Avis juridique important

|

31984D0259

84/259/EEC: Commission Decision of 10 May 1984 accepting undertakings given in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain sensitized paper for colour photographs originating in Japan and terminating that proceeding

Official Journal L 124 , 11/05/1984 P. 0045 - 0049

*****COMMISSION  DECISION  of 10 May 1984  accepting undertakings given in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain sensitized paper for colour photographs originating in Japan and terminating that proceeding  (84/259/EEC)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3017/79 of 20 December 1979 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1580/82 (2), and in particular Article 11 thereof,  After consultations within the Advisory Committee as provided for by the above Regulation,  Whereas:  A. Procedure  (1) In August 1983 the Commission received a complaint lodged by the European Council of Chemical Manufacturers' Federations (CEFIC) on behalf of Agfa-Gevaert AG (Agfa) whose output constitutes a major proportion of Community production of the product in question. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of material injury resulting therefrom which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.  (2) The Commission accordingly announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (3), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of sensitized paper for colour photographs falling within Common Customs Tariff heading No ex 37.03, corresponding to NIMEXE code ex 37.03-29, originating in Japan and commenced an investigation.  (3) The Commission officially so advised the exporters and importers known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting country, the complainant and those Community producers which did not participate in the complaint but declared their support for it, that is, Eastman Kodak Co., London, UK (Kodak) and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., Milan, Italy (3M), and gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing.  (4) All of the known producers, exporters and importers made their views known in writing. All of the exporters, some of the importers and consumers and the complainant requested and were granted hearings. One of the exporters, Konishiroku Photo Industry Co., Ltd (Konishiroku) requested and was granted the opportunity of a meeting with Agfa in accordance with Article 7 (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 3017/79. All other exporters were invited and either declined or did not express interest in attending this meeting which was subsequently cancelled upon the request of Konishiroku.  (5) A submission was made by the Council of the Professional Photographers of Europe, 'Europhot', on behalf of the end users of sensitized paper for colour photographs.  (6) The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed to be necessary for the purposes of a preliminary determination and carried out investigations at the premises of the following:  EEC producers:  Agfa-Gevaert AG, Leverkusen, Federal Republic of Germany,  Eastman Kodak Co., London, United Kingdom;  Non-EEC producers/exporters:  Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan (Fuji),  Konishiroku Photo Industry Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan (Konishiroku),  Mitsubishi Paper Mills, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan (Mitsubishi),  Oriental Photo Industrial Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan (Oriental);  EEC importers:  Visits were made to selected importers including the following companies affiliated to exporters:  Fuji Photo Film (Europe) GmbH, Duesseldorf, Federal Republic of Germany,  Fuji Photo Film (UK) Ltd, London, United Kingdom,  Konishiroku Photo Industry (Europe) GmbH, Hamburg, Federal Republic of Germany,  Konishiroku UK, London, United Kingdom.  (7) The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 October 1982 to 30 September 1983.  B. Normal value  (8) Normal value was provisionally established on the basis of the weighted average of the domestic prices charged by each producer exporting to the Community. The use of this basis was contested by Fuji and Konishiroku on the grounds that sales on the domestic market are not at arms length and are thus not in the ordinary course of trade and should not therefore be used as a basis for comparison. In addition it was argued that the special characteristics of the Japanese market involved the provision of services which also made the use of domestic prices unsuitable. The alternative basis for normal value proposed by Fuji was constructed value or export prices to the United States, whilst for Konishiroku the alternative bases suggested were constructed value or export prices to non-EEC countries from Japan.  (9) The Commission found, however, that sales to related parties in Japan are at prices comparable to those at which the like product is sold to unrelated parties, that the price levels of sales on the domestic market are in reasonable proportion to production costs and that sales in Japan are effected under conditiions and practices which for a reasonable time have been normal in the trade under consideration. For the purpose of its provisional finding the Commission therefore considers it reasonable and appropriate to use domestic prices in Japan as a basis for normal value.  (10) Two of the Japanese exporters sold the product in question for export to the EEC in the form of rolls of large width, whilst sales on the domestic market were only made after such large rolls were cut into smaller widths and packaged. It was proposed by the exporters that the normal value of the large rolls be based on their export prices to non-EEC countries or their constructed values. However, the Commission considers that the product sold on the domestic market is a like product because its characteristics closely resemble that exported to the EEC. Therefore, since there are sales on the Japanese domestic market which permit a proper comparison it has accordingly determined that normal value for large rolls should be based on the domestic selling prices and has taken account of the differences in the physical characteristics of the product sold for export to the Community referred to in paragraph 16, below.  C. Export price  (11) With regard to exports by Japanese firms to independent importers in the Community, export prices were determined on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product sold.  (12) In all other cases where exports were made to subsidiary companies in the Community, export prices were constructed on the basis of the prices at which the imported product was first resold to an independent buyer, suitably adjusted to take account of all costs incurred between importation and resale including customs duty, and of a profit margin of 5 %. This profit margin was considered reasonable in the light of the profit margins of independent importers of the product concerned.  D. Comparison  (13) In comparing normal value with export prices the Commission took account, where appropriate, of differences affecting price comparability; this was the case for conditions and terms of sale where claims of a direct relationship could be satisfactorily demonstrated. These differences concerned, in particular, commodity tax, credit terms, technical assistance, salaries paid to salesmen and ancillary costs, packing, transport, insurance and handling and loading.  (14) In addition, adjustments were proposed for administrative expenses of sales offices, for advertising, for sales promotion and for overheads and general expenses. However, the evidence submitted was not sufficient to prove unequivocally the direct relationship of these costs to the sales in question and the Commission therefore made no adjustments for them. Oriental claimed an adjustment for differences in level of trade but no details of costs attributable to the different levels were provided and no adjustment was therefore made.  (15) Subsequent to the investigation at its premises in Tokyo, Konishiroku claimed an adjustment for differences in credit terms which used a different basis from that previously verified. For the purpose of its preliminary finding the Commission used the basis agreed with the company during its visit to Tokyo.  (16) With regard to the export prices of rolls of large width which were not sold on the Japanese market the Commission took account of the differences in physical characteristics of the product on the basis of those production costs accounting for such differences.  E. Margins  (17) The above preliminary examination of the facts shows the existence of dumping in respect of the exports of all the Japanese producers investigated; the margin of dumping being equal to the amount by which the normal value as established exceeds the price for export to the Community.  (18) These margins vary according to the exporter and the importing Member State concerned, the weighted average margin for each of the exporters investigated being as follows:  Fuji Photo Film Co. 68,2 %  Konishiroku Photo Industry Co. 51,6 %  Oriental Photo Industrial Co. 39,4 %  Mitsubishi Paper Mills Co. 12,2 %  F. Injury  (19) With regard to the injury caused by the dumped imports the evidence available to the Commission shows that imports into the Community from Japan of sensitized paper for colour photographs increased from 17 530 000 m2 in 1980 to 40 920 000 m2 in 1983 with a consequent increase in the market share held by Japanese imports from 22,8 to 39,1 % in the same period. In the Federal Republic of Germany, the largest market in the EEC for the product in question and the complainant's domestic market, the Japanese imports obtained a market share of 61,6 % in 1983 compared to 30,7 % in 1980.  (20) The weighted average resale price of these imports undercut the prices of the highest priced Community producers by up to 29,8 % during the investigation period, the average price undercutting of all EEC producers being 19,8 %. In general, the resale prices of the dumped imports were lower than those required to cover the costs of the complainant producer and provide a reasonable profit. However, the resale prices of the product in question from Oriental were found not to have caused any injury to the complainant producer because they were imported in relatively insignificant quantities.  Whilst the complaint has been lodged only on behalf of Agfa, which is the largest single producer of the product concerned in the Community, the other two Community producers, Kodak and 3M, have stated to the Commission that they consider that injury has been caused to them by dumped Japanese imports. In assessing the impact of the dumped imports, however, the Commission has been unable to measure the extent of any injury caused to the Community producers not participating in the complaint due to the limited amount of information provided by them but has confined itself to isolating the impact of the dumped imports on Agfa, the output of which constitutes a major proportion of the total Community production and which is therefore considered representative of Community industry as a whole.  (21) The consequent impact on the complainant has mainly shown itself in a decline in market share in the Community from an index of 100 in 1980 (exact figure confidential) to an index of 68,8 in 1983. The average unit price levels for the product in question also declined by 4,2 % in 1983 as a result of competition with low-priced imports and, since sales revenue earned by the complainant for this product did not cover total costs, significant losses occurred in 1983. The number of employees engaged in the manufacture of this product at the complainant's plant was reduced by over 10 % during 1983.  (22) The Commission has considered whether injury has been caused to the complainant by other factors such as imports from non-EEC sources, changes in demand or the activities of other EEC producers. On the basis of evidence available it has been established, however, that the market share obtained in the Community by non-EEC imports other than Japanese decreased from a 1980 index of 100 (exact figures are confidential) to a 1983 index of 58, whilst the market share of the two other EEC producers remained stable during the same period, at a time when consumption in the Community increased by 36,2 %. The selling prices of the other EEC producers on the market in 1983 were moreover from 20,3 to 31,9 % higher than the complainant and from 29,9 to 42,5 % higher than the average price of the Japanese imports.  (23) All these factors led the Commission to determine that the effects of the dumped imports of certain sensitized paper for colour photographs originating in Japan, taken in isolation, have to be considered as constituting material injury to the Community industry concerned.  G. Community interest  (24) The Commission has considered whether it would be in the Community's interests to take protective measures. It has been argued that an increase in the price of the imported Japanese product due to an anti-dumping action could not be passed on either by photo-finishing laboratories or by photo-dealers selling colour prints to end users because of intense competition and as a result such laboratories and dealers would incur losses which would affect their continued survival. The Commission has obtained information, however, which indicated that there is a variance within the range of prices charged by laboratories to dealers of almost 250 % and that there is a difference of up to 400 % between the highest and lowest price charged by dealers to end users. Since only approximately one-quarter of the total cost of the colour print is attributable to the cost of sensitized paper it is considered that a moderate increase in the price of this product would have a minor impact on the cost for the consumer and would not affect purchasing habits in a market where prices vary so greatly already.  (25) After having considered the interest of the Community and both the dumping and the injury provisionally established, the Commission has come to the conclusion that action should be taken.  (26) In the case of imports from Mitsubishi which were found to have caused injury corresponding to 0,54 % of the free-at-Community-frontier price, the Commission considers such injury to be de minimis and therefore not calling for any action.  (27) In the absence of any injury caused by imports from Oriental, exports by this company should also be excluded from any action taken.  H. Undertakings  (28) The exporters concerned were informed of the main findings of the preliminary investigation and commented on them. Undertakings were subsequently offered by Fuji and Konishiroku in respect of their exports of certain sensitized paper for colour photographs to the Community.  (29) The effect of the said undertakings will be to increase export prices to the Community to the level which the Commission, having taken into account, on the one hand, the selling price necessary to provide an adequate profit to the main Community producer and, on the other hand, the purchase prices of Community importers and their costs and profit margins, considered necessary to eliminate injury. These increases in no case exceed the dumping margins found in the investigation.  (30) In these circumstances the undertakings offered are considered acceptable and the proceeding may therefore be terminated without imposition of anti-dumping duties.  (31) No objection to this course of action was raised in the Advisory Committee, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  The undertakings given by: Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan, and Konishiroku Photo Industry Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning certain sensitized paper for colour photographs falling within Common Customs Tariff heading No ex 37.03, corresponding to NIMEXE code ex 37.03-29, originating in Japan, are hereby accepted.  Article 2  The anti-dumping proceeding referred to in Article 1 is hereby terminated.  Done at Brussels, 10 May 1984.  For the Commission  Étienne DAVIGNON  Vice-President  (1) OJ No L 339, 31. 12. 1979, p. 1.  (2) OJ No L 178, 22. 6. 1982, p. 9.  (3) OJ No C 292, 28. 10. 1983, p. 2.


Avis juridique important

|

31994D1067

94/1067/Euratom: Council Decision of 15 December 1994 approving the provisional application of the Energy Charter Treaty by Decision of the Commission on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community

Official Journal L 380 , 31/12/1994 P. 0113 - 0113 Finnish special edition: Chapter 12 Volume 3 P. 0161  Swedish special edition: Chapter 12 Volume 3 P. 0161

COUNCIL DECISIONof 15 December 1994approving the  provisional application of the Energy Charter Treaty by Decision of the Commission on behalf of the  European Atomic Energy Community(94/1067/Euratom)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN  UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular  the second paragraph of Article 101 thereof, Having regard to the draft Council decision submitted by the Commission  (1), Whereas the European Energy Charter was signed on 17 December 1991 by the European Communities and  their Member States; Whereas all the signatories to the European Energy Charter undertook to draw up an Energy Charter  Treaty in order to provide a secure and binding international legal framework for the principles  and objectives set out in that Charter; Whereas the implementation of the European Energy Charter is of fundamental importance to Europe's  future, allowing the Commonwealth of Independent States and the countries of central and eastern  Europe to develop their energy potential, while helping to improve security of supply; Whereas it is necessary to consolidate the initiative and the central role of the Community to  enable the latter to participate fully in the implementation of the Energy Charter Treaty; Whereas the provisional application of the Energy Charter Treaty will help attain the objectives of  the European Atomic Energy Community; Whereas these provisions of the Energy Charter Treaty should be applied by the European Atomic  Energy Community on a provisional basis, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Article 1 The provisional application by the European Atomic Energy Community  of the Energy Charter Treaty, to the extent that the Community has competence for the matters  governed by that Treaty, is hereby approved. The text of the Treaty is attached to this Decision  (2). Article 2 This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Done at Brussels, 15 December 1994. For the CouncilThe PresidentA. MERKEL(1) OJ No C 372, 28. 12. 1994, p. 16.  (2) See page 24 of this Official Journal.


Avis juridique important

|

31998D0828(01)

Board of Governors - Increase in the capital of the EIB and related decisions

Official Journal C 269 , 28/08/1998 P. 0009 - 0009

BOARD OF GOVERNORS Increase in the capital of the EIB and related decisions (98/C 269/05)The Board of Governors of the European Investment Bank, at its annual meeting on 5 June 1998, unanimously adopted the following decisions:- the Board of Governors of the EIB decided to increase the Bank's subscribed capital from ECU 62 013 million to ECU 100 000 million,- the paid-in capital shall with effect from 1 January 1999 rise to ECU 6 000 million, or 6 % of the subscribed capital of ECU 100 000 million; the increase in the paid-in capital shall be effected, as of 1 January 1999, through a transfer of ECU 1 348 014 839 from the Bank's free additional reserves,- the increase in the callable capital shall in part take effect subject to formal completion of certain parliamentary procedures at the national level; consequently, the Bank's total subscribed capital shall rise as from 1 January 1999 to at least ECU 95 549 597 250, in which case the remainder shall take effect as soon as the required formalities have been completed,- of the abovementioned amount of free reserves, a further ECU 3 798 700 000 shall be transferred from the free additional reserves to the statutory reserve, so as to establish this at ECU 10 000 million, or 10 % of the ECU 100 000 million subscribed capital,- based on a review of the Bank's requirements of own funds, the Board of Governors further unanimously decided to distribute to the Member States, as an exceptional payment, pro rata of their contributions to the Bank's subscribed capital, ECU 1 000 million, to be funded as to ECU 676 795 744 from the unallocated earned surplus remaining from 1996, the balance of ECU 323 204 256 to be drawn from the ECU 1 105 169 722 operating surplus for 1997,- on 20 August 1997, as part of its endorsement of the Amsterdam special action programme (Official Journal of the European Communities C 10 of 15 January 1998), the Board of Governors approved the appropriation from the Bank's unallocated earned surplus of ECU 200 million for financing sound projects extending the scope of the Bank's financing as specified in the said decision, forming part of an overall amount of up to ECU 1 000 million set aside for that purpose for the period ending in the year 2000. The Board of Governors has now decided to make a further allocation of ECU 300 million for the said purposes from the 1997 surplus,- in connection with the capital increase, the Board of Governors has endorsed the following strategic framework of the Bank.ANNEX THE STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR THE BANK 1. Introductory background The last increase in the Bank's capital (aside from the upwards adjustment to ECU 62 billion made as a result of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden in 1995) was its doubling to ECU 57,6 billion in 1990. All recent increases (as opposed to adjustments), have also doubled the Bank's existing capital (1978, 1981, 1986). In 1990, the new ceiling on lending represented by this amount (namely 250 % of subscribed capital) was expected to suffice until the end of 1995: in the event, operations have continued for two years beyond the prospective horizon for the lending ceiling.Since 1990, Bank lending has risen, in current terms, from a total of ECU 13,4 billion (1990) to ECU 26,2 billion (1997). This represents an average annual growth of 10 %. Within the total, operations outside the Union rose from ECU 0,7 billion in 1990 to ECU 3,2 billion in 1997. Looking at the balance sheet, loans outstanding increased from ECU 61,6 billion to ECU 142,4 billion.The increase during this period reflected a number of fundamental policy and market developments affecting the Bank, including the integration of the East German Länder and the accession of three new member countries. As in the past, several of the developments took their origin or were formalised in a number of European Councils. The Edinburgh European Council at the end of 1992 decided the establishment of the ECU 5 billion Edinburgh facility, with a focus on trans-European networks (TENs) and the environment. It also gave a decisive impetus to the process, launched by the Bank and the Commission, which ultimately led to the creation of the European Investment Fund, in partnership with the banking sector. Another important outcome was closer cooperation between the Bank and the Commission on the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds, now in their turn about to be reformed.In mid-1993 the Copenhagen European Council decided to increase the Edinburgh facility by ECU 2 billion, extending its duration and adding an ECU 1 billion subsidised facility for stimulating investment by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to support employment. In December of that year, the Brussels European Council saw the focus shift to growth, competitiveness and employment, with the emphasis for the Bank on investment-intensive transport and energy TENs and the environment. In 1995, TENs financing was intensified with the process of prioritisation instigated by the Essen Council.In 1997, the Amsterdam European Council invited the Bank to step up its activities, with special reference to a number of sectors, in order to promote the creation of employment in the European Union. Accordingly, the Bank introduced its Amsterdam special action programme (ASAP), involving:- the creation of a special SME window, designed to provide support for new instruments to help finance high-technology and high-growth small and medium-sized enterprises; this can be backed where appropriate by recourse to the annual surpluses of the Bank, up to a ceiling of ECU 1 billion,- the development and reinforcement of EIB activity in the sectors of education, health, urban environment and environmental protection,- a new impetus to the financing of trans-European networks and other large infrastructure networks.The Special Luxembourg Council on employment in November 1997 confirmed the steps already taken and encouraged the Bank to maintain and reinforce the momentum of this programme.On the external side, the activity of the Bank over the period in question has been characterised by the renewal of various mandates, for the African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries (Lomé IV-B), the Mediterranean (including also METAP) and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEEC). To these have been added new theatres of operations, notably the countries of Asia and Latin America, and South Africa, and most recently the preaccession facility for the CEEC accession countries and Cyprus.Against this background, the Board of Directors has discussed the strategic framework for the period expected to be covered by the proposed increase in capital.2. Bank strategy The Bank's strategy will need to develop in line with changing circumstances. However, the main pillars of the Bank's strategy for the duration of the new capital increase that have emerged from these discussions are:- concentrating the Bank's effort on 'peripheral economic areas`, in accordance with its principal mission to support economic convergence and integration. The main priority is to support lagging regions within the Union and the integration of those countries seeking membership of the Union,- also continuing to support key areas of EU policy, as authorised from time to time by its governing bodies, taking account of policy decisions or requests by the European Council, such as the development of TENs, international competitiveness, small and medium-sized enterprises, energy and the environment, and financing operations under specific mandates or other agreements in support of EU external cooperation and development policies.This broad strategy was agreed by the Board in January, 1997. As mentioned above, its main thrust has been reinforced by recent developments:- there has been increasing recognition that the fiscal and monetary disciplines of EMU must be accompanied by a concerted policy to reduce unemployment, including structural changes and increasing competitiveness. The Bank has, among other things, started implementing ASAP in support of the European Council's resolution on growth and employment,- the European Council's decisions on enlargement have given a sharper focus to the Bank's role in this area, and the Bank has now introduced its preaccession lending facility for the candidate countries.In the immediate future, within the above broad strategy, the Bank's top priority is to support economic and monetary union. On the lending side, this is reflected in the ASAP programme. As regards its borrowing strategy, the Bank will continue its innovative euro policy. This involves assisting with the establishment of euro benchmarks, investor diversification, and the creation of an organised market for EIB eurobonds. Diversification of markets, particularly in the Central and East European Countries, will be developed together with innovation into attractive, cost-effective products.3. Priority-setting in an evolving environment While financial sector integration over time should have the effect of further increasing the access of project promoters to alternative sources of capital, there will remain a significant role for the Bank in the coming years. Investment levels have fallen, in part due to the macroeconomic adjustment of preparing for EMU, and public investment is likely to remain constrained. However, the Bank can help to support investment growth by providing low-cost, long-term finance, and through lending to new forms of public-private partnerships.Owing both to its own resource constraints and to the principle of subsidiarity, an assessment of the Bank's priorities is needed. These must evolve with time, but there are a number of general observations that can be made.It is important for the Bank to focus on those sectors that are of highest priority for the EU, and the projects financed should be particularly relevant for attaining these goals. However, this is not sufficient to ensure the Bank contributes added-value. Under its Statute (Article 18(1)), the Bank lends to the extent that funds are not available from other sources on reasonable terms. An additional contribution from the EIB comes about when, in complement to other sources of finance:- it can demonstrate in project financing proposals that an EIB loan is more appropriate than other sources for the project in question (for example, when the project has a long economic life, thus justifying a long maturity),- the Bank advances or improves the project in some additional way. This can come about because its presence lends comfort to private investors regarding a project's regulatory risks (the EU 'stamp of approval`). This also applies to the political risks of lending outside the Union. In this way the Bank can act as a catalyst for other sources of finance, not least in public-private partnerships. Equally, the technical expertise of the Bank can itself add value.In developing its future lending strategy, as to both sectors and regions, the Bank should be guided by the above principles. The Bank should seek to focus on those areas of highest added-value, while lower emphasis should be accorded to projects of lesser added-value. When adequate funding on appropriate terms is available from the market and the Bank's intervention does not otherwise enhance the speed of implementation or quality of the project, the Bank should leave the financing of the project to other sources in accordance with Article 18(1) of the Statute.The evolution of such priorities will be discussed with the Board on an annual basis in the context of a forward-looking corporate operational plan, to be approved by the Board. This is explained in more detail below.4. Subsidiarity and cooperation with the financial sector Within the above framework, cooperation with the banking sector and other financial intermediaries operating on the capital markets is one of the guiding principles for implementing the Bank's strategy. Indeed, the development and diversification of this cooperation will remain a priority for years to come. This reflects both the goal of subsidiarity and straightforward practical considerations.In order to maximise its leverage, the Bank will act in all circumstances according to the principle of complementarity and will only fund that share of the project deemed necessary to fulfil its agreed policy objectives. The Bank will work even more closely with other banks to make the partnership more efficient, and will seek (for example, by developing new products) to enhance its catalytic role.This may include encouraging the access of borrowers to capital markets as well as collaborating in the financing plan with commercial lenders. For example, the Bank will assist regional banks and specialist institutions (such as for SMEs) as they face the challenge of adapting to the single market in financial services. Reflecting the EIB's primary mission, this would be particularly relevant in assisted areas. A similar role could be played in the preaccession countries, or other neighbouring countries of the Union. In developing this collaboration, as with other spheres of its activity, the Bank will pay careful attention to avoiding any distortions to competition. One consequence of the annual discussion of priorities is that, for investments of lesser added-value, the Bank would reduce the proportion of project costs that it finances. The complementarity of the Bank's loan will be outlined fully in project documentation.The practical need for cooperation with the financial sector applies generally, but is most prominent in the case of lending to SMEs. Indeed, in terms of cost-effectiveness the global loan instrument is the only viable and economical mechanism it can deploy to support a large number of SMEs. However, the global loan approach will be reviewed in order to ensure that, among other things, the maximum benefits possible are received by the ultimate recipients of SME financing. In the medium term, the Bank's approach to SME finance could be further enriched through experience gained with alternative instruments under the ASAP SME window.Of course, cooperation with the financial sector extends to the liability side of the Bank's balance sheet, through its financial operations. Every year, reports on the overall cooperation between the Bank and the financial sector, for both lending and borrowing activities, will be addressed to the Board of Directors.5. Partnership with the EIF An additional concrete example of the philosophy of partnership is the creation of the European Investment Fund, as the shareholding structure of the EIF brings together both public and private partners in an innovative way. The development of the partnership between the Bank and the Fund is one of the EIB's priorities. This was exemplified in the establishment in October 1997 (following the Amsterdam European Council) of the European technology facility to act through specialist venture capital funds in support of technology-oriented and high-growth SMEs.The Bank and the Fund will continue to pursue the reinforcement and widening of their cooperation. In order to make this as effective as possible, the Bank will rationalise its working relationships with the EIF, while ensuring that it still provides the greatest possible operational support for the Fund.Moreover, to support more effectively key EU policies, the Bank will consult with the EIF on the possibility of enhancing its operations in the following two directions: firstly, it will examine the possibility of extending its sphere of activity to the environmental sector; secondly, within the framework of the preaccession facility, it will explore the possibilities for the selective extension of operations in Central and Eastern Europe to include trans-European networks between the countries of the region. Subject to the views of the Fund's other shareholders and the decisions of its general meeting, proposals along these lines may in due course be brought forward.6. Cooperation with the Commission Within the broader EU context, lending by the Bank for regional development is complemented by EU budgetary resources. Coordination of these two sources of funds, and hence cooperation between the Bank and the Commission, is essential for effective support for the regions.Both the Bank and the Commission already cooperate closely, but they have looked at ways to improve their effectiveness in the next decade. Improvements to operating procedures by both institutions will make for even better collaboration in the future. This is a timely issue since the Commission has produced its Agenda 2000, and the next round of negotiations with Member States concerning the Structural Funds is getting under way.The Bank, while taking into account the respective roles of the regions and the Commission in this process, has proposed the following specific measures, approved by the Board of Directors:- the Bank will seek to strengthen its participation in the preparatory programming and negotiating stages of structural operations,- the Bank will seek to increase consultation between the institutions on co-financing operations. Subject to any considerations of commercial confidentiality, the Bank will make its project analysis available to the Commission for these projects,- the Bank will continue to offer its technical services to the Commission on a cost-covering remunerated basis. Such services are already used to appraise projects for the Cohesion Fund, and, as appropriate, this could be extended to selected ERDF or TEN projects.7. Implementing the strategy: Pricing policy The Bank achieves its basic objective of promoting the balanced development of the European Union by making available in all Member States, and especially the less prosperous regions of the Union, the collective benefits of its financial strength. Its pricing policy is based on the principles of non-profit seeking (meeting obligations and covering expenses, Article 19(1) of the Statute), non-discrimination, and transparency. Within the specific ASAP mandate, an additional guideline is the goal of achieving an appropriate balance between risk and remuneration.An important evolution in the operations of the Bank is that the variation in appraisal costs between projects is increasing, and this trend may well accelerate over the coming years. The Bank has already adapted its uniform pricing approach to some degree to take into account the varying costs of different categories of loans (notably a lower margin for large loans and for loans with repeat borrowers). It proposes to modulate prices further, in particular through adding a further mark-up for certain high cost operations. These include:- structured/project-finance when obtaining privileged status as secured lender presents difficulties for the Bank,- and certain corporates that are only able to offer security or collateral which is less immediately recoverable.The Bank's Statute requires that each individual operation carry adequate guarantees. The Bank continues to believe that for normal operations there are sufficient ways to control risk by externalising (i.e. mitigating or transferring) it to third-party guarantees or other securities. In this way, the overall price of EIB finance also reflects credit risk. Indeed, externalising the risk of projects is also an important source of collaboration between the EIB and the commercial banking sector.However, there are certain categories of projects, within guidelines and limits to be agreed by the Board of Directors (such as some TENs, public-private partnerships, or corporate and structured project loans) and workouts where it may not be possible to externalise some elements of risk in accordance with the Bank's normal practice. In these cases, and subject to maintaining an acceptable risk profile, the Bank will reconsider its approach and, where appropriate, include a premium in the mark-up. The Bank will develop more specific proposals on the above guidelines, limits and other aspects, as soon as possible. However, it is clear that there will be no change as to the assessment of sovereign risks for Member States, and thus no discrimination on grounds of risk between this group of borrowers.8. Operations outside the European Union The Bank's operations outside the Union are based on mandates from the European Council. The general approach to such lending was last reviewed by the Board of Governors at the annual meeting in 1994, when the key issues pinpointed were the indicative ceiling on operations of 10 % of the Bank's average overall activity and the need for further reflection on the question of the Union's guarantee.An important subsequent development has been the establishment of the preaccession facility for Central and Eastern Europe. This has no EU budgetary guarantee, and is not included in the 10 % guideline mentioned above. In general, a system of risk-sharing by the Bank has been established for a range of operations.The immediate priority is to execute existing mandates: Lomé (for the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries), South Africa, Asia and Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean. These will progressively come to an end over the next two years, and the governing bodies of the Bank will have to consider its overall role in supporting EU external cooperation and development policies.These issues cannot be decided immediately, but, at the present stage, there are a number of principles for guiding future strategy discussions. For example:- the Bank will continue to be the financial institution of the Member States and its core activity should be within these States or to their direct benefit. Lending outside the Union will be carried out under specific mandates from the Member States and should remain a complementary activity,- it will pursue close collaboration with the Commission, (in conformity with the Union's overall development strategy in the individual country or group of countries concerned) and with other international financial institutions and national agencies. It will seek to coordinate its operations and project conditionality with those agencies,- it will contribute to the development of the private sector, including the building of appropriate financing institutions and support to SMEs. As for lending within the European Union, it will finance investments to the extent that funds are not available from other sources on reasonable terms (Article 18(1) of the Statute),- the Bank will require adequate guarantees from budgetary sources, though it will continue to share risks in appropriate cases.The observations made in earlier sections regarding additionality, maximising leverage, and partnership with the commercial banking sector also apply, mutatis mutandis, both within and outside the Union. Among other things, the 10 % indicative ceiling on outstandings for loans outside the Union will have to be considered in line with lending policies. Further discussion of these issues will take place with the Board of Directors in anticipation of the next round of external mandates.9. Lending priorities and the effective use of the Bank's resources The evolving economic and financial environment means that the implementation of the broad strategy must be carefully monitored and adapted in the light of economic and financial developments as well as the Bank's past performance. To ensure the contribution to EU policies is maximised, and to make the most effective use of its resources, the Bank will develop a forward-looking corporate operational plan for annual discussion with, and approval by the Board. This will include sectoral analyses of lending both within and outside the Union. The operational plan, to be updated on a rolling basis, will provide a concrete framework for discussing priorities and objectives, and for setting new priorities and objectives on an ongoing basis, bearing in mind those tasks that may increasingly be left to other sources of finance. This would also provide a suitable context in which to review the annual report on the cooperation with the financial sector mentioned above.The corporate operational plan will provide a framework for performance evaluation. It will integrate feedback from the analysis of the quality of the project portfolio according to a set of performance criteria and the findings of the Bank's Evaluation Unit. This could include ways of improving operational procedures, for example a programme approach in some areas. Over the last few years, the Bank has considerably developed its systems to monitor its performance as a financial intermediary. The Bank will continue to develop systems to monitor activities, including benchmarking its financial operations and the comprehensive analysis of risks.Taking a longer-term perspective, the Bank will also consider further its capital and reserves requirements in preparation for a review with the Board of Directors in 2001 including a review of key ratios.A related issue to the medium-term outlook is the resources needed to achieve the Bank's objectives. With a small staff and the objective of keeping administrative expenses firmly under control, the Bank must continue carefully to identify its human resource requirements, and appropriate staff skills should be developed in line with the strategic priorities. The Board's discussion of the corporate operational plan referred to above will also provide a framework for setting strategic orientations regarding the Bank's allocation of resources.


title: Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/203 of 9 February 2015 in support of the Union proposal for an international Code of Conduct for outer-space activities as a contribution to transparency and confidence-building measures in outer-space activities

text:
                  10.2.2015

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 33/38

         COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2015/203
         of 9 February 2015
         in support of the Union proposal for an international Code of Conduct for outer-space activities as a contribution to transparency and confidence-building measures in outer-space activities
         THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
         Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 thereof,
         Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     Space activities are expanding and their importance is crucial. Space is a resource for all states in the world. Those which do not yet have space activities could have them in the future. Therefore, the Union considers that strengthening the security of outer-space activities is an important goal that will contribute to the development and security of states. This objective is part of the Union's space policy.

                     (2)

                     On 12 December 2003, the European Council adopted a European Security Strategy identifying global challenges and threats, and calling for a rule-based international order based on effective multilateralism and well-functioning international institutions.

                     (3)

                     The European Security Strategy acknowledges the United Nations Charter as the fundamental framework for international relations and advocates strengthening the United Nations (UN) and equipping it to fulfil its responsibilities and to act effectively. The Union works towards a high degree of cooperation in all fields of international relations, in order, inter alia, to preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.

                     (4)

                     The Union is committed to the development and implementation of transparency and confidence-building measures, as a means to achieve enhanced space security. The Union is also particularly sensitive to the issue of the risks posed by space debris, irrespective of its origins, which is detrimental to present and future activities.

                     (5)

                     On 18 September 2007, in its reply to UN General Assembly resolution 61/75 of 6 December 2006, the Union introduced its proposal for an international Code of Conduct for outer-space activities (‘the Code of Conduct’) and launched consultations to promote the development of a preliminary draft.

                     (6)

                     In its Conclusions of 8-9 December 2008, the Council of the European Union supported the first draft for an international Code of Conduct, in which states would participate on a voluntary basis, and which included transparency and confidence-building measures, as a basis for consultations with key third states that have activities in outer space or have interests in outer-space activities, with the aim of securing a text that is acceptable to the greatest number of states.

                     (7)

                     On 27 September 2010, the Council of the European Union gave a mandate to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) to carry out further and wider consultations on the basis of a revised version of the draft Code of Conduct produced by the Union in the light of consultations with interested states.

                     (8)

                     The Union proposal for a draft Code of Conduct was formally presented to the international community in Vienna on 5 June 2012. Subsequently a process of open-ended consultations (OEC) on the draft text was initiated, with the aim of increasing the transparency and inclusivity of the process. Three rounds of consultations were held, the latter two on revised versions of the Code of Conduct: on 16-17 May 2013 in Kyiv, on 20-22 November 2013 in Bangkok and, finally, on 27-28 May 2014 in Luxembourg. Each of those meetings was attended by participants from more than 60 states, and altogether included participants from more than 80 states.

                     (9)

                     At the end of the OEC held in Luxembourg on 27-28 May 2014, the Chair concluded that the process of three rounds of OEC held by the European External Action Service (EEAS) with the involvement of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) in 2013-2014 had played a valuable role in developing a better mutual understanding of positions and concerns among the participating states. A strong desire had been expressed by many participants in Luxembourg to move the process from a consultative to a negotiating phase, in which the draft text of the Code of Conduct, developed in the OEC process, to which many states had contributed and which remained open to further changes, should serve as the basis for future multilateral negotiations. A number of participants in the OEC process had noted the need for some kind of UN endorsement. Following the OEC held in Luxembourg, the Union undertook to produce a new draft text of the Code of Conduct and indicated its readiness to reflect and consult on how it could further support the future multilateral negotiations, as well as subscription to, and implementation of, the future Code of Conduct.

                     (10)

                     Council Decision 2012/281/CFSP (1), implemented by UNIDIR, has been instrumental in supporting that process. It has allowed for the dissemination of information, the exchange of views and for building the capacities of stakeholders in the Code of Conduct, and has resulted in increased awareness and understanding of the Code of Conduct. The key activities under that Decision have been regional seminars (Kuala Lumpur, December 2012; Addis Ababa, March 2013; Mexico City, June 2013; Astana, October 2013) and the abovementioned multilateral meetings in Vienna (June 2012), Kyiv (May 2013), Bangkok (November 2013) and Luxembourg (May 2014) that served as a platform to present and discuss the Code internationally and show the Union's commitment to a transparent and inclusive process.

                     (11)

                     In its ‘Study on outer-space transparency and confidence-building measures’ dated 12 July 2013, the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE), established by the UN Secretary-General pursuant to UN General Assembly Resolution 65/68, noted the presentation of the Code of Conduct by the Union, as well as the OEC held in Kyiv. In the conclusions and recommendations of its study, the GGE endorsed efforts to pursue political commitments, such as a multilateral code of conduct to encourage responsible actions in, and the peaceful use of, outer space.

                     (12)

                     On 5 December 2013, the UN General Assembly adopted by consensus Resolution A/RES/68/50 on transparency and confidence-building measures in outer-space activities, welcoming the report of the UN Secretary-General containing the study of the GGE and noting the presentation by the Union of the draft Code of Conduct. That Resolution further encourages UN Member States to review and implement the transparency and confidence-building measures (TCBMs) proposed by the GGE and requests the Secretary-General to circulate the report to the relevant entities and organisations of the UN in order that they may assist in effectively implementing the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report. Relevant UN entities and organisations are further encouraged to coordinate on matters related to the recommendations contained in the report.

                     (13)

                     Considering the momentum gained in the process of OEC led by the Union on the draft Code of Conduct and the wish of international partners for the Union to continue to lead this process towards final adoption of the Code of Conduct and provide means for its implementation immediately after adoption, the support for the process, successfully started under Decision 2012/281/CFSP, should continue on the basis of a new Council Decision.

                     (14)

                     The new Council Decision should support further work to enhance awareness of TCBMs in outer-space activities, including the proposal for an international Code of Conduct, as well as negotiations on the Code of Conduct and its formal adoption, while assistance for the implementation of the Code of Conduct and its point of contact could be provided through a future Council Decision

                     (15)

                     The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) and UNIDIR should be entrusted by the Council with the technical implementation of this Decision. While UNODA already plays a key role in the implementation of the recommendations in the 2013 report by the UN GEE on TCBMs in outer-space activities, UNIDIR will be in a position to build on the experience gained in regional outreach activities under Decision 2012/281/CFSP,

               HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

            Article 1
            To support its proposal for an international Code of Conduct for outer-space activities (‘the Code of Conduct’) as a contribution to the creation of TCBMs in outer-space activities in line with UNGA Resolution A/RES/68/50, the Union pursues the following objective:

                        —

                        drawing from experience made under Decision 2012/281/CFSP, to continue to lead the multilateral process on the proposal for an international Code of Conduct for outer-space activities, involving all interested states in an inclusive and transparent manner with a view to building the widest possible consensus on the draft Code of Conduct with a view to its adoption by the international community:

            Article 2

               1.   The projects to be supported by the Union shall cover the following specific activities:

                           (a)

                           to continue to enhance awareness, knowledge and understanding of the proposal for an international Code of Conduct and the process led by the Union.

                           (b)

                           to continue to provide a framework for the multilateral process on the proposal for an international Code of Conduct for outer-space activities, that will enable the international community to continue to engage with a view to building the widest possible consensus for adoption of the Code of Conduct, through supporting multilateral meetings for negotiations on the draft Code of Conduct, as well for as its formal adoption.

               2.   The projects and specific activities are described in detail in the Annex.

            Article 3

               1.   The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision.

               2.   The technical implementation of the projects referred to in Article 2 shall be carried out by the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) and the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), as specified in the Annex. UNODA and UNIDIR shall perform those tasks under the responsibility of the HR. For that purpose, the HR will enter into the necessary arrangements with UNODA and UNIDIR.

            Article 4

               1.   The financial reference amount for the implementation of the measures referred to in Article 1 shall be EUR 1 274 398,85. The total estimated budget of the overall project shall be EUR 1 475 955,15, which shall be provided through co-financing by UNODA and UNIDIR.

               2.   The expenditure financed by the amount stipulated in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with Union procedures and rules applicable to the general Union budget.

               3.   The Commission shall supervise the proper implementation of the Union's contribution referred to in paragraph 1. For this purpose, it shall conclude financing agreements with UNODA and UNIDIR. The agreements shall stipulate that UNODA and UNIDIR are to ensure that the visibility of the Union contribution is appropriate to its size.

               4.   The Commission shall endeavour to conclude the financing agreements referred to in paragraph 3 as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Decision. It shall inform the Council and the HR of any difficulties in the process and of the date of conclusion of the financing agreement within two weeks of signature.

            Article 5

               1.   The HR shall report to the Council on the implementation of this Decision on the basis of regular reports to be prepared by UNODA and UNIDIR. Those reports shall form the basis for the evaluation by the Council.

               2.   The Commission shall provide information on the financial aspects of the implementation of the projects referred to in Article 2.

            Article 6

               1.   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

               2.   It shall expire 24 months after the conclusion of the relevant financing agreements referred to in Article 4(3), or six months after the date of its adoption if no financing agreement has been concluded within this period.

            Done at Brussels, 9 February 2015.

                  For the Council

                  The President

               F. MOGHERINI

            (1)  Council Decision 2012/281/CFSP of 29 May 2012 in the framework of the European Security Strategy in support of the Union proposal for an international Code of Conduct on outer-space activities (OJ L 140, 30.5.2012, p. 68).

            ANNEX
            1.   General Framework and Objectives

            Space assets, operated by an increasing number of governmental and non-governmental entities, offer the world enormous benefits unimaginable just a few decades ago. Today these benefits are accompanied by significant challenges stemming from dangerous orbital debris and thus the potential of destructive collisions, the crowding of satellites in geo-stationary orbit, the growing saturation of the radio-frequency spectrum, as well as the threat of purposeful disruption. These challenges call for the serious involvement of all states to ensure greater safety and security in outer space.
            Following UN General Assembly Resolutions 61/75 of 6 December 2006 and 62/43 of 5 December 2007 on transparency and confidence-building measures in outer-space activities and in response to the request by the UN Secretary-General to UN members for 'concrete proposals' on TCBMs, the Union introduced in September 2007 the proposal for a voluntary Code of Conduct. Initial consultations with third states were launched and the first draft 'Code of Conduct for outer-space activities' was approved by the Council on 8-9 December 2008. In the light of further consultations with interested states, the Council endorsed on 27 September 2010 a revised version of the draft Code of Conduct and gave a mandate to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) to carry out further and wider consultations with a view to establishing a text for a Code of Conduct that is acceptable to the greatest number of states and its adoption.
            In carrying out that mandate, consultations continued and a revised version of the Code of Conduct was formally presented to the international community at a multilateral meeting held on 5 June 2012 in Vienna. Subsequently, a process of OEC on the draft text was initiated, with the aim of making the process more transparent and inclusive. Three rounds of consultations were held, the latter two on revised versions of the text: on 16-17 May 2013 in Kyiv, on 20-22 November 2013 in Bangkok and, finally, on 27-28 May 2014 in Luxembourg. Each of these meetings was attended by participants from more than 60 states, and altogether included participants from more than 80 states.
            At the end of the OEC held in Luxembourg on 27-28 May 2014, the Chair concluded that the process of three rounds of OEC held by the EEAS with the involvement of the UNIDIR in 2013-2014 had played a valuable role in developing a better mutual understanding of positions and concerns among the participating states. A strong desire had been expressed by many participants in Luxembourg to move the process promptly from a consultative to a negotiating phase, in which the draft text of the Code of Conduct, developed in the OEC process, to which many states had contributed and which remained open to further changes, could serve as the basis for future multilateral negotiations. A number of participants had noted the need for some kind of UN endorsement. Following the OEC held in Luxembourg, the Union would produce a new draft of the Code of Conduct and remained ready to reflect and consult on how it could further support the future multilateral negotiations, as well as subscription to, and implementation of the future Code of Conduct.
            The UN General Assembly, in light of the Secretary General's report requested by resolution 61/75, voted on 8 December 2010 resolution 65/68, in which it asked the Secretary-General to establish a Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on transparency and confidence building measures in outer-space activities to prepare a study on TCBMs. The Union, which considers that a Code of Conduct could be a contribution to TCBMs, has briefed the UN GGE on progress regarding the work on the Code of Conduct, during the GGEs three meetings in July 2012, April 2013 and July 2013. The UN GGE finalised its study and recommendations in July 2013. It recommended that states and international organisations, on a voluntary basis and without prejudice to the implementation of obligations deriving from existing legal commitments, consider and implement the TCBMs described in the GGE's report and endorsed efforts to pursue political commitments, for example, in the form of unilateral declarations, bilateral commitments or a multilateral code of conduct, to encourage responsible actions in, and the peaceful use of, outer space. GGE concluded that voluntary political measures can form the basis for consideration of concepts and proposals for legally binding obligations.
            On 5 December 2013, the UN General Assembly adopted by consensus Resolution A/RES/68/50 on transparency and confidence-building measures in outer-space activities, welcoming the report of the UN Secretary-General containing the study of the GGE and noting the presentation by the Union of the draft Code of Conduct. The Resolution further encourages UN Member States to review and implement the TCBMs proposed by the GGE and requests the Secretary-General to circulate the report to the relevant entities and organisations of the UN in order that they may assist in effectively implementing the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report. Relevant UN entities and organisations are further encouraged to coordinate on matters related to the recommendations contained in the report.
            Since the initial presentation of the draft Code of Conduct to the international community in June 2012, activities under Decision 2012/281/CFSP 'in support of the Union proposal for an international Code of Conduct for outer-space activities' have been instrumental in raising awareness on the Code of Conduct and in supporting the multilateral process. Under the contribution agreement signed in June 2012, UNIDIR organised a series of regional seminars (in Kuala Lumpur, Addis Ababa, Mexico City and Astana) and supported four larger multilateral meetings held by the EEAS in Vienna, Kyiv, Bangkok and Luxembourg. All these meetings were supported by travel sponsorship to facilitate participation by officials and experts.
            Decision 2012/281/CFSP has supported the dissemination of information and exchange of views on the Code of Conduct and resulted in increased awareness and understanding of the Code within regions, as well as internationally, among experts and policy makers. It has helped the Union to demonstrate its commitment to manage the process towards the adoption of the Code of Conduct as a transparent and inclusive process. The meetings organised under the that Decision have also served as a platform to engage with those states that have remained critical towards the Code of Conduct, encouraging them to articulate their concerns in a multilateral setting with the possibility of counter-argument and debate.
            Considering the momentum gained in the process of discussions on the Code of Conduct and, in particular, the key development of the UN GGE endorsement, the adoption by consensus of UNGA Resolution A/RES/68/50 and the outcome of the OEC held in Luxembourg on 27-28 May 2014, the Union should continue actively to support the creation of TCBMs in outer-space activities by continuing to promote and work towards the adoption of the Code of Conduct.
            For this purpose, and drawing from the experience under Decision 2012/281/CFSP, the Union should support the following activities:

                        —

                        continue to enhance awareness, knowledge and understanding of TCBMs as proposed by the GGE report, including the proposal of an international Code of Conduct and the process led by the European Union.

                        —

                        continue to provide a framework for the multilateral process on the proposal of an international Code of Conduct for outer-space activities, that will enable the international community to continue to engage with a view to building the widest possible consensus for adoption of the Code of Conduct, through supporting multilateral meetings for negotiations on the draft Code of Conduct, as well as for its formal adoption.

                  2.   Projects

                        a.

                        Project 1: Outreach: Promotion of political commitments to encourage responsible actions in and the peaceful use of, outer space, including the proposal for an international Code of Conduct for outer-space activities
                        1.   Project Purpose

                                    1.

                                    Through the organisation of outreach events, to engage with stakeholders to expand upon existing awareness, knowledge and understanding of efforts to pursue political commitments to encourage responsible actions in, and the peaceful use of, outer space, including the proposal for an international Code of Conduct for outer-space activities, in the context of promoting TCBMs in outer-space activities.

                              2.   Project Results/Implementation indicators

                                    1.

                                    At least three outreach events have been held in the margins of international conferences, leading to enhanced awareness, knowledge and understanding by the relevant stakeholders of TCBMs, including in the proposed international Code of Conduct, including the requirements for practical implementation.

                                    2.

                                    Four regional or sub-regional seminars have been held with attendance of at least a majority of states from the relevant regions.

                                    3.

                                    An enhanced climate for political progress, as reflected in an attendance of the multilateral meetings envisaged under project 2 that is higher than the attendance of the OEC on the Code of Conduct (61 states) supported under Decision 2012/281/CFSP.

                              3.   Project Description

                                    1.

                                    Up to four regional or sub-regional seminars are envisaged for discussion on TCBMs with a focus on the future Code of Conduct and its practical operation, including national planning for implementation, leading up to the Code of Conduct being opened for subscription.

                                    2.

                                    Organisation of up to four small outreach events organised at regional and/or international level, for example in the margins of the UN General Assembly or Conference on Disarmament, to promote and support the next stage of the process.

                                    3.

                                    The decision on the venues will be taken by the HR, where possible in consultation with the EU Member States, based on proposals by the implementing entity.

                        b.

                        Project 2: Organisation of up to three multilateral meetings involving all interested states to facilitate negotiations on the basis of the draft text developed through the OEC for an international Code of Conduct with a view to achieving its conclusion and formal adoption
                        1.   Project Purpose

                                    1.

                                    As an implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the UN GGE, to bring together representatives from interested states and other parties for negotiations on the proposal for an international Code of Conduct for outer-space activities, with a view to the adoption of the Code of Conduct.

                              2.   Project Results/Implementation indicators

                                    1.

                                    The achievement of a diplomatic process that has allowed negotiations on the proposal for a Code of Conduct, including the holding of a negotiating conference and a subscription conference.

                                    2.

                                    Broad international support for the proposal for a Code of Conduct enabling its adoption by the international community by the first half of 2016.

                              3.   Project Description

                                    1.

                                    Organisation of up to three open-ended multilateral meetings to which UN Member States and relevant organisations will be invited, including:

                                                (a)

                                                up to two negotiating conferences that will allow the international community to engage on the draft Code of Conduct, as developed in the process of OEC, with a view to finalising the text;

                                                (b)

                                                a conference for the subscription to the Code of Conduct.

                                    2.

                                    The decision on the venues will be taken by the HR, where possible in consultation with the EU Member States, based on proposals by the implementing entity.

                  3.   Procedural aspects and coordination

                        a.

                        The implementation of the projects will be initiated by a Steering Committee with an objective of determining procedures and modalities for cooperation. The Steering Committee shall review the implementation of the projects regularly, at least once per six months, including through the use of electronic and VTC means.

                        b.

                        The Steering Committee will be composed of representatives of the High Representative, UNODA, UNIDIR and relevant UN institutions, as appropriate.

                        c.

                        On the basis of a proposals submitted by UNODA and UNIDIR, the location and structural composition of workshops and meetings of this project will be decided by the HR, where possible in consultation with the EU Member States.

                  4.   Reporting and Assessment

                        a.

                        The implementing entities shall submit to the HR a narrative and financial report at the end of the first year of the project, endeavouring to coincide with the UN reporting cycles.

                        b.

                        The implementing entities will submit the HR a final report at the completion of the project.

                        c.

                        The implementing entities progress and situation reports, publications, press releases and updates will be communicated to the HR and the European Commission as and when they are issued.

                  5.   Duration

            The estimated implementation period for this project is 24 months.
            6.   Beneficiaries

                        a.

                        UN Member States.

                        b.

                        Non-governmental stakeholders including civil society and industry.

                  7.   Third Party Representatives

                        a.

                        In order to promote regional ownership of the international Code of Conduct on space activities, the participation of non-EU experts, including those from relevant regional and international organisations, may be funded by this decision.

                        b.

                        Participation of UNODA, UNIDIR and the UNOOSA representatives in activities related to this decision will be funded, as required.

                  8.   Implementing Entity

                        a.

                        The technical implementation of this Decision will be entrusted to the UNODA for the implementation of subproject 3.2 (outreach events) of project 1, as well as project 2, and to the UNIDIR for the implementation of subproject 3.1 (regional and sub-regional seminars) of project 1.

                        b.

                        UNODA and UNIDIR, where appropriate, will work with institutions such as UNOOSA, international and regional organisations, think tanks, NGOs and industry.


title: Council Decision 2006/96/CFSP of  14 February 2006  implementing Common Position 2004/179/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova

text:
               15.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 44/32

      COUNCIL DECISION 2006/96/CFSP
   of 14 February 2006
   implementing Common Position 2004/179/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to Common Position 2004/179/CFSP (1), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof, in conjunction with Article 23(2) of the Treaty on European Union,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 23 February 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/179/CFSP concerning restrictive measures, in the form of restrictions on admission, against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova. These measures were renewed by Common Position 2006/95/CFSP (2).

               (2)

               Annex I to Common Position 2004/179/CFSP should be amended following the changes in the functions of the persons covered by the restrictive measures,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   Annex I to Common Position 2004/179/CFSP shall be replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 14 February 2006.

            For the Council

            The President

         K.-H. GRASSER

      (1)  OJ L 55, 24.2.2004, p. 68. Common Position as last amended by Decision 2005/890/CFSP (OJ L 327, 14.12.2005, p. 33).

      (2)  See page 31 of this Official Journal.

      ANNEX

            ‘ANNEX I
            List of persons referred to in Article 1(1), first indent

                        1.

                        SMIRNOV, Igor Nikolayevich, “President”, born on 23 October 1941 in Khabarovsk, Russian Federation, Russian passport No 50 NO. 0337530.

                        2.

                        SMIRNOV, Vladimir Igorevich, son of No 1 and “Chairman of the State Customs Committee”, born on 3 April 1961 in Kupiansk (?), Kharkovskaya Oblast, Ukraine, Russian passport No 50 NO. 00337016.

                        3.

                        SMIRNOV, Oleg Igorevich, son of No 1 and “Adviser to the State Customs Committee”, born on 8 August 1967 in Novaya Kakhovka, Khersonskaya Oblast, Ukraine, Russian passport No 60 NO. 1907537.

                        4.

                        LEONTIYEV, Serghey Fedorovich, “Vice-President”, born on 9 February 1944 in Leontiyevka, Odesskaya Oblast, Ukraine, Russian passport No 50 NO. 0065438.

                        5.

                        MARAKUTSA, Grigory Stepanovich, “Member of the Supreme Soviet”, born on 15 October 1942 in Teya, Grigoriopolsky Raion, Moldova, old Soviet passport No 8BM724835.

                        6.

                        KAMINSKY, Anatoly Vladimirovich, “Vice-Chairman of the Supreme Soviet”, born on 15 March 1950 in Chita, Russian Federation, old Soviet passport No A25056238.

                        7.

                        SHEVCHUK, Evgheny Vassilyevich, “Chairman of the Supreme Soviet”, born on 21 June 1946 in Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, old Soviet passport No A25004230.

                        8.

                        LITSKAI, Valery Anatolyevich, “Minister for Foreign Affairs”, born on 13 February 1949 in Tver, Russian Federation, Russian passport No 51 NO. 0076099, issued 9 August 2000.

                        9.

                        KHAZHEYEV, Stanislav Galimovich, “Minister for Defence”, born on 28 December 1941 in Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation.

                        10.

                        ANTYUFEYEV, Vladimir Yuryevich, alias SHEVTSOV, Vadim, “Minister for State Security”, born in 1951 in Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, Russian passport.

                        11.

                        KOROLYOV, Alexandr Ivanovich, “Minister for Internal Affairs”, born in 1951 in Briansk, Russian Federation, Russian passport.

                        12.

                        BALALA, Viktor Alekseyevich, born in 1961 in Vinnitsa, Ukraine.

                        13.

                        AKULOV, Boris Nikolayevich, “Representative of Transnistria in Ukraine”.

                        14.

                        ZAKHAROV, Viktor Pavlovich, “Prosecutor of Transnistria”, born in 1948 in Kamenka, Moldova.

                        15.

                        LIPOVTSEV, Alexey Valentinovich, “Deputy Chairman of State Customs Service”.

                        16.

                        GUDYMO, Oleg Andreyevich, “Deputy Minister for State Security”, born on 11 September 1944 in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, Russian passport No 51 NO. 0592094.

                        17.

                        KOSOVSKY, Eduard Alexandrovich, “Chairman of the Transnistrian Republican Bank”, born on 7 October 1958 in Floreşti, Moldova.’


title: Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2016/1632 of 26 July 2016 on the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger) (EUCAP Sahel Niger/1/2016)

text:
               10.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 243/6

         POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION (CFSP) 2016/1632
   of 26 July 2016
   on the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger) (EUCAP Sahel Niger/1/2016)
   THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,
   Having regard to the Council Decision 2012/392/CFSP of 16 July 2012 on the European Union CSDP mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger) (1), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Decision 2012/392/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising the political control and strategic direction of EUCAP Sahel Niger, including, in particular, the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

               (2)

               On 6 May 2014, the PSC adopted Decision EUCAP Sahel Niger/2/2014 (2), appointing Mr Filip DE CEUNINCK as Head of Mission of EUCAP Sahel Niger from 6 May 2014 to 15 July 2014.

               (3)

               On 22 July 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/482/CFSP (3), extending the mandate of EUCAP Sahel Niger from 16 July 2014 to 15 July 2016.

               (4)

               On 24 July 2014, the PSC adopted Decision EUCAP Sahel Niger/3/2014 (4), extending the mandate of Mr Filip DE CEUNINCK as Head of Mission of EUCAP Sahel Niger from 16 July 2014 to 15 July 2015.

               (5)

               On 15 April 2015, the PSC adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/611 (5), extending the mandate of Mr Filip DE CEUNINCK as Head of Mission of EUCAP Sahel Niger from 16 July 2015 to 15 July 2016.

               (6)

               On 18 July 2016, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/1172 (6), extending the mandate of EUCAP Sahel Niger from 16 July 2016 to 15 July 2018.

               (7)

               On 22 July 2016, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed the appointment of Ms Kirsi HENRIKSSON as Head of Mission of EUCAP Sahel Niger,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Ms Kirsi HENRIKSSON is hereby appointed as Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger) from 1 September 2016 to 15 July 2017.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 26 July 2016.

            For the Political and Security Committee

            The Chairperson

         W. STEVENS

      (1)  OJ L 187, 17.7.2012, p. 48.

      (2)  Political and Security Committee Decision EUCAP Sahel Niger/2/2014 of 6 May 2014 on the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger) (OJ L 136, 9.5.2014, p. 26).

      (3)  Council Decision 2014/482/CFSP of 22 July 2014 amending Decision 2012/392/CFSP on the European Union CSDP mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger) (OJ L 217, 23.7.2014, p. 31).

      (4)  Political and Security Committee Decision EUCAP Sahel Niger/3/2014 of 24 July 2014 extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger) (OJ L 267, 6.9.2014, p. 5).

      (5)  Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/611 of 15 April 2015 extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger) (EUCAP Sahel Niger/1/2015) (OJ L 101, 18.4.2015, p. 61).

      (6)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1172 of 18 July 2016 amending Decision 2012/392/CFSP on the European Union CSDP mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger) (OJ L 193, 19.7.2016, p. 106).


title: 2008/542/EC: Commission Decision of 13 June 2008 setting up an Expert Group on Credit Histories

text:
               3.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 173/22

      COMMISSION DECISION

   of 13 June 2008
   setting up an Expert Group on Credit Histories
   (2008/542/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Commission Communication on a single market for 21st century Europe (1), adopted in November 2007, was accompanied by a Staff Working Document on retail financial services (2), which stressed the importance of the access to and availability of credit data in promoting competitive retail financial services markets. It also announced the establishment of an expert group on credit histories.

               (2)

               The White Paper on the Integration of EU Mortgage Credit Markets (3) concluded that mortgage lenders and intermediaries should be required to adequately assess, by all appropriate means, the creditworthiness of borrowers before granting mortgage loans. It also concluded that mortgage lenders should not be discriminated against when accessing credit registers in other Member States and that credit data should circulate smoothly, while complying fully with Community data protection rules.

               (3)

               The Commission wishes to identify all legal, regulatory, administrative and other obstacles to the access to and the exchange of credit data, and to be advised on how to address these obstacles whilst ensuring a high level of consumer protection.

               (4)

               The expert group should be composed of individuals having competence in the area of credit data.

               (5)

               It is important to ensure that members of the group provide objective expert advice.

               (6)

               Personal data relating to members of the group should be processed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (4),

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   A group of experts on credit histories (hereinafter referred to as the group) is hereby set up by the Commission.
   Article 2
   Task
   The task of the group is to:

               —

               identify all legal, regulatory, administrative and other obstacles to the access to and the exchange of credit data. In particular, the group shall analyse the possible impacts of the coexistence of different approaches to the organisation and working of credit registers in the Community and identify the consequences thereof from an economic point of view. It will also analyse the existing situation from the consumer protection (including data protection) point of view,

               —

               present proposals as to how the identified obstacles could be addressed. To this end, the group shall aim at identifying solutions which maximise credit data circulation whilst ensuring a high level of consumer protection.

         Article 3
   Composition — Appointment
   1.   The group shall be composed of a maximum of 20 members.
   2.   The members of the group shall be appointed by the Commission from experts with competence in the area covered by the mandate of the group, following a call for expression of interest, on the basis of proposals from any of the following:

               —

               European or national associations, representing the interests of consumers or the financial services industry,

               —

               private or public credit data collectors or credit data processors from Member States,

               —

               representatives of Member States data protection authorities,

               —

               individuals with an academic background or recognised expertise in the area of credit data, including data protection.

         3.   The parties referred to in paragraph 2 shall express their interest in the participation in the Group in writing.
   4.   The Commission shall assess the eligibility of individual experts against the following criteria:

               —

               relevant demonstrable knowledge or competence in relation to the area covered by the mandate of the group,

               —

               recent practical expertise or experience,

               —

               proficiency in a language which is customary in the sphere of finance, at a level which allows the expert to participate in discussions and draft reports in that language.

         Expressions of interest received shall include documentation demonstrating that the proposed expert meets the above conditions.
   5.   The Commission shall select experts having in mind the need to represent the interests of all relevant stakeholders. As stated in its White Paper on Financial Services Policy 2005-2010, the Commission attaches a high importance to having a proportionate user representation. In addition, the Commission shall ensure a broad geographical representation and a balanced gender composition on the basis of the proposals received.
   6.   Proposed experts who have been deemed suitable but have not been appointed may be placed on a reserve list, which the Commission may use for the appointment of replacements.
   7.   The following provisions shall apply:

               —

               members proposed by European or national associations, representing interests of consumers or the financial services industry, or by credit data collectors or credit data processors, are appointed as stakeholders' representatives,

               —

               members from data protection authorities are appointed as representatives of their respective authorities,

               —

               members with an academic background or recognised expertise are appointed in a personal capacity,

               —

               the mandate of the members of the group shall start with the first meeting of the group and end with the completion of a report, no later than 1 May 2009. Members shall remain in office until their replacement or the end of their mandate,

               —

               members who are no longer able to contribute effectively to the group's deliberations, who resign or who do not respect the conditions set out in this Article or Article 287 of the Treaty establishing the European Community may be replaced for the remaining period of their mandate,

               —

               the names of the members shall be published in the Register of Expert Groups of the European Commission (5) and on the Internet site of the DG Internal Market and Services. The names of members are collected, processed and published in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 on the protection of individuals with regards to the processing of personal data,

               —

               members appointed in a personal capacity shall each year sign an undertaking to act in the public interest and a declaration indicating the absence or existence of any interest which may undermine their objectivity.

         Article 4
   Operation
   1.   The group shall be chaired by a representative of the Commission.
   2.   In agreement with the Commission, sub-groups may be set up to examine specific questions under terms of reference established by the group; they shall be disbanded as soon as these have been fulfilled.
   3.   The representative of the Commission may invite experts and observers with specific knowledge to participate in the work of the group and the working groups.
   4.   Information obtained by participating in the group's or sub-group's deliberations may not be divulged if the Commission says that this relates to confidential matters.
   5.   The group and its sub-groups shall normally meet at the Commission premises, in the form and according to the timetable determined by the Commission. The Secretariat of the Group shall be provided by the Commission. Commission officials with an interest in the area may attend meetings of the group and its sub-groups.
   6.   The group shall adopt its rules of procedure on the basis of the standard rules of procedure adopted by the Commission (6).
   7.   The Commission may publish on the Internet, in the original language of the document concerned, any summary, conclusion, or partial conclusion or working document of the group.
   Article 5
   Meeting expenses
   1.   The Commission shall reimburse travel and subsistence expenses for members in connection with the activities of the group in accordance with the provisions in force within the Commission (7). The members shall not be paid for their services.
   2.   Meeting expenses are reimbursed within the limits of the appropriations allocated to the department concerned under the annual procedure for allocating resources.

      Done at Brussels, 13 June 2008.

            For the Commission

         Charlie McCREEVY

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  COM(2007) 724 final.

      (2)  SEC(2007) 1520.

      (3)  COM(2007) 807 final.

      (4)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

      (5)  http://ec.europa.eu/secretariat_general/regexp/

      (6)  Annex III to document SEC(2005) 1004.

      (7)  Commission Decision C(2007) 5858 of 5 December 2007.