Avis juridique important

|

32003D0605

2003/605/CFSP: Political and Security Committee Decision DRC/3/2003 of 31 July 2003 amending the Political and Security Committee Decision DRC/1/2003 on the acceptance of third States' contributions to the EU military operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo

Official Journal L 206 , 15/08/2003 P. 0032 - 0032

Political and Security Committee Decision DRC/3/2003of 31 July 2003amending the Political and Security Committee Decision DRC/1/2003 on the acceptance of third States' contributions to the EU military operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo(2003/605/CFSP)THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 25, last paragraph, thereof,Having regard to Council Joint Action 2003/423/CFSP of 5 June 2003 on the European Union military operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo(1), and in particular Article 10(2) and (3) thereof,Whereas:(1) Pursuant to Decision DRC/1/2003(2) of 1 July 2003, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) accepted third States' contributions to the EU military operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo.(2) By letter dated 17 July 2003, the Ambassador of Cyprus to the European Union offered a contribution to the EU Military Operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo.(3) On 28 July 2003, following the recommendation of the Operation Commander, the European Union Military Committee (EUMC) agreed to recommend to the PSC to accept one officer from Cyprus.(4) It is therefore necessary to amend Decision DRC/1/2003,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1Article 1 of Decision DRC/1/2003 on the acceptance of third States' contributions to the EU military operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo shall be replaced by the following:"Article 1Third States' contributionsFollowing Force Generation and Manning Conferences, contributions from the following third States are accepted for the EU military operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo:Brazil,Canada,Cyprus,Hungary,South Africa."Article 2Entry into forceThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its signature.Done at Brussels, 31 July 2003.For the Political and Security CommitteeThe PresidentM. Melani(1) OJ L 143, 11.6.2003, p. 50.(2) OJ L 170, 9.7.2003, p. 19.


Avis juridique important

|

31994D0603

94/603/EC: Decision No 152 of 13 May 1993 on the implementation of Article 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92

Official Journal L 244 , 19/09/1994 P. 0019 - 0021

DECISION No 152  of 13 May 1993 on the implementation of Article 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Article 2 of  Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 (94/603/EC)THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION OF THE  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS, Having regard to Article 81 (a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social  security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families  moving within the Community, under which it is made responsible for dealing with all administrative  questions and questions of interpretation arising from Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and  subsequent Regulations, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992 establishing a specific  coordination system for special non-contributory benefits, Whereas the said Regulation, by adding an Article 10a to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, provides that  the persons concerned shall be granted the special benefits exclusively in the territory of the  Member State in which they reside, in accordance with the legislation of that State, provided that  such benefits are listed in Annex IIa; Whereas under Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 a right to special non-contributory benefits may be  acquired simultaneously under the legislation of the country of residence and under that of one or  more other Member States pursuant to Article 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Article 2 of  Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92; Whereas, in the interests of beneficiaries, it is necessary to ensure coherent implementation of  the coordination system established; Whereas, the administrative steps which the persons concerned must take ought to be simplified as  much as possible in order to ensure that they can receive in full and without interruption the  special benefits to which they are entitled; Whereas it is furthermore necessary to lay down the conditions for the application of national  provisions on the reduction, suspension or withdrawal of benefit in order to enable those concerned  to receive in total the highest non-contributory special benefits which they may claim under the  various legislations involved and in order to avert unwarranted overlapping of the said benefits; Whereas the amount of special benefits paid may thus be deducted from the amount of benefits  remaining to be paid under the legislation of the other Member State or States involved, with the  latter paying the beneficiary a differential supplement, where appropriate; Whereas the rules thus laid down in no way affect the acquisition of entitlement under the  legislations of all Member States involved, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Subject to paragraph 2 and under the conditions laid down in paragraph 4 (b)  of this Decision the special non-contributory benefits referred to in Article 4 (2) (a) of  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 shall be provided in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No  1247/92 even if during the same period and for the same person such benefits are provided or could  be provided in accordance with Article 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. 2. With regard to the cases referred to in Article 2 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 and under  the conditions laid down in paragraph 4 (b) of this Decision, the special benefits recognized under  the legislation of the Member State in which the person concerned resides shall or shall continue  to be provided in accordance with Article 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 even if such benefits  can be provided in accordance with Article 2 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92. If when Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 enters into force no special benefits have been recognized by  the Member State of residence to whose legislation the person concerned was subject because of the  pursuit of an occupation, the claim for special benefits submitted in the State of residence shall  be valid as a claim in the other Member State or Member States concerned to whose legislation the  person concerned was subject because of the pursuit of an occupation, and vice versa. Cost-sharing arrangements between the Member State of residence and the other Member State or  States concerned may be agreed upon at bilateral or multilateral level between the States  concerned. 3. Where special benefits may during the same period and for the same person be provided under  Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 in accordance with the legislation of two or more Member  States, the provisions of this Article shall be applied by the competent institution of the Member  State in which the person concerned completed the longest period of insurance, work or residence  and thereafter by each of the competent insitutions of the other Member States in descending order  in proportion to the length of the periods of insurance, work or residence completed by the person  concerned in each of these States, under the conditions laid down in paragraph 4 (b) of this  Decision. 4. (a) The provisions on reduction, suspension or withdrawal laid down by the legislation of a  Member State in the event of the overlapping of a special non-contributory benefit as provided for  in Article 4 (2) (a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 with other special benefits or with other  income of any kind shall be applicable to the beneficiary even if the latter's benefits were  acquired under the legislation of another Member State or if such income was obtained in the  territory of another Member State. (b) However, - within the framework of paragraph 1 of this Decision, where a special benefit provided under  Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 is subject to a provision on the reduction, suspension or  withdrawal of benefit in the event of overlapping with other special benefits or with other income  of any nature, no account shall be taken for the application of such provision of special benefits  that are provided or could be provided under Article 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, - within the framework of paragraph 2 of this Decision, where a special benefit provided under  Article 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 is subject to such a provision, no account shall be  taken for the application of such provision of other special benefits that may be provided under  Article 2 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92, - within the framework of paragraph 3 of this Decision, the competent institution of the Member  State that is the priority State in descending order which administers a legislation including such  a provision shall not take account either, for the application of such provision, of special  benefits remaining due under the legislation of other non-priority Member States in accordance with  Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92. 5. This Decision shall be applicable from the first day of the month following its publication in  the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall be effective from the date of entry into  force of Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92. The Chairman of the Administrative Commission Poul VORRE


Avis juridique important

|

41997D0662

Decision No 1/97 of 9 September 1997 of the Committee set up by Article 18 of the Dublin Convention of 15 June 1990, concerning provisions for the implementation of the Convention

Official Journal L 281 , 14/10/1997 P. 0001 - 0025

DECISION No 1/97 of 9 September 1997 of the Committee set up by Article 18 of the Dublin Convention of 15 June 1990, concerning provisions for the implementation of the Convention (97/662/CMS)THE COMMITTEE set up by Article 18 of the Convention determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities, signed in Dublin of 15 June 1990 (1),HAVING REGARD to Articles 11 (6), 13 (2) and 18 (1) and (2) of that Convention,WHEREAS it is necessary to adopt provisions to ensure the effective implementation of the Convention following its entry into force on 1 September 1997,HEREBY DECIDES AND CONFIRMS:Article 1 Unless stated otherwise, references in this Decisions to Articles and numbered and unnumbered paragraphs are to the provisions of the Convention determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities (hereinafter referred to as 'the Convention`).CHAPTER I GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION Article 2 Lodging an application for asylum 1. An application for asylum is regarded ashaving been lodged from the moment the authorities of the Member State concerned have something in writing to that effect: either a form submitted by the applicant or an official statement drawn up by the authorities.2. In the event of a non-written application, the period between the statement of intent and the drawing up of the official statement must be as short as possible.Article 3 Reaction to a request that an applicant be taken in charge Any response to a request that charge be taken of an applicant with a view to staying the effect of the provision concerning the three-month deadline laid down in Article 11 (4) to produce effect must take the form of a written communication.Article 4 Time limit for replying to a request that an applicant be taken in charge 1. The Member State which is requested to take charge of an applicant should make every effort to reply to the request within a period not exceeding one month from the date on which the request was received.2. In cases where particular difficulties arise, the requested Member State may also, before the time limit of one month is reached, produce a temporary reply indicating the period within which it will be possible to give a definitive reply. The latter period should be as short as possible and may in no circumstances exceed the period of three months from the date on which the request was received as indicated in Article 11 (4)3. If a negative reply is given within the time limit of one month, the requesting Member State still has the option, within a period of one month from the date on which it receives the negative reply, to contest that reply if, after the date on which the request was acknowledged, new and important facts have been brought to its attention which show that responsibility lies with the requested Member State. The requested Member State must then respond as quickly as possible.4. The effects of this provision in practice must be assessed after one year by the Article 18 Committee. At that time it will be considered whether a period of one month can constitute a maximum time limit.Article 5 Urgent procedure When a request for asylum is submitted to a Member State following refusal to allow entry or residence, arrest as a result of illegal residence or service or execution of a removal measure, that Member State shall forthwith notify this to the Member State deemed to have responsibility; such notification shall give the reasons of fact and law why a swift reply is necessary and the deadline within which a reply is requested. The latter Member State shall endeavour to provide a reply within the specified periods. If this is not possible, it shall inform the requesting Member State thereof as quickly as possible.Article 6 Exceeding the eight-day period for replying to a request for an applicant to be taken back 1. Article 13 (1) (b) of the Convention makes it very clear that Member States are obliged to respond to the request to take back the applicant within eight days of its submission.2. In exceptional cases Member States may, within this eight-day period, give a provisional reply indicating the period within which they will give their final reply. The latter period must be as short as possible and may not in any circumstances exceed a period of one month from the date on which the provisional reply was sent.3. If the requested Member State fails to react:- within the eight-day period mentioned in paragraph 1,- within the one-month period mentioned in paragraph 2,it shall be considered to have agreed to take back the applicant for asylum.Article 7 Measures to expel an alien The Member State responsible for examining the application must provide proof that the alien has actually been expelled from the territory of the Member States. These are therefore concrete acts of expulsion, involving an obligation relating to the result rather than the intention, which in effect means that in such cases the Member State provide written proof.Article 8 Departure from the territory of the Member States 1. Where the applicant for asylum himself produces proof that he has left the territory of the Member States for more than three months, the second Member State may examine the veracity of that information, if necessary by contacting the third country in which the applicant claims to have been living during that time.2. In other cases the Member State in which the initial application was lodged has to provide proof, in particular of the date of departure and the destination of the applicant for asylum. In the context of cooperation between Member States, the Member State in which the second application was lodged is best able to give the date on which the applicant for asylum returned to his territory.Article 9 Exceptions where the applicant for asylum is in possession of a visa 1. Article 5 (2) provides for three separate cases where the responsibility of a Member State for examining the application for asylum ceases even if the applicant for asylum is in possession of a valid visa issued by that State.2. The first exception (subparagraph (a)) concerns a visa issued on the authorization of another Member State; as a general rule, exceptional cases should be proved by the Member States which invoked them.3. The second exception (subparagraph (b)) arises from a situation in which an application is lodged in a Member State in which the applicant is not subject to a visa requirement; there will be no need to seek proof since the problem is not relevant.4. The third exception (subparagraph (c)) refers to the case of an applicant for asylum who is in possession of a transit visa issued on the written authorization of the diplomatic or consular authorities of the Member State of final destination; the question of burden of proof is irrelevant here since there is prior written conformation that the transit visa was issued.Article 10 Determination of the State responsible in the event of an applicant possessing several residence permits or visas In the event of an applicant possessing several residence permits or visas issued by different Member States (in particular in the case of Article 5 (3) (c)), proof for the purposes of determining the State responsible does not arise in that the relevant information appears in the entry document produced by the applicant for asylum.Article 11 Determining the periods of time and actual entry into a State 1. As regards the determination of the periods of time, the date of expiry of residence permits or visas is calculated from the date on which the application for asylum is lodged.2. In addition, checking the expiry date of residence permits and visas is not necessary if such information appears on the asylum applicant's papers.3. As regards proof that the individual has actually entered a Member State, the following situations should be distinguished:- if an applicant for asylum has actually entered a Member State, proof can be provided through information supplied by the Member State in which the application for asylum was lodged,- if an applicant for asylum has not left the territory of the Member States, the Member State which issued the expired residence permit or visa has to provide the information required,- if an applicant for asylum himself supplies the information that he has left the territory of the Member States, the second Member State in which an application was lodged will check the truth of the statements.These rules apply in respect of actual entry in both subparagraphs of Article 5 (4).Article 12 Irregular crossing of the border into a Member State 1. Proof that an applicant for asylum has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State (first subparagraph of Article 6) must be examined after the list of means of proof has been drawn up.2. Proof of a Member State ceasing to be responsible when the applicant for asylum lodges his application in the Member State where he has lived for six months (in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 6) must be supplied in the first instance by the Member State invoking this exception in a spirit of collaboration between the two Member States concerned.3. If the applicant for asylum claims that he has lived in a Member State for more than six months, it is for that Member State to check the truth of those statements. The initial information to the other Member State concerned will in any case have to include statements made by the applicant for asylum which may be used subsequently as counter-indications.Article 13 Formal rules applying to approval by the applicant for asylum 1. Approval must be given in writing.2. As a general rule an applicant must give his approval when the Member State claiming responsibility for examining the application has submitted a request for exchange of information.3. The applicant for asylum must in any case know to what information he is giving his agreement.4. The approval concerns the reasons given by the applicant for asylum and, where applicable, the reasons for the decisions taken with regard to the applicant.Article 14 Notification procedures 1. The system of exchange of information must also include data on notification procedures. Accordingly, notification must be given:- as quickly as possible in writing,- using the technical means available,- to the Member States claiming responsibility for examining an application for asylum.2. Such notification, which will avoid the possibility of two procedures being initiated simultaneously in two Member States, applies in respect of Articles 3 (4) and 12.3. Where implementation of a decision determining responsibility is suspended, such suspension is notified so that the Member States are kept fully informed. It is very useful for the Member State where the application was lodged to be informed that an applicant for asylum is not being transferred pending a decision in his case by the second Member State.Article 15 Standard form for determining the State responsible A specimen standard form for determining the State responsible for examining an application for asylum is given in Annex I hereto.CHAPTER II CALCULATION OF PERIODS OF TIME IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CONVENTION Article 16 General rule For the purposes of calculating the periods referred to in the Convention, Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays must be included.Article 17 Supplementary rule For the purposes of calculating the periods provided for in Articles 11 (4) and 13 (1) (b), the following rules shall also apply:- the period begins on the day following receipt of the request,- the final day of the period is the deadline for sending the reply.CHAPTER III TRANSFER OF ASYLUM APPLICANTS Article 18 Introductory provisions 1. Articles 3 (7), 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 set down the circumstances in which responsibility for examining an asylum application made in one Member State (hereinafter described as the 'first Member State`) shall be assumed by another Member State (hereinafter described as the 'second Member State`).2. Articles 10 (1) (a), (c), (d) and (e), 11 (5) and 13 (1) (b) set down obligations and timescales regarding the taking charge or taking back of the applicant from the first to the second Member State.The term 'transfer` is used in this Chapter both for the case of taking charge and taking back.3. The arrangements for transfer of the applicant are set out in Articles 20, 21 and 22 of this Decision.Article 19 Notification to the applicant for asylum The first Member State shall inform the applicant as soon as possible when a request is made pursuant to Articles 11 and 13 to another Member State to take charge of or to take back an applicant and shall inform him of the outcome of that request. Where responsibility is transferred to the second Member State, the notification shall inform the applicant that he is liable to be transferred to the second Member State pursuant to Articles 11 (5) and 13 (1) (b) and subject to any relevant national laws and procedures. Where the transfer is to be made as described in Article 20 (1) (a) and (b) of this Decision, this notification will include information about the time and place to which the applicant should report on arrival in the second Member State.Article 20 Transfer of the applicant for asylum 1. Where it is agreed that the applicant should be transferred to the second Member State, the first Member State shall be under an obligation to ensure as far as possible that the applicant does not evade transfer. To this effect, the first Member State will determine, in the light of the circumstances of each case and in accordance with national laws and procedures, how the transfer of the applicant should take place. This may be either:(a) on in own initiative, with a deadline being set; or(b) under escort, the applicant to be accompanied by an official of the first Member State.2. Transfer of the applicant shall be considered completed either when the applicant has reported to the authorities of the second Member State specified in the notification given to him, where the transfer takes place under paragraph 1 (a), or when he has been taken in charge by the competent authorities of the second Member State, where transfer takes place under paragraph 1 (b).3. Where transfer takes place under 1 (a) above, the second Member State shall inform the first Member State as soon as possible after the transfer is completed, or where the applicant has failed to report within the specified deadline.Article 21 Deadlines for transfer of applicant for asylum 1. Articles 11 (5) and 13 (1) (b) provide that the transfer must be concluded within one month of the second Member State accepting responsibility for examining the asylum application. Member States shall make every effort to conform to these deadlines where transfer is made pursuant to Article 20 (1) (b) of this Decision.2. If a transfer has been arranged pursuant to Article 20 (1) (a) of this Decision, but is not completed because of the failure of the applicant to cooperate, the second Member State may begin examination of the application on the information available to it on the expiry of the deadlines specified in Articles 11 (5) and 13 (1) (b).3. If the application is refused, the second Member State shall remain responsible for taking back the applicant under the provisions of Article 10 (1) (e) unless the provisions of Article 10 (2), (3) or (4) apply.4. Where the transfer of the asylum applicant has to be postponed due to special circumstances such as sickness, pregnancy, criminal detention, etc., and it is therefore not possible to carry out the transfer within the normal period of one month, the Member States concerned shall duly consult and agree on a case-by-case basis on the time limit within which the transfer must take place.5. Where the asylum applicant avoids implementation of the transfer so that it cannot be carried out, it is irrelevant with regard to responsibility whether the applicant disappeared before or after the formal acceptance of responsibility by the Member State responsible. If the asylum applicant is subsequently found, the Member States concerned should duly consult and agree on a case-by-case basis on the time limit within which the transfer must take place.6. The Member States concerned must inform each other as quickly as possible if they learn that one of the situations referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 has arisen. In both the above cases, the Member State responsible for examining the asylum application under the Convention shall remain responsible for taking charge of or taking back the applicant without prejudice to Article 10 (2), (3) and (4).Article 22 Laissez-passer for transfer of applicants A specimen laissez-passer for transfer of applicants for asylum is provided in Annex II hereto.CHAPTER IV MEANS OF PROOF IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CONVENTION Article 23 Principles regarding the collection of evidence 1. The way in which evidence is used to determine the State responsible for examining an asylum application is fundamental to the implementation of the Convention.2. Responsibility for processing an asylum application should in principle be determined on the basis of as few requirements of proof as possible.3. If establishment of proof carried excessive requirements, the procedure for determining responsibility would ultimately take longer than examination of the actual application for asylum. In that case, the Convention would fail totally to have the desired effect and would even contradict one of its objectives since the delays would create a new category of 'refugees in orbit`, asylum-seekers whose applications would not be examined until the procedure laid down under the Convention had been completed.4. Under too rigid a system of proof the Member States would not accept responsibility and the Convention would be applied only in rare instances, while those Member States with more extensive national registers would be penalized since their responsibility could be proved more easily.5. A Member State should also be prepared to assume responsibility on the basis of indicative evidence for examining an asylum application once it emerges from an overall examination of the asylum applicant's situation that, in all probability, responsibility lies with the Member State in question.6. The Member States should jointly consider in a spirit of genuine cooperation on the basis of all the evidence available to them, including statements made by the asylum-seeker, whether the responsibility of one Member State can be consistently established.7. Lists A and B referred to in Articles 24 and 25 of this Decision are drawn up on the basis of those considerations.Article 24 General considerations regarding lists A and B 1. It was considered necessary to draw up two lists of means of proof: probative evidence as in list A and indicative evidence as in list B.These lists are to be found in Annex III to this Decision.2. List A sets out the means of probative evidence which conclusively prove responsibility under the Convention, save where rebutted by evidence to the contrary (e. g. showing documents not to be genuine).3. List B is not exhaustive and contains means of proof consisting of indicative elements to be used within the framework of the Convention. These are means of proof having indicative value. Indicative evidence as in list B may be sufficient to determine responsibility, depending on the weighing-up of evidence in a particular case. It is by nature rebuttable.4. These lists may be revised in the light of experience.5. It seems useful to indicate that the weight of proof of these elements may vary according to the circumstances of each individual case. Items will be classified as probative evidence or indicative evidence according to the point to be proved. For instance, a fingerprint may provide probative evidence of an asylum-seeker's presence in a Member State, yet form only indicative evidence as to whether the asylum-seeker entered the Community at a particular external frontier.6. This distinction made it necessary to draw up two separate lists of probative evidence (list A) and indicative evidence (list B) for each point to be proved under the Convention; Annex III hereto gives a breakdown of means of proof according to the point to be proved.7. By the same token, the probative force of official documents is not always the same from one Member State to another. The same document can be drawn up for different purposes or by different authorities, depending on the Member State concerned.Article 25 Probative force of elements in lists A and B The probative force of the elements contained in lists A and B shall be assessed in accordance with the following:1. List AThe probative evidence in list A provides conclusive proof of a Member State's responsibility for examining an asylum application, save where rebutted by evidence to the contrary (e. g. showing a document to be forged).For this purpose, Member States will provide examples of the various types of administrative documents, on the basis of a version of list A. Specimens of the various documents will be reproduced in a joint handbook for the application of the Dublin Convention. This will make for greater efficiency and help the authorities to identify any false documents produced by asylum-seekers. Some of the items of proof in list A constitute the best possible instruments to be used for the application of Articles 4 and 5 (1), (2), (3) and (4).2. List BList B contains indicative evidence the probative value of which in determining responsibility for examining an asylum application will be weighed up on a case-by-case basis.These indications can be very useful in practice. They cannot, however, irrespective of their number, constitute items of proof of the kind laid down in list A, in order to determine the responsibility of a Member State.While not proof, such items can nonetheless determine towards which Member State the search for the State responsible within the meaning of the Convention may justifiably be directed.Article 26 Consequences a to determination of responsibility 1. The Member State in question shall consult its various records to determine whether its responsibility is involved.2. Where more than one Member State is responsible, the Member State which first receives an application for asylum shall ascertain which has the greater responsibility under the Convention, in accordance with the principle laid down in Article 3 (2) thereof whereby criteria for responsibility apply in the order in which they appear.3. This approach should prevent asylum-seekers being passed successively from one State to another, complicating procedures and creating delay.4. In particular, where an asylum-seeker passes through several Member States before submitting an application in the last one, the State applied to must not simply assume that responsibility lies with the State through which the applicant last passed.5. Where there are specific reasons to believe that more than one State may be responsible, it is for the State in which the application has been submitted to attempt to ascertain which of the States in question is required to examine the asylum application, having regard to the order of criteria for determining responsibility laid down in the Convention.Article 27 Acceptance of responsibility on the basis of a declaration by the asylum applicant Without prejudice to the provisions of this chapter concerning means of proof, responsibility for examining an application for asylum may in individual cases be accepted on the basis of a consistent, sufficiently detailed and verifiable declaration by the asylum applicant.CHAPTER V EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION Article 28 Statistical and individual information 1. Member States will conduct three-monthly exchanges of statistical information concerning the practical implementation of the Convention using the tables given in Annex IV hereto.2. The Member States to which a request within the meaning of Article 15 is addressed should make every effort to reply to the request if possible immediately and in any event within one month.FINAL PROVISION Article 29 Entry into force This Decision shall come into force on today's date.It shall apply from 1 September 1997.Done at Brussels, 9 September 1997.For the CommitteeThe ChairmanM. FISCHBACH(1) OJ C 254, 19. 8. 1997, p. 1.ANNEX I STANDARD FORM FOR DETERMINING THE STATE RESPONSIBLE FOR EXAMINING AN APPLICATION FOR ASYLUM >START OF GRAPHIC>>END OF GRAPHIC>ANNEX II Specimen laissez-passer for transfer of applicants >START OF GRAPHIC>>END OF GRAPHIC>ANNEX III LIST A A. MEANS OF PROOFI. Process of determining the State responsible for examining an application for asylum1. Legal residence in a Member State of a family member recognized as having refugee status (Article 4)Probative evidence- written confirmation of the information by the other Member State,- extracts from registers,- residence permits issued to the individual with refugee status,- evidence that the persons are related, if available,- consent of the persons concerned.2. Valid residence permits (Article 5 (1) and (3)) or residence permits which expired less than two years previously (and date of entry into force) (Article 5 (3))Probative evidence- residence permit,- extracts from the register of aliens or similar registers,- reports/confirmation of information by the Member State which issued the residence permit.3. Valid visas (Article 5 (2) and (3)) and visas which expired less than six months previously (and date of entry into force) (Article 5 (4))Probative evidence- visa issued (valid or expired, as appropriate),- extracts from the register of aliens or similar registers,- reports/confirmation by the Member State which issued the visa.4. Illegal entry (first paragraph of Article 6) and legal entry at an external frontier (Article 7 (1))Probative evidence- entry stamp in a forged or falsified passport,- exit stamp from a country bordering on a Member State, bearing in mind the itinerary taken by the asylum seeker and the date the frontier was crossed,- tickets conclusively establishing entry at an external frontier,- entry stamp or similar endorsement in passport.5. Departure from the territory of the Member States (Article 3 (7))Probative evidence- exit stamp,- extracts from third-country registers (substantiating residence),- tickets conclusively establishing entry at an external frontier,- report/confirmation by the Member State from which the asylum seeker left the territory of the Member States,- stamp of third country bordering on a Member State, bearing in mind the itinerary taken by the asylum seeker and the date the frontier was crossed.6. Residence in the Member State of application for at least six months prior to application (Article 6 (2))Probative evidenceOfficial evidence showing, in accordance with national rules, that the alien was resident in the Member State for at least six months before submitting an application.7. Time of application for asylum (Article 8)Probative evidence- form submitted by the asylum seeker,- official report drawn up by the authorities,- fingerprints taken in connection with an asylum application,- extracts from relevant registers and files,- written report by the authorities attesting that an application has been made.II. Obligation on the Member State responsible for examining the application for asylum to re-admit or take back the asylum seeker1. Procedure where an application for asylum is under examination or was lodged previously (Article 10 (1) (c), (d), and (e))Probative evidence- form completed by the asylum seeker,- official report drawn up by the authorities,- fingerprints taken in connection with an asylum application,- extracts from relevant registers and files,- written report by the authorities attesting that an application has been made.2. Departure from the territory of the Member States (Article 10 (3))Probative evidence- exit stamp,- extracts from third-country registers (substantiating residence),- exit stamp from a third country bordering on a Member State, bearing in mind the itinerary taken by the asylum seeker and the date on which the frontier was crossed,- written proof from the authorities that the alien has actually been expelled.3. Expulsion from the territory of the Member States (Article 10 (4))Probative evidence- written proof from the authorities that the alien has actually been expelled,- exit stamp,- confirmation of the information regarding expulsion by the third country.LIST B B. INDICATIVE EVIDENCEI. Process of determining the State responsible for examining an application for asylum1. Legal residence in a Member State of a family member recognized as having refugee status (Article 4)Indicative evidence (1)- information from the asylum applicant,- reports/confirmation of information by international organizations, such as UNHCR.2. Valid residence permits (Article 5 (1) and (3)) or residence permits which expired less than two years previously (and date of entry into force) (Article 5 (4))Indicative evidence- declaration by the asylum applicant,- reports/confirmation of information by international organizations, such as UNHCR,- reports/confirmation of information by the Member State which did not issue the residence permit,- reports/confirmation of information by family members, travelling companions, etc.3. Valid visas (Article 5 (2) and (3)) and visas which expired less than six months previously (and date of entry into force) (Article 5 (4))Indicative evidence- declaration by the asylum applicant,- reports/confirmation of information by international organizations, such as UNHCR,- reports/confirmation of information by the Member State which did not issue the residence permit,- reports/confirmation of information by family members, travelling companions, etc.4. Illegal entry (first paragraph of Article 6) and legal entry at an external frontier (Article 7 (1))Indicative evidence- declarations by the asylum applicant,- reports/confirmation of information by international organizations, such as UNHCR,- reports/confirmation of information by another Member State or a third country,- reports/confirmation of information by family members, travelling companions, etc.,- fingerprints, except in cases where the authorities decided to take fingerprints when the alien crossed the external frontier.In such cases, they constitute probative evidence as defined in list A,- tickets,- hotel bills,- entry cards for public or private institutions in the Member States,- appointment cards for doctors, dentists, etc.,- information showing that the asylum applicant has used the services of a courier or a travel agency,- etc.5. Departure from the territory of the Member States (Article 3 (7))Indicative evidence- declarations by the asylum applicant,- reports/confirmation of information by international organizations, such as UNHCR,- reports/confirmation of information by another Member State,- re Articles 3 (7) and 10 (3): exit stamp where the asylum applicant concerned has left the territory of the Member States for a period of at least three months,- reports/confirmation of information by family members, travelling companions, etc.,- fingerprints, except in cases where the authorities decided to take fingerprints when the alien crossed the external frontier.In such cases, they constitute probative evidence as defined in list A,- tickets,- hotel bills,- appointment cards for doctors, dentists, etc.,- information showing that the asylum applicant has used the services of a courier or a travel agency,- etc.6. Residence in the Member State of application for at least six months prior to application (second subparagraph of Article 6)Indicative evidence- declarations by the asylum applicant,- reports/confirmation of information by international organizations, such as UNHCR,- reports/confirmation of information by family members, travelling companions, etc.,- declaration issued to permitted aliens,- fingerprints, except in cases where the authorities decided to take fingerprints when the alien crossed the external frontier.In such cases, they constitute probative evidence as defined in list A,- tickets,- hotel bills,- appointment cards for doctors, dentists, etc.,- information showing that the asylum applicant has used the services of a courier or a travel agency,- etc.7. Time of application for asylum (Article 8)Indicative evidence- declarations by the asylum applicant,- reports/confirmation of information by international organizations, such as UNHCR,- reports/confirmation of information by family members, travelling companions, etc.,- reports/confirmation by another Member State.II. Obligation on the Member State responsible for examining the application for asylum to re-admit or take back the asylum seeker1. Procedure where an application for asylum is under examination or was lodged previously (Article 10 (1) (c), (d) and (3))Indicative evidence- declarations by the asylum applicant,- reports/confirmation of information by international organizations, such as UNHCR,- reports/confirmation of information by another Member State.2. Departure from the territory of the Member States (Article 10 (3))Indicative evidence- declarations by the asylum applicant,- reports/confirmation of information by international organizations, such as UNHCR,- reports/confirmation of information by another Member State,- exit stamp where the asylum applicant concerned has left the territory of the Member States for a period of at least three months,- reports/confirmation of information by family members, travelling companions, etc.,- fingerprints, except in cases where the authorities decided to take fingerprints when the alien crossed the external frontier.In such cases, they constitute probative evidence as defined in list A,- tickets,- hotel bills,- appointment cards for doctors, dentists, etc.,- information showing that the asylum applicant has used the services of a courier or a travel agency,- etc.3. Distance from the territory of Member States (Article 10 (4))Indicative evidence- declarations by the asylum applicant,- reports/confirmation of information by international organizations, such as UNHCR,- exit stamp where the asylum applicant concerned has left the territory of the Member States for a period of at least three months,- reports/confirmation of information by family members, travelling companions, etc.,- fingerprints, except in cases where the authorities decided to take fingerprints when the alien crossed the external frontier.In such cases, they constitute probative evidence as defined in list A,- tickets,- hotel bills,- appointment cards for doctors, dentists, etc.,- information showing that the asylum applicant has used the services of a courier or a travel agency,- etc.(1) This indicative evidence must always be followed by an item of probative evidence as defined in list A.ANNEX IV TABLE 1 Requests for transfer (of persons) by [Member State] within (three-month period) to other Member States >START OF GRAPHIC>>END OF GRAPHIC>TABLE 2 Requests for transfers of (persons) to [Member State] within (three-month period) by other Member States >START OF GRAPHIC>>END OF GRAPHIC>TABLE 3 Average time limits for replies to transfer requests (three-month period) >START OF GRAPHIC>>END OF GRAPHIC>TABLE 4 Total number of asylum applications (three-month period) >START OF GRAPHIC>>END OF GRAPHIC>Statistical data on the application of the Dublin Convention>START OF GRAPHIC>>END OF GRAPHIC>


Avis juridique important

|

31999D0630

1999/630/EC, ECSC, Euratom: Council Decision of 13 September 1999 appointing the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union

Official Journal L 248 , 21/09/1999 P. 0034 - 0034

COUNCIL DECISIONof 13 September 1999appointing the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union(1999/630/EC, ECSC, Euratom)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 207(2) thereof,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article 30(2) thereof,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 121(2) thereof,Whereas the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union should be appointed,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1Mr Pierre De Boissieu is hereby appointed Deputy Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union for a period of five years with effect from 18 October 1999.Article 2This Decision shall be notified to Mr Pierre De Boissieu by the President of the Council.It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.Done at Brussels, 13 September 1999.For the CouncilThe PresidentT. HALONEN


Avis juridique important

|

31994D0844

94/844/EC: Commission Decision of 19 December 1994 establishing specific common programmes for the vocational training of customs officials, with regard to preferential systems, the control of containers, processing under customs control, and warehouse regimes (Matthaeus programme)

Official Journal L 352 , 31/12/1994 P. 0029 - 0037 Finnish special edition: Chapter 16 Volume 3 P. 0003  Swedish special edition: Chapter 16 Volume 3 P. 0003

COMMISSION DECISION of 19 December 1994 establishing specific common programmes for the vocational training of customs officials, with regard to preferential systems, the control of containers, processing under customs control, and warehouse  regimes (Matthaeus programme) (94/844/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,  Having regard to the Council Decision 91/341/EEC of 20 June 1991, on the adoption of a community programme of action on the subject of vocational training of customs officials (Matthaeus programme) (1), and in particular Article 9 thereof,  Whereas under the terms of Article 4c of Decision 91/341/EEC, the Commission is called on to establish common vocational training programmes for customs officials;  Whereas these common programmes are essential in order to achieve the objectives pursued by the Matthaeus programme and, in particular, that concerned with the uniform application of Community law at the external frontiers of the Community;  Whereas those common programmes are rendered necessary by the diversity of teaching currently given in the customs schools of the Members States;  Whereas a common vocational programme for officials in initial training has already been adopted by Commission Decision 92/39/EEC (2);  Whereas specific common further training and specialized programmes, carried out in the customs schools in conjunction with the initial common programme, will reinforce the establishment of an identical training in customs matters throughout the  Community;  Whereas such specific common programmes will concern officials already having had some vocational experience;  Whereas three specific common programmes of development and specialization regarding inward processing, temporary admission and transit have already been adopted by Commission Decision 93/15/EEC (3);  Whereas four specific common programmes relating to preferential systems, the control of containers, processing under customs control and warehouse regimes are necessary;  Whereas this necessity arises from, on the one hand, the economic importance of preferential regimes, processing under customs control and customs warehousing and, on the other hand, the priority for the fight against fraud of the control of containers;   Whereas, the teaching of these programmes will assist the uniform application in the Community of the customs rules and assure the proper functioning of the single market;  Whereas the officials to whom these specific common programmes will be given must, through their work experience, be able to derive full benefit from the programmes and thereby ensure better application of the relevant community customs law and a more  effective fight against fraud in the future;  Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Matthaeus Committee,  HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:   Article 1  Two specific common programmes, hereinafter referred to as 'specific programmes', intended for customs officials and the contents of which are described respectively in Annexes I, II, III and IV, shall be put into effect in the customs  schools of the Member States.   Article 2  For the purpose of this Decision:  (1) 'customs school' means all establishments in which teaching relating to vocational training is given to customs officials;  (2) 'officials already having training experience' means officials who have already received initial training within the meaning of point 2 of Article 2 of Decision 92/39/EEC or alternatively those officials possessing sufficient general customs  knowledge to be able to study in depth the matters considered in the specific programmes.   Article 3  The specific programmes are intended for customs officials responsible for the application of that part of the Community law covered by these programmes or in the fight against fraud in containers and already having vocational experience;  wherever they carry out their tasks.   Article 4  The teaching of the specific programmes must be spread over a period adequate to allow the trained officials to be fully operational in the future application of the systems concerned and the control of containers.   Article 5  Each Member State shall send to the Commission the arrangements and methods used for the application of the specific programmes.   Article 6  The application of the specific programmes does not prevent the teaching of supplementary national programmes in customs schools.   Article 7  This Decision applies from 1 January 1995.   Article 8  This Decision is addressed to the Member States.  Done at Brussels, 19 December 1994.  For the Commission Christiane SCRIVENER Member of the Commission  (1) OJ No L 187, 13. 7. 1991, p. 41.  (2) OJ No L 16, 23. 1. 1992, p. 14.  (3) OJ No L 10, 16. 1. 1993, p. 19.      ANNEX I  Specific programme: Preferential systems (origin of goods)  1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Effect of preferential arrangements in terms of custom's duty, basic conditions for the establishment of correct duty.  2. EEC PREFERENTIAL ARRANGEMENTS APPLYING TO THIRD COUNTRIES OR GROUPS OF COUNTRIES.  2.1. Review of the preferential systems and their legal basis, such as those in the agreements or autonomous actions of the Community:  - EC-Central and Eastern European countries; EC-Turkey; EC-EFTA (EEA); EC-Mediterranean countries; Overseas countries and territories; EC-ACP countries; PTOM, SPG.  2.2. The field of application of preferential systems applies according to the products.  The conditions of granting preference under different preferential systems.  The criteria which may be used for the application of a preferential regime: origin and free circulation (Turkey).  Nature of goods for free circulation and the nature of original goods: Scope and significance of the measures of granting preference.  3. DETERMINING THE ORIGIN OF GOODS 3.1. The legal basis for determining the origin of preferential goods ('origin' protocols for the various conventional preferential systems, Community Customs Code (Article 27) and the conditions of application (Article 66 onwards)).  Differentiation when dealing with the Community Customs Code (Articles 22 to 26) and the conditions of application regarding the origin within the EC; field of application of these texts (legislation applicable to external business); recognition of the  nature of origin by virtue of the Community Customs Code (Articles 22 to 26) and the conditions of application (Articles 23 and 24 of the Community Customs Code and 35 to 65 of the conditions of application). Regulations of a particular priority of the  recognition of the nature of origin within the preferential systems.  3.2. Origin criteria under the preferential origin rules ('Origin' protocol; Community Customs Code Article 27) and the conditions of application (Articles 66 onwards).  3.2.1. Territory rule when obtaining the origin of the products.  3.2.2. Goods wholly produced in the preferential country.  3.2.3. Sufficient working or processing of goods in the preferential country (change of tariff heading, rules defined in this lists, for example, percentage of value, specific work, minimum processing, goods presented in consignments, etc. . . ).  3.2.4. Culmination rules.  4. DIRECT TRANSPORT 5. RULES OF NO-DRAWBACK (EC-TURKEY, EFTA, ISRAEL, THE FAROE ISLANDS) 6. DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF PREFERENTIAL ORIGIN 6.1. Formal proof under the various preferential systems.  (EUR1, EUR2, Formula A, Formula APR, declarations on invoices).  Simplified procedures for 'authorized exporters'.  Special rules applying to passengers' baggage and small consignments.  6.2. Providing documentary evidence of the proof of origin.  6.2.1. Competent offices.  6.2.2. Knowledge of pre-authentication (declaration by the suppliers INF4, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3351/83 of 14 November 1983 (1)).  6.2.3. Deferred presentation.  6.2.4. Duplicate.  6.2.5. Replacement certificates.  6.3. Presentation and recognition of documents of proof of origin.  6.3.1. Verification of the proof of origin documents (time-limit for presentation, binding evidence, administrative cooperation, requests for post clearance verification).  6.3.2. Deferred presentation of proof of origin.   (1) OJ No L 339, 5. 12. 1983, p. 19.      ANNEX II  Specific programme: control of containers  1. GENERAL 1.1. Background.  1.2. The 1972 Convention concerning containers.  1.3. Technical terminology and the construction of containers.  1.4. Types of containers.  1.5. Coding, identification and marking.  1.6. Temporary admission concerning containers (See the specific common programme on temporary admission adopted by Commission Decision 93/15/EEC).  1.7. The transportation of containers and simplified procedures on arrival and departure.  2. ORGANIZATION OF TRANSPORT BY CONTAINERS 2.1. Logistics. Various methods.  2.2. Port and sea professions.  2.3. Responsibility.  2.4. Transport agreements.  2.5. Types of goods.  2.6. Documents:  bills of lading,  manifests.  3. THE OCCURRENCE OF FRAUD IN CONTAINERS 3.1. The cost and contingency techniques of physical examinations.  3.2. Major fraud risks:  - false declarations of value (cost of transport, insurance etc),  - false declarations of quantity (weight, varied incidences etc),  - concealed freight (particularly drugs).  3.3. Methods of fraud with regard to concealed freight.  4. COMBATING FRAUD (INCLUDING DRUGS) 4.1. Documentary examination 4.1.1. Ensuring consistency of the documents attached to the declaration (invoices, loading lists, etc).  4.1.2. Examination of the transport:  - study of the journey,  - the identity of the owners and intervening parties.  4.1.3. The methodology of targeting.  4.1.4. Combating fraud and international cooperation:  - SCENT,  - international and national organizations (police, Interpol, German customs intelligence etc),  - messages from within the European Community.  4.2. Physical checks 4.2.1. Physical examination.  4.2.1.1. Internal and external examination of containers and detailed checks of the goods.  4.2.1.2. Examination on departure.  4.2.1.3. Examination on arrival.  4.2.1.4. Examination reports.  4.2.1.5. Complementary examination.  4.2.1.6. The costs in the event of physical examination.  4.2.1.7. Security measures to be taken.  4.2.2. The search for concealed freight.  4.2.2.1. Examination of containers in the appropriate place.  4.2.2.2. Security measures to be taken.  4.2.2.3. Identification of containers.  4.2.2.4. External control. Special attention to the fraudulent practices concerning the modifications of containers: concealed compartments, seals, etc.  4.2.2.5. Internal control.  4.2.2.6. Control of loading.  4.2.2.7. Teamwork.     ANNEX III  Specific programme: processing under customs control  1. LEGAL BASIS AND DEFINITIONS 2. CONDITIONS FOR USE OF THE PROCEDURE 2.1. When the procedure can be used (Article 131 of the Code).  2.2. Economic and other conditions (Article 133 of the Code).  2.3. Issue of authorization and time-limit for assigning processed products to a customs-approved treatment or use.  3. THE CUSTOMS FORMALITIES 3.1. Entry for the procedure:  - declaration,  - provision of a security.  3.2. Discharge of the procedure:  - permitted customs-approved treatment or use,  - release for free circulation.  3.3. Items of change (Article 135 of the Code); application of tariff provisions (Article 136 of the Code); waiver of commercial policy measures (Article 136 of the Code).  4. SUPERVISION OF THE PROCEDURE (processing only, not release for free circulation) 4.1. Inspection of the goods and checking of documents.  4.2. Exchange of information between the Commission and the Member States.     ANNEX IV  Specific programme: customs warehouses  INTRODUCTION Definition 1. THE CUSTOMS WAREHOUSE 1.1. General - presentation - distinction between place and procedure 1.1.1. References: Community Customs Code Articles 98-113. Customs Code Implementing Provisions Articles 503-548 1.1.2. Principles:  - warehousing: distinction from temporary storage,  - unlimited duration,  - admissibility of all non-Community goods (except on grounds of public order, public security and morality).  1.1.3. Persons concerned:  - warehousekeeper,  - depositor.  1.2. Types of warehouse.  1.2.1. Public warehouses: types A, B and F.  1.2.2. Private warehouses: types C, D and E.  1.3. Conditions for authorization to operate a customs warehouse.  1.3.1. Requirement to demonstrate an economic need for warehousing.  1.3.2. Personal conditions.  1.3.3. Approval of premises (except type E).  1.3.4. Issue of the authorization.  1.3.5. Provision of a security.  1.3.6. Keeping of stock records.  2. OPERATION OF THE PROCEDURE FOR NON-COMMUNITY GOODS 2.1. Formalities for entry for and discharge of the customs warehousing procedure.  2.1.1. Entry for the procedure:  - normal procedure,  - simplified procedure:  - incomplete declaration,  - commercial or administrative document,  - entry in the accounts (without presentation).  2.1.2. Discharge of the procedure:  - permitted customs-approved treatment or uses,  - procedure:  - normal procedure,  - simplified procedure:  - incomplete declaration,  - commercial or administrative document,  - entry in the accounts (without presentation).  2.2. Facilities: requirement for authorization.  2.2.1. Common storage of goods with different customs status.  2.2.2. Usual forms of handling.  2.2.3. Temporary removal.  2.2.4. Transfer of goods between warehouses without termination of the procedure.  3. CUSTOMS WAREHOUSING OF COMMUNITY AGRICULTURAL GOODS 3.1. Entry.  3.2. Stock records.  3.3. Handling.  3.4. Discharge.  3.5. Non-acceptance and invalidation of declarations.  4. USE OF A CUSTOMS WAREHOUSE WITHOUT ENTRY OF GOODS FOR THE PROCEDURE 4.1. Non-Community goods imported for procedures than warehousing.  4.2. Community goods other than agricultural goods.  4.3. Community agricultural goods for processing.  5. CONTROLS 5.1. Checking of stock records:  - cross-checking,  - monthly statements.  5.2. Inspection of goods and stocks.  5.3. Controlling operation of the procedure and any facilities (see point 2.2).  5.4. Drawing up control schedules.


title: 78/900/EEC: Council Decision of 30 October 1978 giving a discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (1963) (Second EDF) for the financial year 1976

text:
No L 316/34                           Official Journal of the European Communities                           10. 11 . 78
                                                  COUNCIL DECISION
                                                    of 30 October 1978
              giving a discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the
              operations of the European Development Fund (1963) (Second EDF) for the finan
                                                       cial year 1976
                                                        (78/900/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN                                      Whereas revenue for the financial year 1976 consisted
COMMUNITIES,                                                     of the contributions of the Member States, amounting
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European            to 730 000 000 00 European units of account, and of
Economic Community,                                              miscellaneous revenue of the Fund ;
Having regard to the Convention of Association                   Whereas pursuant to the abovementioned Council
between the European Economic Community and the                  Decision of 30 May 1972 an amount of 10 553 354-69
African States and Madagascar associated with the                European units of account was transferred as the unex
Community (1), signed at Yaounde on 20 July 1963,                pended balance from the First Fund to the Second
                                                                 EDF ;
Having regard to Council Decision 64/349/EEC of 25
February 1964 relating to the association of the over           Whereas an advance of 30 274 1 20-34 European units
seas countries and territories with the European                 of account was paid to the European Development
Economic Community (2),                                          Fund ( 1975) (Fourth EDF);
Having regard to the Internal Agreement on the                   Whereas the overall implementation by the Commis
financing and administration of Community aid (3),               sion of the operations of the European Development
signed at Yaounde on 20 July 1963, and in particular             Fund ( 1963) (Second EDF) during the financial year
Article 17 thereof,                                               1976 was such as to warrant its being given a
Having regard to the Financial Regulation of the Euro           discharge in respect of the implementation of these
pean Development Fund set up under the Internal                  operations,
Agreement on the financing and administration of
Community aid (4), and in particular Articles 7 and 8            HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :
thereof,
                                                                                Article 1
Having regard to the Council Decision of 30 May
 1972 on the transfer and utilization of the unex               The Council closes the revenue and expenditure
pended balances of the Development Fund for the                  account of the European Development Fund (1963)
overseas countries and territories set up by the Imple          (Second EDF) as at 31 December 1976 as follows :
menting Convention annexed to the Treaty esta
blishing the European Economic Community,                        Revenue at the sum of 740 638 508-73 European units
                                                                 of account,
Having regard to the revenue and expenditure account             Expenditure (payments) at the sum of 698 080 435-55
and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the          European units of account.
European Development Fund ( 1963) (Second EDF) as
at 31 December 1976 (5),                                                                Article 2
Having regard to the report of the Audit Board on the
accounts for the financial year 1976, to which report            The Council hereby gives a discharge to the Commis
are annexed the Commission's replies to the                      sion in respect of the implementation of the opera
comments made by the Audit Board,                                tions of the European Development Fund (1963)
                                                                 (Second EDF) for the financial year 1976.
Having regard to the resolution of the European Parlia
ment of 4 July 1978,
Recalling that, in accordance with the provisions appli         Done at Luxembourg, 30 October 1978 .
cable to the implementation of the European Develop
ment Fund ( f963) (Second EDF), only the Council,                                            For the Council
acting by a qualified majority, should give a discharge                                       The President
to the Commission in respect of the financial adminis
tration of the Fund,                                                                             J. ERTL
(') OJ No  93, 11 . 6. 1964, p. 1431 /64.
(2) OJ No  93, 11 . 6. 1964, p. 1472/64.
(*) OJ No  93, 11 . 6. 1964, p. 1493/64.
(<) OJ No  93, 11 . 6. 1964, p. 1498/64.
P)  OJ No  C 254,   24. 10. 1977.


title: 2012/380/EU: Council Decision of 22 September 2011 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 186/2

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 22 September 2011
   on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
   (2012/380/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 2 December 2010, the Council adopted a Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations on behalf of the Union with Australia for the transfer and use of passenger name record (PNR) data to prevent and combat terrorism and other serious transnational crime.

               (2)

               The Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (the Agreement) has been negotiated. The negotiations were successfully concluded by the initialling of the Agreement.

               (3)

               The Agreement should be signed subject to its conclusion at a later date, and the Declaration attached to the Final Act of the Agreement should be approved.

               (4)

               The Agreement respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), notably the right to respect for private and family life, recognised in Article 7 of the Charter, the right to the protection of personal data, recognised in Article 8 of the Charter and the right to effective remedy and fair trial recognised in Article 47 of the Charter. The Agreement should be applied in accordance with those rights and principles.

               (5)

               In accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, those Member States have notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Decision.

               (6)

               In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the Position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by the Agreement or subject to its application,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The signing of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (the Agreement) is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (1).
   Article 2
   The Declaration attached to the Final Act of the Agreement shall be approved on behalf of the Union.
   Article 3
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the persons empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.
   Article 4
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 22 September 2011.

            For the Council

            The President

         J. MILLER

      (1)  The text of the Agreement will published together with the Decision on its conclusion.


title: Council Decision of 20 September 1977 extending the term of validity of Decision 77/473/EEC, Euratom, ECSC of 18 July 1977 determining the appointing authority for the staff of the Audit Board and of the ECSC Auditor

text:
23 . 9 . 77                            Official Journal of the European Communities                         No L 244/ 17
                                                                 I
                                           (Acts whose publication is not obli^itoiy)
                                                       COUNCIL
                                                    COUNCIL DECISION
                                                    of 20 September 1977
              extending the term of validity of Decision 77 /473/ EEC , Euratom , ECSC of 18
              July 1977 determining the appointing authority for the staff of the Audit Board
                                                  and of the ECSC Auditor
                                                 (77/ 599/ EEC, Euratom , ECSC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN                                         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :
COMMUNITIES,
                                                                                Sole Article
Having regard to Article 2 of the Staff Regulations of
officials of the European Communities and Article 6                 The text of Article 2, second paragraph , of Decision
of the conditions of employment of other servants,                  77/473 / EEC, Euratom , ECSC of 18 July 19 77 shall be
Whereas under Article 206, fourth paragraph , of the                replaced by the following text :
Treaty establishing the European Economic Commu                        ' It shall apply until the date on which the
nity, the members of the Court of Auditors are to be                    members of the Court of Auditors take up their
appointed by the Council , acting unanimously after                     duties or until 31 October 1977 at the latest .'
consulting the Assembly ;
Whereas it will be some time before such consultation
can take place ;
                                                                    Done at Brussels, 20 September 1 977.
Whereas the Decision of 18 July 1977 determining
the appointing authority of the staff of the Audit
                                                                                For the Council
Board and of the ECSC Auditor (') should therefore be
extended by one month beyond the end of the term                                                 The President
of office of the members of the Board and of the
Auditor,                                                                                H. SIMONET
(') OJ No L 189 , 29 . 7 . 1977 , p . 44 .


Avis juridique important

|

31985D0274

85/274/EEC: Council Decision of 4 June 1985 revising the amounts for the documentary requirements in Annex II concerning the definition of the concept of 'originating products' and methods of administrative cooperation to Decision 80/1186/EEC on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community

Official Journal L 148 , 07/06/1985 P. 0031 - 0031 Spanish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 21 P. 0260  Portuguese special edition Chapter 11 Volume 21 P. 0260

*****COUNCIL  DECISION  of 4 June 1985  revising the amounts for the documentary requirements in Annex II concerning the definition of the concept of 'originating products' and methods of administrative cooperation to Decision 80/1186/EEC on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community  (85/274/EEC)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to Council Decision 80/1186/EEC of 16 December 1980 on the accession of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community (1), as last amended by Decision 85/273/EEC (2), and in particular Article 11 (2) thereof,  Having regard to the recommendation from the Commission,  Whereas Article 6 of Annex II to Decision 80/1186/EEC provides that the Community may, where necessary, revise the amounts for determining when forms EUR 2 may be used instead of movement certificates EUR 1 or when no documentary evidence of origin is required as laid down in Article 16 of that Annex; whereas the amounts in question were most recently revised by Decision 83/544/EEC (3);  Whereas as a consequence of the automatic change, which takes place every two years, of the base date provided for in the said Annex II, the effective value of the limits expressed in the national currencies concerned, which correspond to the amounts laid down in Articles 6 and 16 of the said Annex, would be reduced; whereas in order to offset such a reduction it is necessary to increase the amounts in question,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  Annex II to Decision 80/1186/EEC is hereby amended as follows:  - the amount laid down in Article 6 (1), point (b) is hereby increased to 2 355 ECU;  - the amounts laid down in Article 16 (2) are hereby increased to 165 ECU and 470 ECU respectively.  Article 2  This Decision shall apply from 1 May 1985.  Done at Luxembourg, 4 June 1985.  For the Council  The President  L. GRANELLI  (1) OJ No L 361, 31. 12. 1980, p. 1.  (2) See page 29 of this Official Journal.  (3) OJ No L 309, 10. 11. 1983, p. 29.


title: 2006/527/EC: Commission Decision of  27 July 2006  concerning the financing of studies, impact assessments and evaluations covering the areas of food safety, animal health and welfare and zootechnics

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 208/37

         COMMISSION DECISION
   of 27 July 2006
   concerning the financing of studies, impact assessments and evaluations covering the areas of food safety, animal health and welfare and zootechnics
   (2006/527/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 20 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Decision 90/424/EEC the Community is to undertake or assist the Member States in undertaking the technical and scientific measures necessary for the development of Community veterinary legislation and for the development of veterinary education or training.

               (2)

               Studies, impact assessments as well as systematic and timely evaluations of its expenditure programmes are an established priority for the European Commission as a means of accounting for the management of allocated funds and as a way of promoting a lesson-learning culture throughout the organisation, particularly in a context of increased focus on results-based management.

               (3)

               In order to carry out these tasks, a call for tender for an evaluation framework contract covering the policy areas of food safety, animal health and welfare, and zootechnics has been launched following an open procedure during the last quarter 2004.

               (4)

               The framework contract has been concluded on 18 June 2005 for a period of 24 months. This framework contract is already providing relevant information serving as a basis for a Community decision making.

               (5)

               All individual tasks shall be subject to specific agreements. These agreements shall be signed between the Commission and the selected contractor as defined in the framework contract.

               (6)

               The measure provided for in this Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Sole Article
   The actions described in the Annex to this Decision are approved for the purpose of their financing.

      Done at Brussels, 27 July 2006.

            For the Commission

         Markos KYPRIANOU

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 19. Decision as last amended by Decision 2006/53/EC (OJ L 29, 2.2.2006, p. 37).

      ANNEX

         Domain: Food safety, animal health and welfare and zootechnics

         Legal basis: Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field

         Assignments:

                  —

                  Various types of studies and other services supporting the design and preparation of Commission proposals

                  —

                  Ex ante evaluations/impact assessments

                  —

                  Interim and ex post evaluations

            Studies and other services supporting the design and preparation of the future EU Animal Health Policy (2007-2013) have been targeted as priority in the Commission Annual Planning Strategy 2007. The programmation of these studies will be decided according to the conclusion and recommendation of the ongoing Community Animal Health Policy Evaluation.

         Appropriation 2006: 17 04 02 — Other measures in the veterinary, animal welfare and public health field: EUR 900 000

         Budget: EUR 900 000 for the second year of the framework contract

         Number of specific actions foreseen: Approximately six
      All actions shall be governed by common public procurement rules: in casu use of existing framework contract.


Avis juridique important

|

31998D0607

98/607/CFSP: Council Decision of 26 October 1998 supplementing Joint Action 95/545/CFSP adopted by the Council on the basis of Article J.3 of the Treaty on European Union with regard to the participation of the Union in the implementing structures of the peace plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina

Official Journal L 290 , 29/10/1998 P. 0003 - 0003

COUNCIL DECISION of 26 October 1998 supplementing Joint Action 95/545/CFSP adopted by the Council on the basis of Article J.3 of the Treaty on European Union with regard to the participation of the Union in the implementing structures of the peace plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina (98/607/CFSP) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article J.11 thereof,Whereas on 11 December 1995 the Council adopted Joint Action 95/545/CFSP with regard to the participation of the Union in the implementing structures of the peace plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina (1); whereas it was decided on 20 December 1996, in Decision 96/745/CFSP (2), to extend Joint Action 95/545/CFSP until 31 December 1998;Whereas the Peace Implementation Council strengthened the mission of the High Representative at ministerial conferences held in Paris on 14 November 1996, in London on 4 and 5 December 1996 and in Sintra on 30 May 1997; whereas the Council decided on 22 July 1997, in Decision 97/476/CFSP (3), to increase proportionately the Union's share of the budget of the High Representative's office with a contribution from the Community budget of ECU 4,6 million in 1997 and ECU 6,26 million in 1998;Whereas the Peace Implementation Council extended the scope of the High Representative's mission at the ministerial conference in Bonn on 10 December 1997; whereas additional funds are required if the High Representative is to perform the new duties assigned at the Bonn conference until 31 December 1998; whereas the High Representative's office has asked all donors for such funds and the contribution provided for under Decision 97/476/CFSP will be exhausted before the end of 1998,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1 1. In order to cover the European Union's contribution to the additional expenses involved in the High Representative's mission in 1998, a maximum of ECU 2,8 million shall be charged to the general budget of the European Communities for 1998.2. The management of the expenditure financed by the amount specified in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the procedures and rules of the Community applying to budget matters.Article 2 This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption and shall apply until 31 December 1998.Article 3 This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal.Done at Luxembourg, 26 October 1998.For the CouncilThe PresidentW. SCHÜSSEL(1) OJ L 309, 21. 12. 1995, p. 2.(2) OJ L 340, 30. 12. 1996, p. 3.(3) OJ L 205, 31. 7. 1997, p. 2.


Avis juridique important

|

31995D0180

95/180/EC: Commission Decision of 2 May 1995 accepting a modified undertaking offered by the Royal Thai Government in connection with the countervailing duty proceeding concerning imports of ball bearings with a greatest external diameter not exceeding 30 mm originating in Thailand

Official Journal L 118 , 25/05/1995 P. 0094 - 0096

COMMISSION DECISION of 2 May 1995 accepting a modified undertaking offered by the  Royal Thai Government in connection with the countervailing duty proceeding concerning imports of  ball bearings with a greatest external diameter not exceeding 30 mm originating in Thailand  (95/180/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3284/94 of 22 December 1994 on protection against  subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Community  (1), and in particular  Articles 10 and 13 thereof, After consultations within the Advisory Committee, Whereas: A. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE (1)  In June 1988 the Commission initiated an anti-subsidy proceeding  concerning imports of certain ball bearings originating in Thailand  (2), following a complaint  lodged by the Federation of European Bearing Manufacturers' Associations (Febma). The product has  been defined as ball bearings with a greatest external diameter not exceeding 30 mm (hereinafter  referred to as 'ball bearings`), originating in Thailand. (2)  The Commission found that the above imports were being subsidized and were causing material  injury to the Community industry. In the light of those findings, the Royal Thai Government offered  an undertaking to eliminate the effect of the subsidy. This undertaking involved the levying of an  export tax of 1,76 baht, equivalent to the amount of subsidy recorded, which was liable to  countervailing measures ('countervailable subsidy`) for each ball bearing exported to the  Community. (3)  In June 1990, by Decision 90/266/EEC  (3), the Commission accepted the undertaking offered and  terminated the investigation. (4)  In July 1993, the Commission, following a review, established that the amount of subsidy had  fallen to 0,91 baht per price. Having been informed of these findings, the Royal Thai Government  changed the export tax rate to 0,91 baht per ball bearing exported to the Community, and offered a  modified version of the undertaking to this effect. This was accepted by Commission Decision  93/381/EEC  (4). (5)  In addition, in order to prevent the export tax being circumvented by indirect imports, the  Council, by Regulation (EEC) No 1781/93  (5), imposed a definitive countervailing duty of imports  of ball bearings originating in Thailand but exported to the Community from another country. (6)  In September 1994, following a further review, the Commission, by Decision 94/639/EC  (1),  accepted a new version of the undertaking whereby, in view of a decline in the amount of subsidy,  the export tax was reduced to 0,72 baht per ball bearing. Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/94  (2),  amended the countervailing duty on indirect imports to 5,3  %, reflecting the fall in the amount of  export tax. B. REOPENING OF INVESTIGATION (7)  Following the above, the Commission became aware of certain  evidence indicating a change in the amount of subsidy. In those circumstances, the Commission  initiated a review of Decision 94/639/EC and of Regulation (EC) No 2271/94 in December 1994, by a  notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (3). (8)  The Commission officially advised the Royal Thai Government, the exporters and importers known  to be concerned, as well as the complainant in the original investigation (Febma) and gave the  parties directly concerned the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a  hearing. The Royal Thai Government, the exporters located in Thailand and the Community producers,  represented by Febma, made their views known in writing. (9)  The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed to be necessary for the purposes  of a determination and carried out an investigation at the premises of the following: (a)  Royal Thai Government: -  Department of Foreign Trade, Bangkok, -  Board of Investment, Bangkok; (b)  Thai Exporters -  NMB Thai Ltd, Ayutthaya, Thailand, -  Pelmec Thai Ltd, Bang Pa-in, Thailand, -  NMB Hi-Tech Ltd, Bank Pa-in, Thailand. All these exporting companies are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Mineba Co Ltd, Japan. C. RECALCULATION OF SUBSIDY AMOUNT (10)  No new evidence was presented as to the liability of the  subsidies in question to the imposition of countervailing measures; the Commission therefore  maintains its conclusion in Decision 94/639/EC that all the subsidies granted by the Royal Thai  Government to the exporters (NMB Thai Ltd, Pelmec Thai Ltd and NMB Hi-Tech Ltd) continue to be so  liable. (11)  The Commission calculated the amount of subsidy granted during the period 1 October 1993 to  31 March 1994 ('the investigation period`). This represents the most recent period for which  audited accounts were prepared for the exporters, being an interim reporting period resulting from  a change in the exporters' financial year, which now begins on 1 April instead of 1 October, as in  previous years. (a)  Exemption from corporate income tax (i)  Section 31 exemption (12)  It was established that NMB Thai no longer enjoys the tax exemption granted in accordance  with Section 31 of Thailand's Investment Promotion Act, since the period for such exemptions  specified in its certificates of promotion has now expired. Pelmec Thai made a loss during the investigation period and therefore derived no benefit from this  exemption. NMB Hi-Tech was profitable during the investigation period and still eligible for the exemption; it  was thus the only exporter to benefit. The amount of subsidy, calculated as the taxable income  multiplied by the tax rate of 30  %, amounted to 43,9 million baht. (ii)  Section 36 (4) (13)  It was established that both NMB Thai and NMB Hi-Tech continue to benefit from the subsidy  granted under Section 36 (4) of the Investment Promotion Act, which entitles them to deduct from  taxable income an amount equal to 5  % of the increment in export earnings over the previous year. The calculation method is the same as for the Section 31 exemption, and the subsidy amounts are as  follows: >TABLE> (b)  Customs duty exemption on imports of machinery and essential materials (14)  All the exporters continue to benefit from a 100  % exemption from customs duty on imports of  machinery and essential materials. As in the original investigation, the subsidy amount with regard  to machinery was calculated on a depreciation basis, with the value of the exemption being  allocated over a period of 10 years, and the amount for essential materials (including machine  parts and tools) during the investigation period was established on an expense basis. The amount of  subsidy was as follows: >TABLE> (15)  The total amount of countervailable subsidy granted during the investigation period, was  therefore as follows: >TABLE> (16)  When expressed as an amount per ball bearing exported from Thailand, and then weighted  according to the volume of exports of each Thai exporter to the Community, the subsidy is  equivalent to 0,66 baht per piece. (17)  The Royal Thai Government, the exporters, importers, and the complainant in the original  investigation were informed of the facts on which these findings had been based, and were granted  an opportunity to comment. The written comments submitted by the parties were, where appropriate,  taken into consideration. D. MODIFICATION OF UNDERTAKING (18)  The Royal Thai Government has offered the Commission a  modified undertaking in which the rate of the export tax levied on ball bearings exported to the  Community has been adjusted to 0,66 baht per piece. The Commission is satisfied in view of its  findings that this rate is sufficient to eliminate the effect of the subsidy, and should therefore  accept this modified version of the undertaking offered by the Royal Thai Government. (19)  This modified version of the undertaking would apply only to ball bearings of Thai origin  exported directly from Thailand to the Community. Ball bearings of Thai origin imported into the  Community via other non-member countries will continue to be subject to the definitive  countervailing duty in order to safeguard the effectiveness of the undertaking and to prevent the  evasion of the export tax. This duty is set by Council Regulation (EC) No 1169/95  (1), amending  Regulation (EEC) No 1781/93, at the rate of 4,8  % of the net, free-at-Community frontier price of  the product. (20)  The proposed acceptance of the modified undertaking met with no objection from the Advisory  Committee, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Sole Article A modified undertaking given by the Royal Thai Government in  connection with the countervailing duty proceeding concerning imports of ball bearings with a  greatest external diameter not exceeding 30 mm originating in Thailand is hereby accepted. Done at Brussels, 2 May 1995. For the Commission Leon BRITTAN Vice-President


Avis juridique important

|

31976D0431

76/431/EEC: Commission Decision of 21 April 1976 setting up a Committee on Waste Management

Official Journal L 115 , 01/05/1976 P. 0073 - 0074 Finnish special edition: Chapter 15 Volume 2 P. 0044  Greek special edition: Chapter 12 Volume 1 P. 0119  Swedish special edition: Chapter 15 Volume 2 P. 0044  Spanish special edition: Chapter 15 Volume 1 P. 0163  Portuguese special edition Chapter 15 Volume 1 P. 0163

COMMISSION DECISION  of 21 April 1976  setting up a Committee on Waste Management  (76/431/EEC)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Whereas the Programme of Action of the European Communities on the Environment (1), stresses the need for a Community policy on industrial and consumer wastes;  Whereas special attention should be given to the protection of natural resources by making a sustained effort to avoid waste and in particular by taking measures to facilitate the recycling and re-use of wastes;  Whereas in its resolution of 3 March 1975 on energy and the environment (2) the Council noted that it was very important to promote the recycling and re-use of waste materials for the conservation of energy;  Whereas the Commission needs to obtain the opinions of persons highly qualified on the subject of waste management,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:    Article 1 There shall be attached to the Commission a Committee on Waste Management (hereinafter called "the committee").   Article 2 The task of the committee shall be to supply the Commission with opinions, either at the request of the Commission or on its own initiative, on all matters relating to:    (a) the formulation of a policy for waste management having regard to the need to ensure the best use of resources and the safe and effective disposal of waste;       (b) the different technical, economic, administrative and legal measures which could prevent the production of wastes or ensure their re-use, recycling or disposal;       (c) the implementation of Directives on waste management and the formulation of fresh proposals for Directives in this field.          Article 3 1. The committee shall consist of 20 members.  2. Seats on the committee shall be apportioned as follows:  to the Commission, two;  to each Member State, two.  (1)OJ No C 112, 20.12.1973, p. 28. (2)OJ No C 168, 25.7.1975, p. 2.    Article 4 The members of the committee shall be appointed by the Commission. For each seat to be filled which is appositioned to the Member States, the Commission, after consulting the Member States concerned, shall appoint the members from among top level national experts who are competent in the fields referred to in Article 2.   Article 5 The term of office for members of the committee shall be three years. Their appointments may be renewed. After the expiry of the three years members of the committee shall remain in office until they are replaced or until their appointments are renewed.  A member's term of office may be terminated before the expiry of the three years by resignation or death.  A person shall be appointed, in the manner provided in Article 4, to replace such member for the remainder of the term of office.  Members shall not be remunerated for their services.   Article 6 A list of members of the committee shall be published by the Commission, for information purposes, in the Official Journal of the European Communities.   Article 7 The chairman of the committee shall be a representative of the Commission.   Article 8 The chairman may invite any person with special qualifications in any subject on the agenda to take part in an expert capacity in the deliberation of the committee or the working parties referred to in Article 9.  Experts shall take part in discussions only of those questions on account of which they were invited.   Article 9 The committee may set up working parties.   Article 10 1. The committee and working parties shall be convened by the chairman of the committee and shall meet at the Commission headquarters.  2. Representatives of the Commission departments concerned shall take part in meetings of the committee and its working parties.  3. Secretarial services for the committee and its working parties shall be provided by the Commission.   Article 11 No vote shall be taken on the discussions of the committee.  The Commission may, when seeking the opinion of the committee, set a time limit within which such opinions must be given.   Article 12 Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 214 of the Treaty, when the chairman of the committee informs them that the opinion requested or the question raised is on a matter of a confidential nature, members of the committee shall be under an obligation not to disclose information which has come to their knowledge through the work of the committee or its working parties.  In such cases only committee members and representatives of the Commission departments concerned may be present at the meetings.   Article 13 This Decision shall enter into force on 1 May 1976.     Done at Brussels, 21 April 1976.  For the Commission  Carlo SCARASCIA MUGNOZZA  Vice-President