is highly integrated in global value chains and operates globally, the EU should not be naïve to threats to fair competition and trade.The EU works to keep markets open through trade deals with partner countries or regions or working in international fora to find rules that work for all. We must continue to take a coordinated European approach to secure mutually beneficial trade and overcome any barriers that prevent our businesses from properly accessing other markets around the world. This includes fighting aggressive tax planning schemes that create an uneven playing field.The EU will make the most of its full toolbox of trade defence mechanisms. By mid-2020, the Commission will explore how best to strengthen anti-subsidies mechanisms and tool. This will be done in the White Paper on an Instrument on Foreign Subsidies which will address distortive effects caused by foreign subsidies within the single market. This will be followed up with a proposal for a legal instrument in 2021.This distortion is often coupled with a lack of reciprocal access for European firms to the home country markets of foreign, state-owned companies. In particular, EU procurement markets are mostly open to businesses from countries where EU companies are discriminatedagainst or confronted with outright market closures. Therefore, the White Paper will also tackle the issue of access of foreign, state-owned companies to procurement markets and EU funding. A swift agreement on the proposed International Procurement Instrument will also be essential to address lack of reciprocity and to give the EU further leverage in negotiations.European industry should not face unfair competition from competitors around the world that abide by different standards or principles, such as on climate. A new Chief Trade Enforcement Officer will work to improve the compliance and enforcement of our trade agreements, and report regularly to the European Parliament. The Commission will propose to make the respect of the Paris agreement an essential element for all future comprehensive trade agreements.Reinforced customs controls are also essential to ensure that imported products comply with EU rules.3.3 Supporting industry towards climate neutralityAs Europe transitions to climate-neutrality, certain sectors will have to make a bigger and more transformative change than most. Energy-intensive industries are indispensable to and are relied on by other sectors. Modernising and decarbonising energy-intensive industries must therefore be a top priority.The European Green Deal sets the objective of creating new markets for climate neutral and circular products, such as steel, cement and basic chemicals. To lead this change, Europe needs novel industrial processes and more clean technologies to reduce costs and improve market readiness.For instance, the Commission will support clean steel breakthrough technologies leading to a zero-carbon steel making process. The EU Emissions Trading System Innovation Fund will help deploy other large-scale innovative projects to support clean products in all energy-intensive sectors.A new chemicals strategy for sustainability will help better protect people and the environment against hazardous chemicals and encourage innovation in the sector to develop safe and sustainable alternatives.Europe also needs to address the sustainability of construction products and improve the energy efficiency and environmental performance of built assets. A more sustainable built environment climate-neutrality.As the transition picks up speed, Europe must ensure that no one is left behind. The proposal for the new Just Transition Mechanism7will mobilise 100 billion to ensure a fair transition for carbon intensive regions as they continue to transform their industries and economies,Reducing emissions across industry will depend on a energy efficiency first principle and a secure and sufficient supply of low-carbon energy at competitive prices. This will require planning and investment in low-carbon generation technologies, capacity and infrastructure. We will need a more strategic approach to renewable energy industries, such as offshore energy, and the supply chain underpinning them. This will also help cater for a substantial increase in the amount of electricity required by the twin transitions. This should be supported by efforts to better connect Europe's electricity systems to increase security of electricity supply and integrate more renewables.As part of this, all carriers of energy, including electricity, gas and liquid fuels will need to be used more effectively by linking different sectors. This will be the aim of a new strategy for smart sector integration clean hydrogen. The use of trans-European energy networks will also support the transition to climate neutrality.There should also be a special focus on sustainable and smart mobility industries. These have both the responsibility and the potential to driveindustrial competitiveness and improve connectivity. This is notably the case for the automotive, aerospace, rail and ship building industries, as well as for alternative fuels and smart and connected mobility.Staying at the forefront of research and innovation, the swift rollout of the necessary infrastructure and robust incentives, including in procurement, will be key to ensure that EU mobility industries maintain their global technological leadership. The sectorchain must help shape new international standards for safe, sustainable, accessible, secure and resilient mobility. The Comprehensive Strategy for Sustainable and Smart Mobility will Should differences in ambition around the world persist, the Commission will propose a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism in 2021 to reduce the risk of carbon leakage, in full compatibility with WTO rules. This should be supported by strengthening our current tools to tackle carbon leakage.7COM(2020) 22 final.。

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE2006/88/ECof24October2006on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof,and on the preventionand control of certain diseases in aquatic animalsTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Commu-nity,and in particular Article37thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee(1),Whereas:(1)Aquaculture animals and products fall under the scope ofAnnex I to the Treaty as live animals,fish,molluscsand crustaceans.The breeding,rearing and the placing onthe market of aquaculture animals and products thereofconstitutes an important source of income for personsworking in this sector.(2)In the context of the internal market,specific animalhealth rules were laid down for the placing on the marketand introduction from third countries of the products con-cerned by Council Directive91/67/EEC of28Janu-ary1991concerning the animal health conditionsgoverning the placing on the market of aquaculture ani-mals and products(2).(3)Outbreaks of diseases in aquaculture animals could causesevere losses to the industry concerned.Minimum mea-sures to be applied in case of outbreaks of the most impor-tant diseases in fish and molluscs were established byCouncil Directive93/53/EEC of24June1993introduc-ing minimum Community measures for the control of cer-tain fish diseases(3)and Council Directive95/70/EC of22December1995introducing minimum Communitymeasures for the control of certain diseases affectingbivalve molluscs(4).(4)Existing Community legislation was drafted mainly to takeinto account the farming of salmon,trout and oysters.Since that legislation was adopted,the Community aquac-ulture industry has developed significantly.A number ofadditional fish species,particularly marine species,are nowused in aquaculture.New types of farming practicesinvolving other fish species have also become increasinglycommon,particularly following the recent enlargement ofthe Community.Furthermore,farming of crustaceans,mussels,clams and abalones is becoming increasinglyimportant.(5)All disease control measures have an economic impact onaquaculture.Inadequate controls may lead to a spread ofpathogens,which may cause major losses and compro-mise the animal health status of fish,molluscs and crusta-ceans used in Community aquaculture.On the other hand,over-regulation could place unnecessary restrictions onfree trade.(6)The Communication from the Commission to the Coun-cil and the European Parliament dated19Septem-ber2002sets out a strategy for the sustainabledevelopment of European aquaculture.That Communica-tion outlined a series of measures designed to create long-term employment in the aquaculture sector,includingpromoting high animal health and welfare standards,andenvironmental actions to ensure a sound industry.Thosemeasures should be taken into account.(7)Since the adoption of Directive91/67/EEC,the Commu-nity has ratified the World Trade Organisation(WTO)Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosani-tary Measures(SPS Agreement).The SPS Agreement refersto the standards of the World Organisation for AnimalHealth(OIE).The animal health requirements for placinglive aquaculture animals and products thereof on the mar-ket within the Community set out in Directive91/67/EECare more stringent than those standards.Therefore,thisDirective should take into account the Aquatic AnimalHealth Code and the Manual of Diagnostic Tests forAquatic Animals of the OIE.(8)In order to ensure the rational development of the aquac-ulture sector and to increase productivity,aquatic animalhealth rules should be laid down at Community level.These rules are necessary,inter alia,in order to contributeto the completion of the internal market and to avoid thespread of infectious diseases.Legislation should be flex-ible to take into account the continuing developments inand diversity of the aquaculture sector,as well as thehealth status of aquatic animals within the Community.(1)OJ C88,11.4.2006,p.13.(2)OJ L46,19.2.1991,p.1.Directive as last amended by Regulation(EC)No806/2003(OJ L122,16.5.2003,p.1).(3)OJ L175,19.7.1993,p.23.Directive as last amended by the2003Act of Accession.(4)OJ L332,30.12.1995,p.33.Directive as last amended by the2003Act of Accession.(9)This Directive should cover aquaculture animals,and thoseenvironments which may affect the health status of suchanimals.In general the provisions of this Directive shouldonly apply to wild aquatic animals where the environmen-tal situation may impinge on the health status of aquacul-ture animals,or where necessary in order to fulfil thepurpose of other Community legislation,such as CouncilDirective92/43/EEC of21May1992on the conserva-tion of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(1)orto protect species referred to in the list drawn up by theConvention on International Trade in Endangered Speciesof Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES).This Directive shouldnot prejudice the adoption of more stringent rules on theintroduction of non-native species.(10)The competent authorities designated for the purpose ofthis Directive should perform their functions and dutiesin accordance with the general principles laid down inRegulation(EC)No854/2004of European Parliament andof the Council of29April2004laying down specific rulesfor the organisation of official controls on products of ani-mal origin intended for human consumption(2)and Regu-lation(EC)No882/2004of the European Parliament andof the Council of29April2004on official controls per-formed to ensure the verification of compliance with feedand food law,animal health and animal welfare rules(3).(11)It is necessary for the development of aquaculture in theCommunity to increase the awareness and preparednessof the competent authorities and aquaculture productionbusiness operators with respect to the prevention,controland eradication of aquatic animal diseases.(12)The competent authorities of Member States should haveaccess to and apply state-of-the-art techniques and knowl-edge in the fields of risk analysis and epidemiology.Thisis of increasing importance because international obliga-tions now focus on risk analysis in relation to the adop-tion of sanitary measures.(13)It is appropriate to introduce at Community level a sys-tem of authorisation of aquaculture production busi-nesses.Such authorisation would enable the competentauthorities to establish a complete overview of the aquac-ulture industry,which would assist in the prevention,con-trol and eradication of aquatic animal diseases.Furthermore,authorisation allows the laying down of spe-cific requirements that should be fulfilled by the aquacul-ture production business in order to operate.Suchauthorisation should,where possible,be combined withor included in an authorisation regime which the Mem-ber States may already have established for other pur-poses,for example under environmental legislation.Suchauthorisation should therefore not be an extra burden tothe aquaculture industry.(14)Member States should refuse to issue an authorisation ifthe activity in question would pose an unacceptable riskof spreading diseases to other aquaculture animals or towild stocks of aquatic animals.Before deciding to refusean authorisation,consideration should be given to riskmitigation measures or alternative siting of the activity inquestion.(15)The rearing of aquaculture animals for the purpose ofhuman consumption is defined as primary production inRegulation(EC)No852/2004of the European Parliamentand of the Council of29April2004on the hygiene offoodstuffs(4).Obligations imposed on individual aquacul-ture production businesses under this Directive,such asrecord keeping,and internal systems enabling the aquac-ulture production business to demonstrate to the compe-tent authority that the relevant requirements of thisDirective are being fulfilled,should,where possible,becombined with the obligations laid down in Regulation(EC)No852/2004.(16)More attention should be paid to preventing disease occur-rence than to controlling the disease once it has occurred.It is therefore appropriate to lay down minimum mea-sures of disease prevention and risk mitigation whichshould be applied to the whole production chain in aquac-ulture,from fertilisation and hatching of eggs to the pro-cessing of aquaculture animals for human consumption,including transportation.(17)In order to improve general animal health and assist inthe prevention and control of animal disease throughimproved traceability,the movement of aquaculture ani-mals should be recorded.Where appropriate,such move-ments should also be subject to animal health certification.(18)In order to have an overview of the disease situation,tofacilitate a rapid reaction in the case of a suspicion of dis-ease and to protect farms or mollusc farming areas hav-ing a high animal health standard,a risk-based animalhealth surveillance should be applied in all such farms andmollusc farming areas.(19)It is necessary to ensure that the main aquatic animal dis-eases at Community level do not spread.Harmonised ani-mal health provisions for placing on the market shouldtherefore be laid down with specific provisions applicableto species susceptible to those diseases.Therefore a list ofsuch diseases and species susceptible thereto should belaid down.(1)OJ L206,22.7.1992,p.7.Directive as last amended by Regulation(EC)No1882/2003of the European Parliament and of the Council(OJ L284,31.10.2003,p.1).(2)OJ L139,30.4.2004,p.206,corrected by OJ L226,25.6.2004,p.83.Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation(EC)No2076/2005(OJ L338,22.12.2005,p.83).(3)OJ L165,30.4.2004,p.1,corrected by OJ L191,28.5.2004,p.1.Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation(EC)No776/2006(OJ L136,24.5.2006,p.3).(4)OJ L139,30.4.2004,p.1,corrected by OJ L226,25.6.2004,p.3.(20)The prevalence of such aquatic animal diseases is not thesame throughout the Community.Reference should there-fore be made to the concept of Member States declareddisease free,and when dealing with parts of the territoryconcerned,to the concept of zones or compartments.General criteria and procedures for the granting,mainte-nance,suspension,restoration and withdrawal of such sta-tus should be laid down.(21)Without prejudice to Council Directive90/425/EEC of26June1990concerning veterinary and zootechnicalchecks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain liveanimals and products with a view to the completion ofthe internal market(1),in order to maintain and improvethe general aquatic animal health status in the Commu-nity,Member States,zones or compartments declared freeof one or more of the diseases listed should be protectedagainst the introduction of such disease.(22)Where necessary,Member States may take interim protec-tive measures in accordance with Article10of Directive90/425/EEC and Article18of Council Directive91/496/EEC of15July1991laying down the principlesgoverning the organisation of veterinary checks on ani-mals entering the Community from third countries andamending Directives89/662/EEC,90/425/EECand90/675/EEC(2).(23)In order to avoid the creation of unnecessary trade restric-tions,the exchange of aquaculture animals between Mem-ber States,zones or compartments where one or more ofsuch diseases are present should be allowed,provided thatappropriate risk mitigation measures are taken,includingduring transport.(24)The slaughter and processing of aquaculture animalswhich are subject to disease control measures may spreadthe disease,inter alia as a result of the discharge of efflu-ents containing pathogens from processing plants.It istherefore necessary for the Member States to have accessto processing establishments that have been duly autho-rised to undertake such slaughter and processing withoutjeopardising the health status of farmed and wild aquaticanimals,including in respect of the discharge of effluents.(25)The designation of Community and national referencelaboratories should contribute to the high quality and uni-formity of diagnostic results.That objective can beachieved by activities such as the application of validateddiagnostic tests and the organisation of comparative test-ing and training of staff from laboratories.(26)Laboratories involved in the examination of officialsamples should work in accordance with internationallyapproved procedures or criteria based on performancestandards and should use diagnostic methods that have,as far as possible,been validated.For a number of activi-ties related to such examination,the European Commit-tee for Standardisation(CEN),and InternationalOrganisation for Standardisation(ISO)have developedEuropean Standards(EN Standards)and InternationalStandards(ISO Standards)respectively,appropriate for thepurpose of this Directive.Such standards relate in particu-lar to the operation and assessment of laboratories and tothe operation and accreditation of control bodies.(27)In order to ensure early detection of any possible outbreakof an aquatic animal disease,it is necessary to oblige thosein contact with aquatic animals of susceptible species tonotify any suspect case of disease to the competentauthority.Routine inspections should be carried out in theMember States to ensure that aquaculture production busi-ness operators are familiar with,and apply,the generalrules on disease control and biosecurity laid down in thisDirective.(28)It is necessary to prevent the spread of non-exotic but seri-ous diseases in aquaculture animals as soon as an out-break occurs by carefully monitoring movements of liveaquaculture animals and products thereof,and the use ofequipment liable to be contaminated.The choice of themeasures to be used by the competent authorities shoulddepend on the epidemiological situation in the MemberState concerned.(29)In order to advance the animal health status of the Com-munity,it is appropriate that epidemiologically based pro-grammes to control and eradicate certain diseases aresubmitted by Member States for recognition at Commu-nity level.(30)For diseases not subject to Community measures,butwhich are of local importance,the aquaculture industryshould,with the assistance of the competent authoritiesof the Member States,take more responsibility for pre-venting the introduction of or controlling such diseasesthrough self regulation and the development of‘codes ofpractice’.However,it may be necessary for the MemberStates to implement certain national measures.Suchnational measures should be justified,necessary and pro-portionate to the goals to be achieved.Furthermore,theyshould not affect the trade between the Member Statesunless this is necessary in order to prevent the introduc-tion of or to control the disease,and should be approvedand regularly reviewed at Community level.Pending theestablishment of such measures under this Directive,theadditional guarantees granted in Commission Decision2004/453/EC of29April2004implementing CouncilDirective91/67/EEC as regards measures against certaindiseases in aquaculture animals(3)should remain in force.(1)OJ L224,18.8.1990,p.29Directive as last amended by Directive2002/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(OJ L315,19.11.2002,p.14).(2)OJ L268,24.9.1991,p.56.Directive as last amended by the2003Act of Accession.(3)OJ L156,30.4.2004,p.5,as corrected by OJ L202,7.6.2004,p.4.Decision as last amended by Commission Decision2006/272/EC (OJ L99,7.4.2006,p.31.).(31)There is a continuous development in knowledge withrespect to hitherto unknown diseases in aquatic animals.It may therefore be necessary for a Member State to applycontrol measures in the case of such emerging disease.Such measures should be swift and adapted to each indi-vidual case,but should not be maintained longer than nec-essary to achieve their goal.As such emerging diseasesmay also affect other Member States,all Member Statesand the Commission should be informed of the presenceof an emerging disease and any control measures taken.(32)It is necessary and appropriate for the achievement of thebasic objective of maintaining and,in the event of an out-break,returning to a disease-free status in Member States,to lay down rules on the measures to increase disease pre-paredness.Outbreaks should be controlled as speedily aspossible,if necessary by emergency vaccination,in orderto limit the adverse effects on the production of,and tradein,live aquaculture animals and products thereof.(33)Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council2001/82/EC of6November2001on the Communitycode relating to veterinary medicinal products(1)andRegulation(EC)No726/2004of the European Parliamentand of the Council of31March2004laying down Com-munity procedures for the authorisation and supervisionof medicinal products for human and veterinary use andestablishing a European Medicines Agency(2)require that,with only minor exceptions,all veterinary medicinal prod-ucts that are placed on the market within the Communityare to hold a marketing authorisation.In general,all vac-cines used in the Community should have a marketingauthorisation.However,the Member States may permitthe use of a product without a marketing authorisation inthe event of a serious epidemic subject to certain condi-tions,in accordance with Regulation(EC)No726/2004.Vaccines against exotic and emerging diseases in aquacul-ture animals may qualify for such derogation.(34)This Directive should lay down provisions to ensure thenecessary level of preparedness to effectively tackle theemergency situations related to one or more outbreaks ofserious exotic or emerging diseases affecting aquaculture,in particular by drawing up contingency plans to combatthem.Such contingency plans should be reviewed andupdated regularly.(35)Where the control of a serious aquatic animal disease issubject to harmonised Community eradication measures,Member States should be allowed to make use of finan-cial contribution from the Community under CouncilRegulation(EC)No1198/2006of27July2006on theEuropean Fisheries Fund(3).Any application for Commu-nity support should be subject to scrutiny as regards com-pliance with control provisions laid down in this Directive.(36)Live aquaculture animals and products thereof importedfrom third countries should not present an animal healthhazard for aquatic animals in the Community.To that end,this Directive should set out measures for the preventionof the introduction of epizootic diseases.(37)It is necessary in order to safeguard the aquatic animalhealth situation in the Community to further ensure thatconsignments of live aquaculture animals transitingthrough the Community comply with the relevant animalhealth requirements applicable to the species concerned.(38)The placing on the market of ornamental aquatic animalsinvolves a wide variety of species,often tropical species,solely for ornamental purposes.Those ornamental aquaticanimals are normally kept in private aquariums or ponds,garden centres,or in exhibition aquariums,not in directcontact with Community waters.Consequently,ornamen-tal aquatic animals held under such conditions do not posethe same risk to other sectors of Community aquacultureor to wild stocks.It is therefore appropriate to lay downspecial provisions applicable to the placing on the mar-ket,transit and import of ornamental aquatic animals,keptunder such conditions.(39)However,where ornamental aquatic animals are kept out-side closed systems or aquariums,in direct contact withthe natural waters of the Community,they could pose asignificant risk to Community aquaculture or wild stocks.That is particularly the case for the populations of carp(Cyprinidae),as popular ornamental fish such as koi carpare susceptible to some diseases affecting other carp spe-cies farmed in the Community or found in the wild.Insuch cases,the general provisions of this Directive shouldapply.(40)The setting up of electronic means of informationexchange is vital for simplification,for the benefit of theaquaculture industry and of the competent authorities.Inorder to meet that obligation,common criteria need to beintroduced.(41)Member States should lay down rules on penalties appli-cable to infringements of the provisions of this Directiveand ensure that they are implemented.Those penaltiesmust be effective,proportionate and dissuasive.(1)OJ L311,28.11.2001,p.1.Directive as last amended by Directive2004/28/EC(OJ L136,30.4.2004,p.58).(2)OJ L136,30.4.2004,p.1.(3)OJ L223,15.8.2006,p.1.(42)In accordance with paragraph34of the Interinstitutionalagreement on better law-making(1),Member States areencouraged to draw up,for themselves and in the interestof the Community,their own tables,which will,as far aspossible,illustrate the correlation between this Directiveand the transposition measures and to make them public.(43)Since the objectives of this Directive,namely to providefor the approximation of the concepts,principles and pro-cedures forming a common basis for aquatic animal healthlegislation in the Community,cannot be sufficientlyachieved by the Member States and can therefore,by rea-son of the scale and effects of this Directive,be betterachieved at Community level,the Community may adoptmeasures,in accordance with the principle of subsidiarityas set out in Article5of the Treaty.In accordance withthe principle of proportionality as set out in that Article,this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary inorder to achieve those objectives.(44)The measures necessary for the implementation of thisDirective should be adopted in accordance with CouncilDecision1999/468/EC of28June1999laying down theprocedures for the exercise of implementing powers con-ferred on the Commission(2).(45)It is appropriate to update Community animal health leg-islation concerning aquaculture animals and productsthereof.Accordingly,Directives91/67/EEC,93/53/EECand95/70/EC should be repealed and replaced by thisDirective,HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:CHAPTER ISUBJECT MATTER,SCOPE AND DEFINITIONSArticle1Subject matter1.This Directive lays down:(a)the animal health requirements to be applied for the placingon the market,the importation and the transit of aquacul-ture animals and products thereof;(b)minimum preventive measures aimed at increasing theawareness and preparedness of the competent authorities, aquaculture production business operators and others related to this industry,for diseases in aquaculture animals;(c)minimum control measures to be applied in the event of asuspicion of,or an outbreak of certain diseases in aquatic animals.2.Member States shall remain free to take more stringent measures in the field covered by Article13of Chapter II, and Chapter V,provided that such measures do not affect trade with other Member States.Article2Scope1.This Directive shall not apply to:(a)ornamental aquatic animals reared in non-commercialaquaria;(b)wild aquatic animals harvested or caught for direct entry intothe food chain;(c)aquatic animals caught for the purpose of production of fish-meal,fish feed,fish oil and similar products.2.Chapter II,Sections1to4of Chapter III,and Chapter VII shall not apply where ornamental aquatic animals are kept in pet shops,garden centres,garden ponds,commercial aquaria,or with wholesalers:(a)without any direct contact with natural waters in theCommunity;or(b)which are equipped with an effluent treatment system reduc-ing the risk of transmitting diseases to the natural waters to an acceptable level.3.This Directive shall apply without prejudice to provisions on the conservation of species or the introduction of non-native species.Article3Definitions1.For the purposes of this Directive,the following definitions shall apply:(a)‘aquaculture’means the rearing or cultivation of aquaticorganisms using techniques designed to increase the produc-tion of those organisms beyond the natural capacity of the environment and where the organisms remain the property of one or more natural or legal persons throughout the rear-ing or culture stages,up to and including harvesting;(1)OJ C321,31.12.2003,p.1.Corrected version in OJ C4,8.1.2004,p.7.(2)OJ L184,17.7.1999,p.23.Decision as last amended by Decision2006/512/EC(OJ L200,22.7.2006,p.11).(b)‘aquaculture animal’means any aquatic animal at all its lifestages,including eggs and sperm/gametes,reared in a farm or mollusc farming area,including any aquatic animal from the wild intended for a farm or mollusc farming area;(c)‘aquaculture production business’means any undertaking,whether for profit or not and whether public or private,car-rying out any of the activities related to the rearing,keeping or cultivation of aquaculture animals;(d)‘aquaculture production business operator’means any natu-ral or legal person responsible for ensuring that the require-ments of this Directive are met within the aquaculture production business under their control;(e)‘aquatic animal’means:(i)fish belonging to the superclass Agnatha and to theclasses Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes;(ii)mollusc belonging to the Phylum Mollusca;(iii)crustacean belonging to the Subphylum Crustacea;(f)‘authorised processing establishment’means any food busi-ness approved in accordance with Article4of Regulation (EC)No853/2004of the European Parliament and of the Council of29April2004laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin(1),for processing aquaculture ani-mals for food purposes,and authorised in accordance with Articles4and5of this Directive;(g)‘authorised processing establishment operator’means anynatural or legal person responsible for ensuring that the requirements of this Directive are met within the authorised processing establishment under their control;(h)‘farm’means any premises,enclosed area,or installationoperated by an aquaculture production business in which aquaculture animals are reared with a view to their being placed on the market,with the exception of those where wild aquatic animals harvested or caught for the purpose of human consumption are temporarily kept awaiting slaugh-ter without being fed;(i)‘farming’means the rearing of aquaculture animals in a farmor in a mollusc farming area;(j)‘mollusc farming area’means a production area or relaying area in which all aquaculture production businesses operate under a common biosecurity system;(k)‘ornamental aquatic animal’means an aquatic animal which is kept,reared,or placed on the market for ornamental pur-poses only;(l)‘placing on the market’means the sale,including offering for sale or any other form of transfer,whether free of charge or not,and any form of movement of aquaculture animals;(m)‘production area’means any freshwater,sea,estuarine,con-tinental or lagoon area containing natural beds of molluscs or sites used for the cultivation of molluscs,and from which molluscs are taken;(n)‘put and take fisheries’means ponds or other installations where the population is maintained only for recreational fishing by restocking with aquaculture animals;(o)‘relaying area’means any freshwater,sea,estuarine or lagoon area with boundaries clearly marked and indicated by buoys, posts or any other fixed means,and used exclusively for the natural purification of live molluscs;(p)‘wild aquatic animal’means an aquatic animal which is not an aquaculture animal.2.For the purposes of this Directive,the following definitions shall also apply:(a)the technical definitions laid down in Annex I;(b)as appropriate,the definitions laid down respectively in:(i)Articles2and3of Regulation(EC)No178/2002of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council of28Janu-ary2002laying down the general principles andrequirements of food law,establishing the EuropeanFood Safety Authority and laying down procedures inmatters of food safety(2);(ii)Article2of Regulation(EC)No852/2004;(iii)Article2of Regulation(EC)No853/2004;(iv)Article2of Regulation(EC)No882/2004.CHAPTER IIAQUACULTURE PRODUCTION BUSINESSES ANDAUTHORISED PROCESSING ESTABLISHMENTSArticle4Authorisation of aquaculture production businesses andprocessing establishments1.Member States shall ensure that each aquaculture produc-tion business is duly authorised by the competent authority in accordance with Article5.(1)OJ L139,30.4.2004,p.55.(2)OJ L31,1.2.2002,p.1.。

EUROPEANCOMMISSIONBrussels, 29.11.2017COM(2017) 712 finalCOMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIALCOMMITTEESetting out the EU approach to Standard Essential PatentsI NTRODUCTIONThe interplay between patents and standards is important for innovation and growth. Standards ensure that interoperable and safe technologies are widely disseminated among companies and consumers. Patents provide R&D with incentives and enable innovative companies to receive an adequate return on investments. Standards1frequently make reference to technologies that are protected by patents. A patent that protects technology essential to a standard is called a standard-essential patent (SEP). SEPs therefore protect technologies that are essential for complying with technical standards and for marketing products based on such standards.Standards support innovation and growth in Europe, in particular providing for interoperability of digital technologies that are the foundation of the Digital Single Market (DSM). For example, computers, smartphones or tablets connect to the internet or other devices via standardised technologies such as long-term evolution (LTE), WiFi, or Bluetooth, all of which are protected by SEPs. Without the widespread use of such standardised technologies, such interconnectivity would not be possible2.In the hyper-connected era, interconnectivity becomes even more crucial. A wide range of new products need to be interconnected, as to provide consumers with additional products and services (e.g. smart house appliances) and to create new business opportunities for European companies.The digitalisation of the economy creates great opportunities for EU industry. The estimated economic potential of IoT applications in devices for humans, homes, offices, factories, worksites, retail environments, cities, vehicles and the outdoors will be up to EUR 9 trillion per year by 2025 in developed countries3. The digitalisation of products and services can add more than EUR 110 billion in revenue to the European economy per year over the next five years4. The ability of connected devices and systems to work together is crucial for maximising this economic potential. Without interoperability, enabled by standards, 40 % of the potential benefits of IoT systems would not be reaped5.Without formal standardisation and SEPs, there would be, for example, no connected vehicles. Telediagnosis or remote operations with distant hospitals or to exchange patient information would not be possible either. Patent holders contribute technology for developing standards within standard developing organisations (SDOs). Once a standard is established and the holders of the SEPs have given a commitment to license them on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, the technology included in the standard should be available to any potential user of the standard. Smooth licensing practices are therefore essential to guarantee fair, reasonable and non-1Regulation (EU) 1025/2012 on European standardisation defines the meaning of the terms “standard” and “technical specification”. In this document the term “standard” is used with both meanings for the sake of brevity.2 For instance, company X marketing residential alarm systems connected to the internet both via WiFi and LTE to provide consumers with enhanced security in case of power cut, would need a licence for these standardised technologies.3McKinsey, 2015. See also the objective set by President Juncker for 5G and the IoT in the State of the Union speech, 14.9.2016.4PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2015 and Boston Consulting Group, 2015. See also: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/digitising-european-industry#usefullinks5 See McKinsey (2015).discriminatory access to the standardised technologies and to reward patent holders so they continue to invest in R&D and standardisation activities. This in turn plays a prominent role in developing a connected society, where new market players outside the traditional ICT sectors (producers of household appliances, connected cars, etc.) need access to the standardised technology.The evidence however suggests that the licensing and enforcement of SEPs is not seamless and may lead to conflicts. Technology users accuse SEP holders of charging excessive licensing fees based on weak patent portfolios and of using litigation threats. SEP holders claim that technology users 'free ride' on their innovations and consciously infringe intellectual property rights (IPR) without engaging in good faith licensing negotiations6. Problems may be particularly acute when players coming from new industrial sectors who are unfamiliar with the traditional ICT business need access to standardised technologies. Disputes and delays in negotiations between technological users and holders may ultimately delay the widespread use of key standardised technologies. This can hamper the development of interconnected products in Europe, eventually affecting the competitiveness of the EU economy.In its April 2016 Communication on Standardisation Priorities for the Digital Single Market7, the Commission identified three main areas where the SEP licensing environment could be improved: opaque information on SEP exposure; unclear valuation of patented technologies reading on standards and the definition of FRAND; and the risk of uncertainty in enforcement of SEPs. In addition, the role of open source communities in the development of standards also should be assessed.There is therefore a need for a clear, balanced and reasonable policy for Standard Essential Patents in the EU with the aim of contributing to the development of the Internet of Things and harnessing Europe's lead role in in this context.Conflicting interests of stakeholders in certain SDOs may make it difficult for these organisations to provide effective guidance on such complex legal and intellectual property (IP) policy issues. Licensing platform initiatives in this area are still at an early stage and have not yet been adopted by implementers, who may well be hesitant given the uncertainty in the current SEP regulatory environment and who have little incentive to enter into a deal in this context.In addition, the standardisation of 5G and IoT is a global issue. Europe's industry retains a leading position in many sectors in global markets. The Commission notes the important role European standardisation plays in the global context8.The Commission therefore considers that there is an urgent need to set out key principles that foster a balanced, smooth and predictable framework for SEPs. These key principles reflect two main objectives: incentivising the development and inclusion of top technologies in standards, by preserving fair and adequate return for these contributions, and ensuring smooth and wide dissemination of standardised technologies based on fair access conditions. A balanced and successful policy on SEPs licensing should work to the benefit of start-ups in 6The economic stakes are very high: for example, the royalty income for 2G, 3G and 4G standards is approximately EUR 18 billion per year (CRA 2016).7The public consultation organised by the Commission in 2014 clearly shows divergent opinions on the challenges and solutions concerning the SEP environment. See http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=7833.8 Patents declared to the ETSI represent 70% of worldwide SEPs (IPlytics, 2017).Europe and should serve all EU citizens by giving them access to products and services based on the best performing standardised technology.This Communication draws on the responsibility of all actors in the SEP licensing context, and all stakeholders are encouraged to contribute to making this framework work in practice. It is not intended to represent a statement of the law and is without prejudice to the interpretation of EU law by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). It does not bind the Commission as regards the application of EU rules on competition, and in particular Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).1.I NCREASING TRANSPARENCY ON SEP S EXPOSUREInformation on the existence, scope and relevance of SEPs is vital for fair licensing negotiations and for allowing potential users of a standard to identify the scale of their exposure to SEPs and necessary licensing partners. However, currently the only information on SEPs accessible to users can be found in declaration databases maintained by SDOs which may lack transparency. This situation makes licensing negotiations and the anticipation of risks related to SEPs particularly difficult to navigate for start-ups and SMEs. The primary purpose of declarations is to reassure an SDO and all third parties that the technology will be accessible to users, typically under a commitment to license under FRAND conditions.SDO databases may record tens of thousands of SEPs for a single standard, and this trend is growing9. The declarations are based on a self-assessment by the patent holder, and are not subject to scrutiny regarding the essentiality of the declared patent, which can evolve in the course of the standard adoption procedure. In addition, stakeholders report that even in concrete licensing negotiations licensors fail to substantiate their claims with more precise information. This is particularly unsatisfactory in the context of IoT where new players with little experience of SEPs licensing are continually entering the market for connectivity. The Commission therefore believes that measures, as outlined below, are needed to improve the information on SEPs.1.1.I MPROVING QUALITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF INFORMATION RECORDED IN SDODATABASESThe Commission believes that SDOs should provide detailed information in their databases to support the SEP licensing framework. While SDO databases collect large amounts of declaration data10, they often do not provide user-friendly accessibility to interested parties, and lack essential quality features. The Commission therefore takes the view that the quality and accessibility of the databases should be improved11. First, data should be easily accessible through user friendly interfaces, both for patent holders, implementers and third parties. All declared information should be searchable based on the relevant standardisation projects, which may also require the transformation of historic data into current formats. Quality processes should eliminate also duplications and other obvious flaws. Finally, there should be links to patent office databases, including updates of patent status, ownership and its transfer. 9For instance, more than 23 500 patents have been declared essential to the Global System for Mobile Communication standard and the 3G or Universal Mobile Telecommunication System standards developed at the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Such standard apply to all smartphones and devices having a mobile connection. For more figures, see 'Landscaping study on SEPs' IPlytics (2017) and 'Patents and Standards - A modern framework for IPR-based standardization' ECSIP (2014).10 Some SDOs require specific patent disclosures as they recognise their benefits, while others permit blanket declarations. This section of the Communication refers to SDOs with specific patent disclosure.11See for example the long running 'DARE' project to improve the ETSI’s database.Work on improving databases needs to be combined with a stricter scrutiny on compliance with declaration obligations as defined in current SDO policies to avoid incomplete declarations12.1.2.D EVELOPING AN INFORMATION TOOL TO ASSIST LICENSING NEGOTIATIONSThe Commission notes that the current declaration system in SDOs supports the technical standard setting process and is not geared towards future SEP licensing. However, it is clear that there are net benefits in extending the current practice and purpose of declarations and databases to the creation of new transparency tools which, without losing their main purpose, can greatly facilitate licensing negotiation. Proportionality considerations are essential in this context. Whilst excessive burdens for stakeholders should be avoided, it should be born in mind that in concrete licensing negotiations, patent holders necessarily have to invest in substantiating to SEP users why patents from the patent holders' portfolio are essential to the standard or how these patents are being infringed13. The Commission therefore believes that proposed incremental improvements with controlled costs can substantially reduce overall transaction costs during licensing negotiations as well as infringement risks, to benefit both parties in negotiations14.1.2.1.More up-to-date and precise declarationsDeclarations occur early on in the standardisation process, with normally no review later on. However, technical solutions proposed in standards negotiations evolve up until the final standard15 is agreed. While the majority of declarations concern patent applications, the patent claims under the final patent granted after adoption of the standard can differ considerably16, as their content may change during the granting process. Therefore, rightholders should review the relevance of their declarations at the time of adoption of the final standard (and subsequent significant revisions) and when a final granting decision on the patent is taken. Declarations should also include enough information to assess patent exposure. Patent holders should at least make reference to the section of the standard that is relevant to the SEP and to the link with the patent family. Declarations should also clearly identify a contact for the owner/licensor of the declared SEP.Finally, it should be noted that SEPs on key technologies are more frequently litigated17. Associated information is relevant for all interested licensees and can play a role in limiting the possibility of future litigation. SDOs should therefore provide the possibility and incentives for patent holders and technology users to report the case reference and main outcome of final decisions, positive or negative, on declared SEPs (including on essentiality and patent validity). As companies usually only litigate a few valuable patents within a portfolio, and both patent holders and users should have an interest in reporting decisions in their respective favour, the associated burden of this measure would be limited.12 For further details, please see the summary report of the public consultation organised by DG GROW in 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/14482/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native.13 See CRA (2016).14 See section 3 below in relation to effective enforcement.15 For instance, a potential patent or patent application initially declared for a candidate technology may not be retained in the released standard, or the declared patent application may be revised during the granting process.16 For instance, 71% of SEPs declared at major SDOs (73% at the ETSI) are only granted after the standard has been released (IPlytics, 2017).17 See ECSIP (2014).1.2.2.Essentiality checksEvidence points to the risk of broad over-declarations and makes a strong case for more reliability with respect to SEP essentiality18. Stakeholders report that recorded declarations create a de facto presumption of essentiality in negotiations with licensees19. This scenario places a high burden on any willing licensee, especially SMEs and start-ups, to check the essentiality of a large number of SEPs in licensing negotiations.There is therefore a need for a higher degree of scrutiny on essentiality claims. This would require scrutiny being performed by an independent party with technical capabilities and market recognition, at the right point in time. Having said this, introducing such a scrutiny requirement to SEPs must be balanced against the cost20. However, an incremental approach, whereby scrutiny takes place at the request of either rightholders or prospective users, calibrating the depth of scrutiny and limiting checks to one patent within a family and to samples, could ensure the right cost-benefit balance of this measure21.1.2.3.Means of implementationWhile there are clear benefits to such increased transparency, the related burden needs to remain proportionate. Measures could therefore be extended gradually, and apply to new and key standards only, e.g. 5G.As a first step, stakeholders could be incentivised to value increased transparency, e.g. by way of certification that their declared SEP portfolios comply with transparency criteria. This certification could later be used in licensing negotiations and litigation. In addition, a recent study undertaken for the Commission suggests that SDOs may consider introducing (modest) fees for confirming SEP declarations after standard release and patent grants, to incentive SEP holders to revise and maintain only relevant declarations22.When considering essentiality checks, patent offices may well be natural candidates for exploiting synergies and reducing costs23. The Commission will support further analysis of their feasibility to ensure effective and proportionate solutions.Depending on the outcome of this project, an independent European body could be tasked to proceed with SEP essentiality assessment.18 See IPlytics (2017) and CRA (2016) and the summary of DG GROW public consultation on SEPs (2015).19 A number of studies on various key technologies suggests that when rigorously tested, only between 10% and 50% of declared patents are essential (CRA, 2016 and IPlytics, 2017).20 The cost of essentiality checks may be negligible compared to licensing revenues for key technologies (see CRA, 2016).21 For an analysis of cost and benefits, please see IPlytics (2017).22 See CRA (2016).23 See IPlytics (2017).2.G ENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR FRAND LICENSING TERMS FOR SEP SThe Commission considers that the parties are best placed to arrive at a common understanding of what are fair licensing conditions and fair rates, through good faith negotiations. Currently, licensing is hampered by unclear and diverging interpretations of the meaning of FRAND. The debate is particularly heated when it comes to valuation principles. Divergent views and litigation over FRAND licensing risk delaying the uptake of new technologies, standardisation processes and the roll-out of IoT in Europe. The Commission considers therefore that it is both necessary and beneficial to establish a first set of key signposts on the FRAND concept, so as to provide for a more stable licensing environment, guide parties in their negotiations and reduce litigation.The guiding elements set out below are based on the results of a public consultation24, analysis of best practices25, studies26, as well as national case law27. The Commission encourages stakeholders to engage in dialogue with each other and with the Commission, with the view to achieving further clarification and developing best practices. The Commission will monitor progress achieved and take complementary action on FRAND licensing, as needed.2.1.L ICENSING PRINCIPLESAs the CJEU has confirmed, an 'undertaking to grant licences on FRAND terms creates legitimate expectations on the part of third parties that the proprietor of the SEP will in fact grant licences on such terms'28.Both parties must be willing to engage in good faith negotiations, with the view to establishing licensing conditions that are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. Parties to a SEP licensing agreement, negotiating in good faith, are in the best position to determine the FRAND terms most appropriate to their specific situation.Efficiency considerations, reasonable licence fee expectations on both sides, the facilitation of the uptake by implementers to promote wide diffusion of the standard should be taken into account. It should be stressed in this respect that there is no one-size-fit-all solution to what FRAND is: what can be considered fair and reasonable differs from sector to sector and over time. For this reason, the Commission encourages stakeholders to pursue sectoral discussions with a view to establishing common licensing practices, based on the principles reflected in this Communication.The Commission considers that the following IP valuation principles should be taken into account:Licensing terms have to bear a clear relationship to the economic value of the patented technology. That value primarily needs to focus on the technology itself and in principle should not include any element resulting from the decision to include the technology in the standard.In cases where the technology is developed mainly for the standard and has little market value outside the standard, alternative evaluation 24 Public consultation on patents and standards: A modern framework for standardisation involving intellectual property rights.25 Licensing Terms of Standard Essential Patents: A Comprehensive Analysis of Cases, JRC 201726Study on Transparency, Predictability and Efficiency of SDO-based Standardization and SEP Licensing, Published on: 12/12/2016, (CRA study).27 See, in particular, Unwired Planet v. Huaweï [2017] EWHC 711 (Pat).28 Case C-170/13 Huawei Technologies, EU:C:2015:477, paragraph 53methods, such as the relative importance of the technology in the standard compared to other contributions in the standard, should be considered.∙Determining a FRAND value should require taking into account the present value added29of the patented technology. That value should be irrespective of the market success of the product which is unrelated to the patented technology.∙FRAND valuation should ensure continued incentives for SEP holders to contribute their best available technology to standards.∙Finally, to avoid royalty stacking, in defining a FRAND value, an individual SEP cannot be considered in isolation. Parties need to take into account a reasonable aggregate rate for the standard, assessing the overall added value of the technology30.The implementation of measures on SEP transparency can already support this objective. It can be addressed further, within the scope of EU competition law, by the creation of industry licensing platforms and patent pools, or based on indications by standardisation participants on the maximum cumulative rate that could be reasonably envisaged or expected.2.2.E FFICIENCY AND NON-DISCRIMINATIONThe non-discrimination element of FRAND indicates that rightholders cannot discriminate between implementers that are 'similarly situated'31.Given that FRAND is not one-size-fits-all, solutions can differ from sector to sector and depending on the business models in question.As mentioned above, FRAND negotiations imply good faith negotiations from both parties. Efficiency considerations can come into play as well. Transaction costs relating to the negotiation of a licence should be kept to the minimum necessary. Furthermore, in sectors where cross-licencing practices are widespread, efficiency gains related to such practices should be taken into account. These points need to be taken into account when assessing on a case by case basis whether a licensing offer is compatible with FRAND.In line with the approach presented above, the Commission considers that the same principles of efficiency support the practice of SEP portfolio licensing for products with global circulation32. As noted in a recent ruling33, a country-by-country licensing approach may not be efficient and may not be in line with a recognised commercial practice in the sector.2.3.P ATENT POOLS AND LICENSING PLATFORMS TO FACILITATE SEP LICENSINGThe creation of patent pools or other licensing platforms, within the scope of EU competition law, should be encouraged. They can address many of the SEP licensing challenges by offering better scrutiny on essentiality, more clarity on aggregate licensing fees and one-stop- shop solutions. For IoT industries, and particularly SMEs, newly exposed to SEP licensing disputes, this will bring more clarity to licensing conditions of SEP holders in a specific sector.29The present value is the value discounted to the time of the conclusion of the licence agreement. Allowing for the discounting over time is important against the backdrop of licence agreement running over several years in sometimes technologically fast moving business environments.30 On royalty stacking see CRA study.31 Unwired Planet v. Huaweï [2017] EWHC 711 (Pat).32However, FRAND licensing requires remuneration to be calculated in a manner that implementers wishing to develop a product for a specific, geographically limited area are not placed at a disadvantage.33 Unwired Planet v. Huaweï [2017] EWHC 711 (Pat).Measures to encourage the setting up of pools for key standardised technologies should be encouraged, e.g. facilitating access to pool management offers and technical assistance by SDO34. The Commission will consider further measures if these efforts are ineffective in IoT sectors.2.4.E XPLOITING AND DEEPENING FRAND EXPERTISEThere is a need to increase accessibility of experience, expertise and know-how around FRAND determination. Valuable insight has been gained and approaches developed from licensing agreements, mediations, arbitrations and court decisions over many years. Significant resources and efforts have been devoted to clarifying, analysing and valuing patents and technology. As there is no common repository for such expertise, work and research may be unnecessarily duplicated at serious cost to the parties involved. More accessible FRAND-related information could increase predictability for businesses such as IoT players, facilitate the licensing process in general and provide support and benchmarks in dispute settlement.The Commission will therefore set up an expert group with the view to gathering industry practice and additional expertise on FRAND licencing. In addition, the Commission will use all appropriate tools available to obtain further information to support its policy making with sufficient evidence.34For instance, the creation of pools may be encouraged by means of measures such as strengthening the relationship between SDOs and pools, providing incentives to participation and making universities and SMEs more aware of the advantages of becoming a licensor in a pool (ECSIP, 2015).3.A PREDICTABLE ENFORCEMENT ENVIRONMENT FOR SEP SDisputes on SEPs are an important factor in the licensing system when negotiations fail. A balanced and predictable enforcement environment has particularly positive effects on parties’ behaviour during negotiations, which in turn can speed up the spread of standardised technologies. IoT stakeholders report however that uncertainties and imbalances in the enforcement system have serious implications for market entry. SEPs show a higher degree of litigation than other patents35, which reinforces the need for a clear dispute framework in this area. While this Communication focuses on specific guidance on Standard Essential Patents, the Guidance on certain aspects of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of intellectual property rights36 clarifies the IPRED regime more generally.The possibility to enforce is one of the key aspects of intellectual property rights37. The debate in the SEPs area has mainly focused on the availability of injunctive relief. Such relief aims to protect SEP holders against infringers unwilling to conclude a licence on FRAND terms. At the same time, safeguards are needed against the risk that good-faith technology users threatened with an injunction accept licensing terms that are not FRAND, or in the worst case, are unable to market their products (hold-ups).3.1.AVAILABILITY OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE H UAWEI VS ZTE JURISPRUDENCE In its Huawei judgment38, the CJEU established obligations applying to both sides of a SEP-licensing agreement, when assessing whether the holder of a SEP can seek an injunction against a potential licensee without being in breach of Article 102 TFEU. SEP holders may not seek injunctions against users willing to enter into a licence on FRAND terms, and the CJEU established behavioural criteria to assess when a potential licensee can be considered willing to enter into such a licence.The Commission considers that the elements below – which arise from national case-law in applying the Huawei judgment39, provide useful additional guidance for stakeholders.A number of courts have stressed that a prospective SEP licensee has to receive sufficiently detailed and relevant information to determine the relevance of the SEP portfolio and 35 ECSIP (2014).36COM(2017)70837Directive 2004/48/EC of 29.4.2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, pub. OJ L 195 of 2.6.2004, recital 338 Case C-170/13 Huawei Technologies, EU:C:2015:477.39 The CJEU held that Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a patent essential to a standard established by a standardisation body, which has given an irrevocable undertaking to that body to grant a licence to third parties on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’) terms, does not abuse its dominant position, within the meaning of that article, by bringing an action for infringement seeking an injunction prohibiting the infringement of its patent or seeking the recall of products for the manufacture of which that patent has been used, as long as:(1) prior to bringing that action, the proprietor has, first, alerted the alleged infringer of the infringement complained about by designating that patent and specifying the way in which it has been infringed, and, secondly, after the alleged infringer has expressed its willingness to conclude a licensing agreement on FRAND terms, presented to that infringer a specific, written offer for a licence on such terms, specifying, in particular, the royalty and the way in which it is to be calculated, and(2) where the alleged infringer continues to use the patent in question, the alleged infringer has not diligently responded to that offer, in accordance with recognised commercial practices in the field and in good faith, this being a matter which must be established on the basis of objective factors and which implies, in particular, that there are no delaying tactics.。

传播学Communication术语中英文对照传播Communication内向/自我传播Intrapersonal Communication人际传播Interpersonal Communication群体传播Group Communication组织传播Organization Communication大众传播Mass Communication单向传播One-Sided Communication双向传播Two-Sided Communication互动传播Interactive Communication媒介Media大众传播媒介Mass Media新媒介New Media新闻洞News Hold新闻价值News V alue传播者Communicator主动传播者Active Communicator受传者/受众/阅听大众Audience受众兴趣Audience Interest受众行为Audience Activity信息Information信号Signal讯息Message信息熵Entropy冗余/冗余信息Redundancy传播单位Communication Unit奥斯古德模式Osgood Model编码Encoding解码Decoding信源Source传播的数学理论Mathematical Theory of Communication 传播渠道Communication Channel有效传播Effective Communication传播效果Effects知识沟Knowledge-Gap使用与满足模式Uses and Gratifications Model使用与依从模式Uses and Dependencys Model口传系统System of Oral Communication地球村Global Village内爆Implosion全球化Globalization本土化Localization电子空间Cyber Space数字化Digitalization文化帝国主义Culture Imperialism跨文化传播Intercultural Communication 守门人Gatekeeper 新闻采集者News Gatherers新闻加工者News Processors模式Model有线效果模式Limited Effects Model适度效果模式Moderate Effects Model 强大效果模式Powerful Effects Model 子弹论Bullet Theory两级传播模式Two-Step Flow Model多级传播模式Multi-Step Flow Model沉默的螺旋模式Spiral of Silence Model 劝服传播Persuasive Communication议程设置模式the Agenda-Setting Model 时滞Time Lag最合适效果跨度Optimal Effects Pan时间跨度Time Span公众舆论Public Opinion选择性接触Selective Exposure 选择性注意Selective Attention 选择性理解Selective Perception 选择性记忆Selective Retention 可信性提示Credibility Heuristic 喜爱提示Liking Heuristic共识提示Consensus Heuristic。

Level 3 CommunicationsLevel 3 Communications is an American multinational telecommunications and Internet service provider company headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado.[1] It operates a Tier 1 network.[1] The company provides core transport, IP, voice, video, and content delivery for most of the medium to large Internet carriers in North America, Latin America, Europe, and selected cities in Asia.[2]Level 3 is also the largest competitive local exchange carrier(CLEC) and the 2nd largest provider of fiber optic internet access (based on coverage area) in the United States.[3]Contents∙ 1 Historyo 1.1 1985 to 2010o 1.2 2010 to present∙ 2 Operationso 2.1 Networko 2.2 Sales organization∙ 3 Finance∙ 4 Disputes∙ 5 References∙ 6 External linksHistory1985 to 2010In 1985 Peter Kiewit Sons' Inc created a subsidiary named Kiewit Diversified Group to manage the corporation's business that were not related to construction. The division was spun off as a separate entity and changed its name to Level 3Communications in 1998 to signify an increased focus on communication services. That same year saw it make an IPO on NASDAQ. It continued to build its telecommunications network after going public.[4]In 2003 the company acquired Genuity, and, between 2005 and 2007, it purchased several other companies including former rivals WilTel Communications, Broadwing Corporation, Looking Glass Networks, Progress Telecom, and Telcove (formerly Adelphia Business Solutions).[4]In 2004 Level 3 acquired ICG Communications' wholesale dial-up business for $35 million. Then, in 2006, Level 3 purchased the rest of ICG Communications for $163 million, taking over ICG's fiber network and nationwide Points of Presence (PoPs). It then focused on integrating those acquired companies through 2010.2010 to presentOn April 11, 2011, Level 3 announced a tender offer had been made to acquire fellow Tier 1 provider Global Crossing[5] in an all-stock transaction.[6] On August 5, 2011, Level 3's purchase of Global Crossing was separately approved by shareholders of both companies.[7] On October 4, 2011, the purchase was completed. On October 20, 2011, Level 3 Communications completed a reverse stock split and transferred its stock listing from NASDAQ to the New York Stock Exchange.[8]On May 14, 2012, Level 3 was selected by European content provider Voxility to provide more than 250 Gbit/s to Voxility's three major datacenters in North America and Europe.[9]On May 7, 2012, the U.S. Department of Defense's Defense Information Systems Agency(DISA) contracted Level 3 to provide dedicated fiber-cable operations and maintenance support, and IP-based infrastructure under a ten-year, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with a maximum value of approximately $410.8 million.[10]On October 30, 2012, Level 3 was named as "Top Ethernet Services Provider" by Nemertes Research PilotHouse Awards.[11]On June 16, 2014, Level 3 had agreed to buy TW Telecom, a provider of business Internet connections, for about $5.68 billion, as consolidation continues in the telecommunications industry.[12]OperationsNetworkLevel (3) Communications satellite dish on one of its two ground stations located in Boise, Idaho Level 3 Communications operates a large network of the Internet. This includes 46 states in the continental United States,[3][13][14]South America, Western Europe,[1][15]and select cities in Asia. It uses transatlantic cables,[16]including Yellow/AC-2, on which it owned and operated two of the four fiber pairs after the 2001 Viatel bankruptcy.[17] Level 3 Communications has also purchased 300 Gbit/s of capacity on the Apollo cable system.[18]It is the current owner of AS1[19] (following the acquisition of Genuity, that was the BBN Technologies Spin off for their Internet Service Provider assets, including this AS), but it operationally uses AS3356, which as of 2007 consistently has one of the highest ranked connectivity degrees on the Internet.[20][21]It also operates the former Global Crossing network (AS3549) following the company acquisition in 2011.The company runs a content delivery network which it acquired from Savvis in 2006.[22]Level 3 Communications delivers Netflix and Apple Inc music & video content over the Internet.[23]In 2006 Level 3 Communications partnered with Internet2, an academic network, and announced it would deploy a next generation nationwide research network.[24]Sales organizationLevel 3 distributes and sells its services through a mix of six independent sales channels: large enterprise, wholesale, federal, content and media, midmarket, and indirect. All six sales channels report to the president of sales Andrew Crouch.[25] The top performing Level 3 indirect sales agencies in 2010 include Intelisys, Microcorp, CDW/AVANT Communications, PlanetOne, Advantage Communications Group, Telarus, and Presidio.[26]FinanceOn February 5, 2014, Level 3 reported total revenue of $1.602 billion for the fourth quarter 2013, compared to $1.614 billion for the fourth quarter 2012. For the full year 2013, total revenue was $6.313 billion, compared to $6.376 billion for the full year 2012. [27] As of the release of the 4th Quarter and Full Year earnings, Internet market publication The Street was recommending a "Hold" for Level 3 stock. [28]DisputesOn December 8, 2010, the New America Foundation submitted a request to the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the ongoing dispute between Level 3 Communications and Comcast with regard to data trafficking agreements. The request called for an investigation of "whether and how last-mile providers might leverage their relationship with broadband consumers to act in an anticompetitivemanner", and how "last-mile providers can leverage their market power to harm their competitors in the market for Internet content".[29]The request for investigation stems from the decision by Comcast to alter the peering agreement they had with Level 3 due to the increased volume of internet traffic due to the latter's new agreement to be a primary backbone provider of Netflix on-line streaming content.[29]Level 3 Communications agreed to pay a new fee but maintained the view that it goes against Federal Communications Commission regulations that prevent Internet Service Providers from "favoring certain types of traffic."[30]Another contributing factor to the dispute is the Comcast and NBCUniversal merger. On December 8, 2010, in a letter to the FCC, the New America Foundation wrote to the FCC stating that, "Because this dispute arose shortly after Level 3 signed a deal with Netflix to transmit Netflix content, regulators should examine Comcast’s motives closely. Netflix competes directly with Comcast’s cable TV programming offerings. In fact, over the past two quarters, cable has lost an increasing number of subscribers, and a number of those consumers have substituted Netflix streaming video service for the cable service they have eliminated. It requires little imagination to view Comcast’s behavior as an att empt to raise the distribution costs for Netflix and thus force that competitor to pass these new expenses onto consumers in the form of higher prices."[29]On December 16, 2010, Level 3 Communications CEO, James Q. Crowe, submitted a letter to the FCC regarding the ongoing dispute between his company and Comcast. In the letter he stated, "The question, quite simply, is whether Comcast and other residential broadband Internet service provider s should be allowed to use their dominant control over access to their subscribers' eyes and ears in order to coerce payments from broadband backbone and independent content providers."[31] On December 17, 2010, Jeff Storey, President and COO of Level 3 Communications wrote a letter to Neil Smit, President of Comcast. In it he wrote, "Last night and today, in direct violation of our Non-disclosure agreement, Comcast disclosed the details of our discussions to the FCC, and publicly disclosed thosediscussions in a blog post written by John Schanz. This breach of our agreement is exacerbated by the fact that Comcast's portrayal of our discussions is factually incorrect".[32]In July 2013 Level 3 was accused of wiretapping large parts of data on the German Internet Exchange Point DE-CIX for the NSA,[33]and a few months later, was accused of tapping connections between Google and Yahoo data centers. [34]References1.^ to: a b c About Level 3 Level 3 Communications Official Site2.^"Level 3 Company Profile". Telecom Industry News. Retrieved 20 March 2012.3.^ to: a b"Level 3 Communications Overview and Coverage". Broadband Now. Retrieved2014-04-28.4.^ to: a b Company History: A Network Built to Support the Silicon Economics Cycle Level 3Communications Official Site5.^ "Level 3 pays $3bn for Global Crossing". Apr 11, 2011. Retrieved Oct 21,2011.6.^ Leena Rao, publication. "Level 3 To Acquire Global Crossing For $3 Billion In Stock."April 11, 2011. Retrieved April 11, 2011.7.^ Anders Bylund, Daily Finance. "Level 3 Communications Plunged: What You Need toKnow." Aug 8, 2011. Retrieved Aug 10, 2011.8.^ Denver Business Journal. "Level 3 completes reverse stock split, moves to NYSE." Oct 20,2011. Retrieved Oct 21, 2011.9.^ Holverson, Austin. "European Content Provider V oxility Selects Level 3 to Provide GlobalHigh Speed IP Connectivity". Telecom Industry Updates. Retrieved 14 May 2012.10.^ Chugg, Justin. "U.S. Department of Defense Finalizes Selection of Level 3 for 10 yearMultimillion Dollar Task Order". Telecom Industry News. Retrieved 7 May 2012.11.^ "Level 3 Named as Top Ethernet Services Provider and Awarded withNemertes PilotHouse Award". Nov 05, 2012. Retrieved Dec 03, 2012.12.^"Level 3 to Buy TW Telecom for $5.7 Billion". New York Times. Retrieved 16 June 2014.13.^"Level 3 Communications, LLC". National Broadband Map. Retrieved 2014-04-28.14.^International Backhaul Map Level 3 Communications Official Site15.^European Back haul Map Level 3 Communications Official Site16.^Financial Services Case Study: Liquidity Express Route: An Information; Fast Track forFinancial Services Level 3 Communications Official Site17.^Level 3 acquires Viatel transatlantic assets18.^Level 3 Communications Selects Apollo , 17th February 200819.^WHOIS: AS120.^Visualizing Internet Topology at a Macroscopic Scale January 2009, 21.^AS ranking 22.^Level 3 acquires Savvis video , December 26, 200623.^Level 3 revenue falls despite Netflix deal , Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:12am EST24.^Internet2 and Level 3 Communications to Deploy Next Generation Nationwide ResearchNetwork25.^ Henderson, Khali (30 July 2010). "Level 3 Reorganizes NA Sales". Channel PartnersOnline. Retrieved 30 July 2010.26.^ Henderson, Khali (24 March 2011). "Level 3 Names Top Partners for 2010". ChannelPartners Online. Retrieved 24 March 2011.27.^ "[1]"28.^/story/12310563/1/why-level-3-lvlt-is-gaining-today.html29.^ to: a b c Concerns Regarding Dispute Between Comcast Corporation and Level 3Communications, filed by New America Foundation , December 8, 201030.^Comcast vs. Level 3: Online Netflix traffic causes fee fight 31.^A Letter from James Q. Crowe to the FCC32.^ Lawler, Ryan (20 December 2010). "Level 3: Comcast Lied About Dispute, Broke NDA".Telecom Industry Updates. Retrieved 20 December 2010.33.^Wie der DE-CIX abgehört wird。

Note-takingThe Arrows1. the right arrow : export to, enter, arrive in, present to, give to, submit to, result in, send to, cause (出口，输出，打入，出国，到达，前往，派遣，交给，屈服于，运往，导致)2. the left arrow : come from, originate in, import from, receive from, come back to (来自，源于，进口，收到，回归到)3. the upward arrow : grow, expand, develop, rise, go up, strengthen, increase, improve, launch, ascend, skyrocket, promote (增长，扩大，提高，发展，升起，加强，上涨，发射，起飞，升空，提拔，晋升)4. the downward arrow : drop to, bomb, jump, decrease, descend, go down, deteriorate, demote, reduce (向下，轰炸，跳水，下跌，下降，减少，恶化，降职，削减、裁减)5. the right upward arrow : increase/rise/go up gradually6. the right downward arrow : decrease/go down graduallyMathematical Symbols↔表示从属关系，属于，包括于，belong to, a part of, a proportion of, a fraction of,+ 加上，另外，除此以外(plus, and, in addition to, furthermore)- 减去，缺乏，缺少minus, lackX 不对的，错的，坏的，不好的，臭名昭著(incorrect, wrong, bad, notorious)＞大于，好于，超过，优于，越来越(greater, larger, more than, better than, surpass, superior to, more and more)＜小于，少于，不如，次于，逊色(smaller/fewer/less than, worse than, inferior to)≧多于或等于more than or equal to≤ 少于或等于(less than or equal to)＝等于，相当于，是…的对手(equal to, equal, the same as, a match/rival/competitor for sb.)≠ 不等于，不是…的对手(not equal to, no match for)≈ 大约，左右(approximately, around, or so)∵由于，因为(as, because, owing to, due to, thanks to)∴所以，因此，因而，结果(consequently, so, therefore)Punctuation Marks: 说，讲，告诉，认为，宣称，声明，抗议，譬如… ，象… (say, speak, tell, declare, protest, such as, like). 观点，意见，主意，论点，难点(viewpoint, opinion, idea, difficult point)It can also express different time concepts. E.g. .y ..y m. m.. .d ..d d..() 包括，在… 之中／内，封闭，闭关自守，禁闭(in, including, within, among, inside, seclusion)Other symbols√ 正确，对，好，肯定，有名，著名，同意，支持(correct, good, affirmative, certain, well known, famous, agree, support)°人(person or people)☆最佳的，杰出的，优秀的，重要的，榜样(best, outstanding, excellent, important, model)⊙会议，研讨会，开会，讨论，谈判(meeting, seminar, meet, conference, discussion, negotiation)∧领导，管理(lead, manage)∪协议，协定，条约，合同(agreement, accord, treaty, contract)□ 国家(country, state, nation)「may be used before certain verbs to express future actions」may be used after certain verbs to express ―过‖，―了‖so as to avoid possible confusion in tense.& 和，与… 一起，陪同(and, together with, accompany)∽交流，交换，替代，相互(exchange, replace, mutual, each other)∑ 总和，总数(total, the total sum, totally)∥停顿，停止，终止(stop, halt)＞＜对立，冲突(confrontation, conflict)△代表(on behalf of)AbbreviationsUNICEF 联合国儿童基金会IMF 国际货币基金WTO 世界贸易组织EU 欧盟（欧洲同盟）APEC 亚太经合组织（亚洲太平洋经济合作组织）OPEC 石油输出国组织NA TO 北约（北大西洋公约组织）CPC 中国共产党NPC 全国人民代表大会CPPCC 中国人民政治协商会议CAAC 中国民航CCTV 中央电视台PLA 中国人民解放军HKSAR 香港特别行政区GDP 国民生产总值Ch. govt. 中国政府re. op. 改革开放4 Ms 四个现代化tot. imp 进口总额tot. exp 出口总额NASA 美国宇航局FBI 美国联邦调查局GM 美国通用汽车公司ITT 美国电话电报公司US/Am. 美国UK/Br. 英国Can. 加拿大AUS. 澳大利亚N.Z. 新西兰NY 纽约Las. 洛杉矶US$ 美元Br￡英镑Can$ 加元Euro 欧元$A 澳元NZ$ 新西兰元HK$ 香港元RMB 人民币野生动物保护区－－野区北京市人民政府－－北府改革开放－－该开资本主义－－资’代表性－－代x科学性－－科x四个现代化－－4M合理化－－合h企业家－－企j上海－－SH投资回报率－－ROIFive –Y ear Plan（五年计划）－－5yP野生动物保护区－－野区北京市人民政府－－北府改革开放－－改开资本主义－－资’代表性－－代x科学性－－科x四个现代化－－4M合理化－－合h企业家－－企j上海－－SH投资回报率－－ROIFive –Y ear Plan（五年计划）－－5yP政治家－－政j北京－－BJ合资企业－－JVResponsibility—respInformation industry (信息产业)– IT indy Foreign Direct Investment （外资企业）--- FIENote-taking Examples1. 首先，请允许我代表中华人民共和国国防部和我所有的中国通行，并以我个人的名义，对约翰逊将军以及美国国防部的朋友们，表示衷心的感谢。

英语夏令营邀请函篇一：邀请信活动安排介绍对一个活动的安排邀请信：你邀请美国笔友Tim来中国度暑假。

你写信向他介绍你的安排。

要点如下： 1. 去青岛旅游 2. 去武当山参加太极夏令营 3. 去乡下Dear Tim,I’m writing to invite you to visit China and spend the summer vacation with me. I’ve made a wonderful plan for it.First, we can go to Qingdao, where it is cool and mild and have fun at the seaside. Then we are to participate in a Taiji camp in the Wudang Mountains. You are curious about Chinese Kongfu, so I believe this is a good chance to learn it. Last of all, I have also been longing to take you to the countryside. We can stay there for a few days and visit some relativesof mine.I hope this plan suits you well and I am looking forward to your coming.建议信：假定你是李华，伱校与美国一所友好学校决定通过网络开展跨文化交流活动（Cross Cultural Communication project）.请你用邮件与美方联系，谈谈自己的设想，征求对方意见。

交流内容要点如下：1. 自我介绍2. 饮食文化差异3. 中学教育4. 语言学习体会Hi Mark, I’m Li Hua, a senior student of China. Since our school and yours decided to start the Cross Cultural Communication Project, I have been longing to talk about the plans with you.To begin with, everyone should introduce himself to others, which will create a happy atmosphere soon. Second, it’s necessary to exchange food culture with each other. Third, the difference ofthe education is a popular topic for students. Lastly, students should talk about the tricks of learning languages to improve their studies.I would appreciate it if you could take my suggestions into consideration. I’m looking forward to your reply.Author : 殷文Hi Mark,Hope all is well. I’d like to take this opportunity to share my plan with you on our Cross Cultural Communication Project.To be practical, we can have four aspects in our communication. First, a brief self introduction is needed. Then, as students in both sides are interested in foreign students’life, food culture sharing will surely be the most popular. In addition, each one is expected to describe the education that they are having in their own countries. Lastbut not least, exchange of skills forlanguage study may be of great value to both sides.That’s all. I’m open to your suggestions and expecting your plan. Only with joined efforts can the project be a great success.英语书面表达书信之邀请信规律总结：邀请信（Letters of Invitation ）是人们日常生活、社会活动和外事活动中的一种应用文体，正式邀请信的格式（包括信头、信内的地址、客套语等）要齐全，正文内容应用书面语。

VOA慢速英语听力：人类应该捕猎鲸鱼吗?以下是笔者为大家整理的VOA慢速英语听力：人类应该捕猎鲸鱼吗?，希望大家能够喜欢！This is SCIENCE IN THE NEWS in VOA Special English. I’m Shirley Griffith.And I’m Christopher Cruise. Today, we tell about whales. Some people want to hunt the animals, while others simply enjoy watching them in the wild. We tell about a plan for an American aquarium to import beluga whales from Russia. And we talk about a whale that could make human-like sounds.Environmental activists in South Korea are condemning a government plan to hunt endangered whales for scientific research. They believe the plan is part of an effort to re-start commercial whaling activities. Such activities are banned in many countries.The International Whaling Commission has yet to make a decision on the South Korean plan.The organization banned commercial whaling in1986 because of concerns about the survival of whale species. But now, some South Korean fishermen say they are facing a threat from minke whales. They say these animals are eating what would have been their catch.The plan was immediately condemned byanti-whaling nations. Wildlife activists also criticized the proposal. Han Jeong-hee works in Seoul for the environmental group Greenpeace.“It’s really regretful to hear that Korean government is, like, considering conducting scientific whaling. Scientific whaling is just, like,thinly-disguised commercial whaling. And, you know, we are of course against all commercial whaling. Japan’s the only country which is doing scientific whaling at the moment and Korea is just trying to follow that.”Korea has a long history of whaling. Cave paintings found on the south coast show images of whale hunts. But such hunts and the use of whale meat as food did not really become popular until late in the nineteenth century.Every year, the South Korean town of Ulsan holds an event that re-creates those whaling expeditions.Visitors are urged to eat at local restaurants that serve whale meat.South Korea’s Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries says the goal of the plan is to help fishermen. It notes that limited whaling for scientific research is permitted under the commercial whaling ban. Japan has continued hunting whales under this exception.Critics of whaling do not believe claims by Japan that its whaling activities are for scientific research. They note that whale meat from the hundreds of whales killed in the hunt is sold to the Japanese public.Recently, we asked the International Whaling Commission about the South Korean request. Commission spokesman Simon Brockington told VOA by e-mail that since the July meeting, “there has been no further communication from the Government of the Republic of Korea to the IWC on this issue.”The next meeting of the commission’s Scientific Committee is set for next year. Mr. Brockington said the IWC’s rules require “governments to provide the Commission’s scientific committee with copies of the proposed permits in time for them to be reviewed.”He added that “at the current time, no such copies have been received.”Four months ago, the South Korean government reported to the country’s lawmakers about the plan to re-start whaling. A Foreign Ministry official says the plan is still under consideration.She says the government will listen to the opinions of concerned organizations and members of the International Whaling Commission.Earlier in this report, we heard from Han Jeong-hee of Greenpeace. She says pro-whaling forces appear to be in control of the South Korean government.“Sudde nly they just reported this about the task force and going back to the scientific whaling decision. This is very disappointing. We hope the government change their mind again and go for non-lethal research.”Lee Hae-chan is the head of South Korea’s mai n opposition. He says some people in coastal communities support the idea of research whaling because it will help the local economy.Mr. Lee admits that his country no longer facespoverty and does not need whale meat for protein. But he says if there is a true need for scientific research, limited whaling might be acceptable.Lee Man-woo is vice representative of the Whale Culture Preservation Association in Ulsan. He and others say whaling has been a part of Korean culture for thousands of years. He also says meat from hunted whales should not be wasted. His group says it should be sold at a reasonable price to foreign tourists and to those who like to eat whale meat. Recently, a small serving of meat sold in Ulsan for up to $50.Both South Korea and Japan say there are so many whales in their waters that these largest of all mammals are eating too much fish.Japan has been widely criticized for its research program. Thousands of whales have been killed in the northern Pacific and near Antarctic waters since the 1980s.An aquarium in the American state of Georgia wants to import eighteen beluga whales from Russia. The United States currently has 31 beluga whales. They are living in six aquariums and marine parks. Four of themare at the Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta.The Georgia Aquarium has asked the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for permission to import the beluga whales. If approved, aquarium officials would send some of the animals to the other facilities.The Georgia Aquarium says it hopes to use the beluga whales in research, education and breeding programs. They currently are being held at a Russian research center. Yet many people oppose the plan. They say it is wrong to keep any wild animal captive.In October, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration held a hearing on the proposal. More than 130 people attended the meeting. NOAA says it received about eight thousand nine hundred written comments about the Georgia Aquarium’s plan. Because of the great interest in the subject, the agency gave 60 days for public comments. Usually, people are given 30 days.NOAA officials are studying how the beluga whales might be affected by being brought to the United States. They also want to know whether the Georgia Aquarium andits partners can properly care for the whales and how they might be used in educational activities.The federal Marine Mammal Protection Act sets rules which NOAA must consider when deciding whether these animals may be imported. NOAA officials told VOA they plan to make a decision on the request by early next year.Recently, beluga whales were in the news for another reason. The journal Current Biology reported that one of the whales made human-like sounds.Researchers had been caring for the whale for years before it died in 1999. Over many hours, they recorded what they say is the whale repeating human speech it had just heard. The researchers say the whale’s natural sounds changed as it heard more humans speaking. They admit that the recording does not sound like human speech. But they say these “inflections” are like those of a human voice.The researchers say the sound is unlike those that whales make naturally, but not “unlike those of the human voice.”Listen for yourself.The researchers believe this is evidence of what they call “spontaneous mimicry of the human voice, presumably a result of vocal learning.”In other words, they suspect the beluga whale was copying the sounds made by humans.Four years after the whale started making the human-like sounds, it stopped. The researchers say the times when the whale most sounded like a human were never recorded.。

FCCSDOC与FCCID的区别描述FCC 是美国联邦通信委员会（Federal Communication Commission ）的缩写，成立于1934 年，直接对国会负责，它主要对无线电、通信等进行管理与控制，属政府机构，有执法权。

为了履行通信法、各种条约以及国际规定所赋予的职责，为了促进更加有效的利用频谱资源，美国联邦通信委员会为射频设备制定了技术标准。

FCC SDOC认证：适用于普通电子产品，即不带无线功能的产品，如显示器、灯具、电源、家电等。

FCC ID认证：适用无线产品，如蓝牙产品、平板电脑、无线键盘、无线鼠标、无线读写器、无线收发器、2G手机、3G手机、3.5G手机、DECT手机(1.8G,1.9G频段)、无线对讲机等。

FCC只对电磁干扰进行管制，电磁干扰主要分为以下几种方式:1.辐射干扰 (Radiation Emission)通过空间进行传播.从30Mhz到1Ghz.高频出现的干扰大多为辐射干扰.通常，两种干扰可同时并存.2.传导干扰 (Conduction Emission)传导干扰通过电源线，信号线及其他导体传播，FCC要求频率从150Khz到30Mhz ，低频出现的干扰大多为传导干扰。

主要针对与电网连接工作的电子产品。

3.天线端骚扰.主要针对有外接天线的设备.如TVFCC认证测试标准：FCC PART 15，FCC PART 18.办理FCC认证需要哪些资料？1.产品说明书2.样品sample (s) pcs 3-4套（整套含配件，频率间隔大于1m，需要高中低频率发射三台样机和一台普通发射样或定频软件）3.技术参数(technical specification),包括如下内容:a. frequency：要注明频率范围，或详细的频点b. modulation：工作模式，如：fm, hfss, dsss, unps, gsm, cdma等等c. output power功率4.英文说明书（user manual）5．关键元器件清单bom list（pcb，线材等，需标出ulfile no.）6.电路图，原理图schematics（要标明元器件参数，要标有天线）7.方框图block diagram (要有天线，并在天线端标出发射频率)8.零件底板图part layout (元器件位置图)9.线路描述circuit deion又叫operational deion (将电路原理图和方框图以文字的方式描述出来。

The issue of the practice of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is much debated. Proponents argue that there is a strong business case for CSR, in that corporations benefit in multiple ways by operating with a perspective broader and longer than their own immediate, short-term profits. Critics argue that CSR distracts from the fundamental economic role of businesses, others argue that it is nothing more than superficial window-dressing, other yet argue that CSR is applicable to some big companies or groups rather than some small companies. This essay will discuss some information about CSR in main three areas: firstly, what CSR is in modern economic activity; secondly, for big companies or transnational enterprises and Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SME), CSR does detract from their profit-making money, or does not, and CSR should be a priority, or should not; thirdly, to argue the relationships between CSR and profit. At last, the conclusion would summarize the whole essay.The rise to prominence of corporate social responsibility in the modern economy and in the management literature has been one of the most notable global trends over the last 20 years. Because of increasing pubic concerns for the natural environment, for the respect of human rights, for the ethical aspects of business and for other social issues, firms have multiple their efforts to deal with their responsibility to society. According to KPMG (2008), 80 per cent of the Global Fortune 250 firms now release corporate responsibility information, and 75 per cent have a formal corporate responsibility strategy in place. At the same time, according to the EU Commission(2002, 2011), it represents that “…CSR is a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis.”Correspondingly, scholars have developed a vast range of theories and concepts about how a firm should address the social issues involved in business operations (Mele, 2008). Different schools of thought have proposed different and competing constructs, which cover a similar territory as CSR, like “Corporate citizenship”, “sustainable business”, “corporate social performance” and others (Crane et al., 2008).Corporate Social Responsibility business operational activities related to all aspects of general can be divided into economic responsibility: be profitable, legal responsibility: obey the law, ethical responsibility: do what is right, and discretionary responsibility: contribute to community.Along with the social and economic development, more organizations, companies and people pay more attention to explore the relationship between CSR and profit. At the same time, the question, which a priority for an organization is CSR or profits, has been much debated. That is also meaning whether Corporate Social Responsibility is linked to a firm’s profits, and if not, why firms would exercise CSR in the first place. To discuss these questions should be depended on different scale of the company. As CSR becomes embedded in the global business operation of large companies, but, there is a risk thatSMEs may struggle to comply with CSR (Jenkins, 2006, Spence etal., 2003, Tilley, 2000).Many big companies or international firms have responded to heightened stakeholder interest in Corporate Social Responsibility in a very positive way and priority, by devoting additional resource to promote CSR. For example, CocaCola Company pay more attention on CSR, they believe CSR is one of the part of their company’s culture. “The CSR strategy at Coca Cola Icecek is based on the expectations and comcers of key stakeholders. Playing a major role in resolving social and environmental problems while taking into consideration stakeholders’ comments and recommendations is very important for sustainability in the marketplace”(Coca Cola Icecek CSR Report 2009). On the other hands, other firms and managers have a less progressive view of stakeholder relevance. They eschew attempts to satisfy demand for CSR, because they believe that such efforts are inconsistent with profit maximization and interests of share, whom they perceive to be the most important stakeholder. As Friedman said that if businessmen do have a social responsibility other than making maximum profits for stockholders, how are they to know what it is? Few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundations of our free society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stakeholders as possible (Friedman, 1970).The concept of CSR centers on the accountability of firms to society for negative consequences of their wealth-creating activities for SMEs (Sethi, 2003). For SMEwho lack financial and human resources, the implementation of CSR is more likely to be problematic than a large firm. Consequently, SMEs could find themselves’ disadvantages that they cannot accomplish CSR which does detract from profit. On the contrary, SMEs could pay more attention to make as more profits as possible, to make money should be a priority. According to Friedman (1970), he argued that a corporation’s purpose is to maximize returns to its s hareholders, and that since only people can have social responsibility, corporations are only responsible to their shareholders and not to society as a whole, he thought that the companies should put profits in the first place, not CSR.However, for some SMEswho have positive and excess profits,are to signal their profitability using CSR. Although this CSR is a pure cost, but also can help consumers learn about the profitability of firms and thence infer brand value. Thus, under appropriate conditions, CSR can be an effective tool to complement traditional branding activities such as advertising (Rahman, n.d.).According to Siegel and Vitaliano (2007), CSR occurs when firms engage in activity that appears to advance a social agenda beyond that which is required by law. Put another way, CSR occurs when firms spend money for a social cause, sacrificing profits. There seems to be little room left for linking CSR to profits, as the two appear tautologically antithetical. If CSR is a pure sacrifice of profits, how can it lead to profits? This apparent conflict between CSR and firm objectives was noticed quite early by the Nobel laureate Milton Friedman (1976), who had declared that any effort to use corporate resources for purely altruistic purposes would constitute socialism. Infact, Friedman recommended that corporation law should be modified to discourage CSR (Manne, 2006). And yet more than thirty years after Friedman made his declaration, CSR has become the norm. That is because that there are some benefits of CSR, firstly, Prior theoretical research (c.f. Baron 2001) has attempted to link CSR to product differentiation. Firms such as Ben, Jerry’s and the Body Shop clearly communicate their high ethical standards and devotion to CSR. Thereby, perhaps, their product offerings can appeal to market segments having high levels of social conscience, and then more consumers are willing to buy their goods. Secondly, in the long run, CSR and profits are complementary and mutually reinforcing. Therefore, it is the meaningless question whether CSR is more important for an organization, or profits.In conclusion, Corporate Social Responsibility is an organization in the creation of profits to the shareholders responsible, it should also assume their employees, consumers, communities, natural environment, and such as corporate stakeholders have responsibility to protect their rights to get in economic, social, environmental and other fields of sustainable development capacity. From the essay, it is obvious that, depending on different scale of enterprise, a priority of firms is different. For somebig companies, a priority is CSR, but, others put profits in the first place. For some SMEs, to making money is priority, for some SMEs which have positive and extra profits, they have interest in the implementation of CSR. Nonetheless, as a matter of fact, in the short-term, CSR is a pure sacrifice of profits, on the other hand, CSR and profitsare complementary and mutually reinforcing. Finally, CSR or Profits could be a priority of an organization, and under some special situation, CSR might detracts from profits.Reference lists:1, Baron, D., (2001) “Private Politics, Corporate Social Responsibility and Integrated Strategy”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 10, P: 7-452, Crane, A., Mcwilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. and Siegel, D. S. (2008), “The corporate social responsibility agenda”, in Crane, A., Mcwilliams, A., Matten, D.,Moon, J. and Siegel, D. S. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford University Press, P: 3-153, Coca Cola Icecek (2009), Coca Cola Icecek Corporate Social Responsibility Report, available at:/citizenship/pdf/sustainability_reports/2008-20 09_icecek.pdf4, European Commission (2002)European SMEs and Social and Environmental Responsibility, available at:http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/analysis/doc/smes_observatory_2002 _report4_en.pdf5, European Commission (2011) Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions, a renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility,availableat:http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=70106, Friedman M. (1970)The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase itsProfits The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970. Copyright @ 1970 by The New York Times Company.7, Friedman M., (1976) Price Theory (2nded.).New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publisher8, Jekins, H., (2006) Small business champions for Corporate Social Responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, 67.3, P: 241-2569, KPMG (2008), KPMG International survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2008, available at:/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/ International-corporate-responsibility-survey-2008.pdf (accessed 27th October 2008) 10, Mele, D. (2008), “Corporate Social Responsibility Theories”, in Crane, A., Mcwilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. and Siegel, D. S. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford University Press, P: 47-8211, Manne, H. G. (2006), “Milton Friedman was right: “Corporate Social Responsibility” is bunk,” In Rahman, M. M., (n. d.) Linking CSR and Financial Performance through Branding.Thesis (PhD). North South University12, Rahman, M. M., (n. d.)Linking CSR and Financial Performance through Branding.Thesis (PhD).North South University.13, Sethi, S. P., (2003), Setting Global standards: Guidelines for Creating Codes of Conduct in Multinational Corporations, Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley Press14, Siegel, D., and D. Vitaliano (2007), “An Empirical Analysis of the Strategic Use of Corporate Social Responsibility,” Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, V 16(3), pp. 773-792.15, Spence, L. J., Schuidepeter, P. and Habish, A., (2003) Accessing social capital: Small and Medium sized Enterprises in Germany and the UK, Journal of Business Ethics, 47.1, P: 17-2916, Tilley, F., (2000) Small firm environmental ethics: How deep do they go! Business Ethics: A European Review, 9.1, P: 31-41。

commucation英文作文英文：Communication is a fundamental part of our daily lives. It allows us to connect with others, express our thoughts and feelings, and build relationships. Effective communication is crucial in both personal and professional settings. In my experience, I have found that good communication skills can make a significant difference in various aspects of life.For example, in my previous job, I had to work on a project with a team of colleagues. We had regular meetings to discuss our progress and share ideas. I noticed that those who were able to communicate their thoughts clearly and confidently often had a greater influence on the direction of the project. On the other hand, those who struggled to express themselves effectively often found it challenging to make their voices heard. This experience taught me the importance of being able to communicatepersuasively and assertively in a professional environment.In personal relationships, communication is equally important. I have learned that being a good listener isjust as crucial as being able to express oneself. For instance, when I had a disagreement with a friend, I found that actively listening to their perspective and expressing my own thoughts calmly and respectfully helped us to resolve the issue more effectively. This experience showed me that effective communication involves not only speaking clearly but also being open to understanding others' viewpoints.中文：沟通是我们日常生活中基本的一部分。

Lesson 1II. TranslationPut the following passages into Chinese.1. For English is a killer. It is English that has killed off Cumbric, Cornish, Norn and Manx. There are still parts of these islands where sizeable communities speak languages that were there before English. Yet English is everywhere in everyday use and understood by all or virtually all, constituting such a threat to the three remaining Celtic languages, Irish, Scottish Gaelic, and Welsh... that their long-term future must be considered... very greatly at risk.因为英语是个杀手。

正是英语造成了康瑞克、康尼施、诺恩、曼科斯等语言的消亡。

在其中一部分岛上还有相当多的人使用在英语到来之前就已存在的语言。

然而，英语在日常生活中无处不在。

所有的人或几乎所有的人都懂英语。

英语对现存的凯尔特语——爱尔兰语、苏格兰盖尔语及威尔士语的威胁是如此之大，它们的未来岌岌可危。

2. He also associated such policies with a prejudice which he calls linguisticism (a condition parallel to racism and sexism). As Phillipson sees it, leading institutions and individuals within the predominantly "white" English-speaking world, have (by design or default) encouraged or at least tolerated—and certainly have not opposed—the hegemonic spread of English, a spread which began some three centuries ago as economic and colonial expansion.同时，他认为这些政策和他称之为语言歧视（和种族歧视、性别歧视的情况类似）的偏见密切相关。