Avis juridique important

|

31987D0066

87/66/EEC: Council Decision of 19 January 1987 accepting undertakings given in connection with imports of binder and baler twine originating in Brazil and Mexico, and terminating the investigations

Official Journal L 034 , 05/02/1987 P. 0055

*****COUNCIL  DECISION  of 19 January 1987  accepting undertakings given in connection with imports of binder and baler twine originating in Brazil and Mexico, and terminating the investigations  (87/66/EEC)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 of 23 July 1984 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,  Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consultations within the Advisory Committee as provided for by the above Regulation,  Whereas:  A. Procedure  1. In September 1977 the Commission terminated (2) the anti-dumping/anti-subsidy proceedings initiated on 14 April 1977 (3) concerning imports of binder and baler twine originating in Brazil and Mexico on the grounds that the Brazilian and Mexican producers concerned gave undertakings that satisfied the Commission.  In March 1985 the Commission gave notice (4) of the impending expiry of these undertakings pursuant to Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84.  2. The Commission then received a review request from the Liaison Committee of EEC Twine and Cordage Industries (EUROCORD) representing substantially all production of the product concerned in the former Community of Ten Member States. In view of the enlargement of the Communities the Portuguese producers associated themselves with the request.  In December 1985 the Commission, having decided that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a review, published (5) a notice of the re-opening of the anti-dumping/anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of binder and baler twine falling within heading No ex 59.04 of the Common Customs Tariff, corresponding to NIMEXE code ex 59.04-31, originating in Brazil and Mexico and commenced an investigation.  3. The Commission officially so advised the exporters and importers known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting countries and the Community producers and gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing.  The Brazilian producers/exporters and their main agent in the Community made their views known in writing and requested and were granted hearings. The Mexican producer/exporter's agent for sales in the Community also requested and was granted a hearing. The Mexican producer/exporter did not, however, make its views known in writing and did not complete the Commission's questionnaire.  The Brazilian authorities made their views known in writing. The Mexican authorities made their views known in writing, but did not complete the Commission's questionnaire.  4. The Brazilian producers/exporters and their main agent in the Community requested and were granted the opportunity to meet representatives of Eurocord for the purpose of presenting their opposing views.  5. No submissions were made on behalf of Community purchasers or processors of binder and baler twine.  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:  (a) EEC producers  Belgium:  Ostend Stores and Ropeworks SA (Ostend),  Denmark:  L P Weideman & Soenner (Rudkoebing),  France:  Bihr Frères SA (Xertigny),  Cie Boussac Saint Frères (St Quen),  Vert Gazon (Valenciennes),  Ireland:  Irish Ropes Ltd (Kildare).  (b) Brazilian producers/exporters  Brascorda, João Pessoa (Paraíba),  Cisaf, Natal (Rio Grande do Norte),  Cisal, João Pessoa (Paraíba),  Cosibra, João Pessoa (Paraíba),  Fibrasa, João Pessoa (Paraíba),  Sisalana, Salvador (Bahia),  Stella Azzurra, Salvador (Bahia).  (c) Agent of Brazilian producers/exporters  Vendcord Ltd, Farnham (United Kingdom)  7. After publication of the notice of re-opening of the proceeding the Brazilian authorities requested consultations with the Commisison before an on-the-spot investigation was undertaken. The Commission did not, however, grant such a request because the GATT anti-dumping code does not provide for consultations with the authorities of the exporting country involved in an anti-dumping proceeding. With regard to the anti-subsidy aspects of the proceeding, Article 3 (1) of the Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI and XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade provides that a reasonable opportunity for consultations shall be afforded when a proceeding is initiatied. In the present case, however, the Commission did not decide to initiate a new anti-subsidy proceeding, but to review measures already in force as provided for by Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 and Article 4 (7) and (9) of that Agreement. Consequently, there is no obligation to proceed to consultations as provided for by Article 3 (1) of the Agreement.  The Brazilian authorities were given the opportunity to discuss with the Commission the legal framework within which the re-opening took place.  8. The investigation of dumping, subsidies and price undercutting covered the period from 1 July 1983 to 30 November 1985.  B. Dumping  (a) Brazil  (i) Normal value  9. In the absence of sales in significant quantities of the product concerned on the domestic market of the exporting country, the Commission established normal value on the basis of the constructed value, determined by adding cost of production and a reasonable margin of profit.  10. For each of the companies concerned the cost of production was computed on the basis of all costs, in the ordinary course of trade, both fixed and variable, in the country of origin, of materials and manufacture.  11. In seeking to compute a reasonable amount for selling, administrative and other general expenses as well as for profit, the Commission asked the companies to suggest a product as similar as possible to binder and baler twine produced and marketed in Brazil. Most of the companies considered that they could not make such a proposal in view of the absence of a like product. However, the Commission was provided with details of the selling, administrative and other general expenses of a company related to one of the producers/exporters concerned producing cotton yarn, which they considered in 'some ways' similar to binder and baler twine, particularly in its marketing. The Commission did not accept this suggestion because it considered that no satisfactory evidence concerning the similarity of cotton yarn and binder and baler twine had been submitted. Furthermore, marketing is only one of many items entering into the category of selling, administrative and other general expenses incurred on the domestic market by this producer of cotton yarn was exceptionally low, i.e. approximately 2 % of the turnover.  12. Alternatively it was suggested that the Commission take the actual amount of selling, administrative and other general expenses incurred by each of the Brazilian companies on their exports to the Community, i.e. approximately 3,5 %. The Commission did not accept this proposal because it is in contradiction with Article 2 (3) (b) (ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84, which requires the use of data relating to the domestic market of the country of origin when calculating normal value.  13. As far as the profit margin was concerned, the Brazilian producers/exporters considered 5 to 8 % to be a reasonable amount, given the competitiveness of the market in the Community and the pressure exerted there on users to buy synthetic twine, which is significantly cheaper than sisal twine. However, these arguments relate to the situation outside the exporting country and cannot be taken into consideration for determining normal value.  14. In these circumstances, the Commission considered it appropriate to use the data submitted by the Brazilian companies during the on-the-spot investigation showing the actual selling, administrative and other general expenses incurred and the actual profit realised with regard to the manufacture and sale in Brazil of the same general category of products, i.e. of all sisal products such as wrapping twine, ropes and carpets.  This method was contested by the Brazilian companies on several grounds. It was claimed that the accounts submitted by these companies relating to domestic sales should be adjusted in order to take account of the extremely high inflation rate in Brazil. However, it is not considered necessary to take account separately of inflation when calculating, on the basis of the data relating to the same general cate gory of products, the amount of selling, administrative and other general expenses and profits to be added on to the costs of materials and manufacture of the products concerned. These data, which are drawn from the accounts covering entire financial years during the period under investigation, normally reflect inflation since the effects of the inflation are normally reflected not only in higher sales prices, but also in the costs incurred by the manufacturers, whether these refer to raw material, wages or general expenses.  Furthermore, the Brazilian companies argued that the data available to the Commission did not make it possible to take account of items which should normally be excluded when determining normal values for the product in question and which related to a number of products including some which they considered to be very different from the product concerned. It was argued that it was not, therefore, possible to calculate for each of the companies what the normal value would have been if the Brazilian producers had made sales on their domestic market, since the provisional findings of the Commission showed extraordinary differences between the normal values.  Subsequently, supplementary data relating to a narrower category of products were submitted by the Brazilian companies after the disclosure of the provisional findings with a view to constructing, selling, administrative and other general expenses as well as profits for the product concerned only. New evidence was also submitted concerning direct selling expenses and profits.  However, the new evidence submitted was only partial and could no longer at this stage of the investigation be fully verified. In addition, even if this evidence were taken into account, significant discrepancies would remain in the normal value, thus constructed for each of the companies.  The Commission suggested to the companies concerned the possibility of determining normal value in conformity with Article 2 (3) (b) (i) of Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84, i.e. by comparing export prices to the Community with the prices charged for exports to third countries, in particular to the United States of America, where the situation appeared to be such as to make it unlikely that dumping had taken place. However, the companies concerned appeared not to be ready for the new investigation that this would have required.  Under these circumstances the Commission decided to determine normal value on the basis of the cost of production plus selling, administrative and other general expenses and profit for the same general category of products, i.e. all sisal products.  (ii) Export price  15. Export prices were determined on the basis of the prices actually paid for the products sold for export to the Community.  (iii) Comparison  16. In comparing normal value with each export transaction the Commission took account, where appropriate, of differences affecting price comparability, in particular of differences in conditions and terms of sale such as credit terms, commissions, transport, storage, handling and customs clearance.  All comparisons were made at ex-works level.  (iv) Margins  17. The above preliminary examination of the facts shows the existence of dumping in repect of Cisaf, Cisal, Cosibra, Fibrasa, Sisalama and Stella Azzurra, the margin of dumping being equal to the amount by which the normal value as established exceeds the export price to the Community.  The weighted average margin for each of these exporters, as calculated prior to the disclosure of the provisional findings, varies for each of the companies as follows:  - Cisaf 14,9 %  - Cisal 4,8 %  - Cosibra 0,2 %  - Fibrasa 30,9 %  - Sisalana 7,3 %  - Stella Azzurra 14,3 %  (b) Mexico  (i) Normal value  18. Normal value was provisionally determined, in accordance with Article 7 (7) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84, on the basis of the facts available i.e. certain domestic prices charged by Cordemex.  (ii) Export price  19. The export price was determined in accordance with Article 7 (7) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 on the basis of the facts available, i.e. certain prices actually paid for the product sold for export to the Community.  (iii) Comparison  20. Normal value was compared with the export price charged during the corresponding time period.  All comparisons were made at ex-works level. (iv) Margin  21. The above preliminary examination of the facts shows the existence of dumping in respect of Cordemex, the margin of dumping being equal to the amount by which the normal value as established exceeds the export price to the Community. The margin so established amounts to 11,7 %.  C. Subsidies granted by the Brazilian authorities  (i) Concessionary financing system for exports of binder and baler twine  22. (aa) Under the terms of this financing system, between 21 January 1981 and 1 January 1984, producers/exporters could obtain working capital for the production of manufactured goods intended for export on the basis of Resolution No 674 of the Central Bank of Brazil of 21 January 1981, amended by resolution No 832 of 10 June 1983. The amount of the loans at preferential rates obtainable at a particular moment depended on the value of the exports of the product concerned by the Brazilian manufacturers during the previous year.  In paragraph 5.3 of Commission Decision 85/233/EEC of 16 April 1985 terminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of soya meal originating in Brazil (1), it was determined that the financing facility provided under resolution No 674 constituted an export subsidy, since the financial benefits conferred on the Brazilian producers represented a charge on Brazil's public account. The banks administering the programme on behalf of the government obtain refinancing from the Central Bank at rates lower than the rate of increase in the value of variable treasury bonds, representing the cost of money to the Brazilian Government.  (bb) By resolutions Nos 882 and 884 of 21 December 1983 the financing programme was reformulated so that between 2 January 1984 and 20 August 1984 the companies paid not only the full monetary correction compensating for the high rate of inflation but also an interest rate of 3 % on the amount of the loan.  Consequently, the financing under the terms and conditions of these resolutions do not constitute a subsidy during the period involved, since there was no charge on the public account involved.  (cc) By resolution No 950 of 21 August 1984 the programme was again changed and provided that from 21 August 1984 to 2 May 1985 companies had to pay the full monetary correction plus the market interest rate minus the 10 % equilization rate allegedly introduced in order to make domestic loans competitive with foreign loans. By resolution No 1009 of 2 May 1985 the equalization rate was increased to 15 %. On the basis of the information available this system is at present still in force.  It was found during the investigation that Finex, a fund for the financing of exports set up as part of the Central Bank of Brazil on the basis of Law No 5025 of 10 June 1966, paid the amount of the equalization rate to the commercial banks granting the loans to the companies. It is therefore considered that this financing of the equalization constitutes an export subsidy.  (dd) On the basis of the data collected during the investigation, it was found that the producers/exporters concerned benefited from the concessionary financing system with regard to their exports of binder and baler twine to the Community. In 1983/1984 and 1984/1985 the amounts of export subsidy expressed as a percentage (weighted average) of the value of the product exported to the Community on a cif Community frontier basis were as follows:  - Brascorda 5,00 %  - Cisaf 6,05 %  - Cisal 4,20 %  - Cosibra 1,99 %  - Fibrasa 1,55 %  - Sisalana 2,44 %  - Stella Azzurra 1,12 %  (ii) Income tax relief on profits from exports  23. Decree Law No 1158 of 16 March 1971, extended by Decree Laws No 1598 of 26 December 1977 and No 2134 of 26 June 1986, provides that companies may benefit from tax relief on profits made on their exports by deducting from the profit subject to income tax a percentage equal to that represented by the value of the manufactured goods exported divided by the firm's total revenue. Such benefit constitutes an export subsidy falling under item (e) of the Annex 'Illustrative List of Export Subsidies' to Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84.  The argument put forward by the Brazilian authorities that this tax exemption is not an export subsidy because it reduces the overall tax payable by the recipient is unsound. In this respect the determining factor is not the method applied by the authorities for calculating the benefit to the recipient, but a question of whether the benefit is specifically related to income from exports as opposed to income from domestic sales.  It was found that the producers/exporters concerned benefited in 1983/1984 and 1984/1985 from this export subsidy the amounts of which, expressed as a percentage (weighted average) of the value of the product exported to the Community on a cif Commuity frontier basis, were the following:  - Brascorda 0,90 %  - Cisaf 0,07 %  - Cosibra 2,33 %  - Fibrasa 1,23 %  - Sisalana 2,21 %  - Stella Azzurra 5,07 %  (iii) Fiscal benefits granted to exports of manufactured products (called IPI tax credit premium)  24. Pursuant to Decree Law No 491 of 5 March 1969, Brazilian exporters of manufactured goods could benefit from a tax credit of which the amount was calculated on the basis of the adjusted fob invoice value of the exported goods. Such credit was to be deducted in the first place from the amount of the 'Tax on Industrialized Products' (IPI) assessed on operations conducted in the domestic market. It could also be deducted from the payment of other federal taxes or be used in other ways to be established by special regulations. The nominal rate was gradually reduced from 11 % in 1982 and the credit premium system was terminated on 1 May 1985 by Portaria MF No 176 of 12 September 1984. This tax credit constituted a subsidy since it conferred a financial benefit on the recipient and constituted a charge on the public account. Neither the authorities nor the companies concerned denied that this benefit constituted an export subsidy.  It appeared from the data collected during the investigation that the producers/exporters concerned benefited from this tax credit during the period under investigation. The amounts of export subsidy expressed as a percentage (weighted average) of the value of the product exported to the Community on a cif Community frontier basis, were the following:  - Brascorda 3,87 %  - Cisaf 2,86 %  - Cisal 5,86 %  - Cosibra 3,28 %  - Fibrasa 4,62 %  - Sisalana 5,10 %  - Stella Azzurra 3,91 %.  (iv) Total amounts of export subsidies received  25. The total amounts of export subsidies received by the Brazilian companies concerned and expressed as a percentage of the value of the product concerned exported to the Community, on a cif Community frontier basis, were as follows:  - Brascorda 5,90 %  - Cisaf 6,12 %  - Cisal 4,20 %  - Cosibra 4,32 %  - Fibrasa 2,78 %  - Sisalana 4,65 %  - Stella Azzurra 6,19 %.  These amounts do not include the export subsidy granted in the form of the IPI tax credit premium, since it was terminated on 1 May 1985. Furthermore, no account has been taken of export subsidies which may have been received by the Brazilian producers of sisal twine during 1985/1986 since only part of that year fell under the period under investigation and, therefore, no representative figures were available.  D. Injury and threat of injury  26. With regard to the injury caused by the dumped and subsidized imports the evidence available to the Commission shows that imports of binder and baler twine into the Community as constituted on 31 December 1985 from Brazil and Mexico amounted to 20 732 tonnes in 1981/1982. After a reduction in 1982/1983 to 16 914 tonnes, they increased again to 20 416 tonnes in 1983/1984 and decreased to 19 464 tonnes in 1984/1985, i. e. a level 6,1 % lower than in 1981/1982.  This development corresponds to an increase in the market share held by these products from 25,0 % in 1981/1982 to 29,4 % in 1984/1985, whereas consumption decreased from 83 078 tonnes to 66 053 tonnes, i. e. by 20,5 % in the same period.  27. As far as imports of the product concerned originating in Brazil are concerned, it was found that they increased from 12 611 tonnes in 1981/1982 to 18 390 tonnes in 1984/1985, i. e. by 45,8 %. Imports originating in Mexico, however, decreased during the same period from 8 121 tonnes to 1 074 tonnes, i. e. by 86,7 %.  This development corresponds to an increase in the market share held by Brazilian imports from 15,2 % in 1981/1982 to 27,8 % in 1984/1985, but to a decrease in the market share held by Mexican imports from 9,8 % in 1981/1982 to 1,6 % in 1984/1985.  28. It was found that after 1978 most of the remaining Community producers had imported significant quantities of the product concerned originating in Brazil in order to reduce pressure from their Brazilian competitors on their customers. It was also found during the investigation that all the producers resold the imported product at the same price as their own product. Since the Community producers made these imports in an attempt to defend their position in extremely difficult market conditions and given the fact that despite these efforts several producers were forced to close plants, it is considered appropriate not to exclude them from the injury assessment.  However, as far as price undercutting and price depression are concerned, it is considered appropriate to make determinations primarily with regard to the situation in that part of the Community market where the Community product was supplied almost exclusively by a producer which did not itself import the product originating in Brazil.  29. When examining the impact of the dumped and subsidized imports on the Community industry it was found that Community production declined from 42 365 tonnes in 1981/1982 to 31 772 tonnes in 1984/1985, i. e. by 25,0 %, and that there was significant under-utilization of the production capacity (approximately 30 % spare capacity). Furthermore, the market share of the Community industry decreased form 43,6 % in 1981/1982 to 36,5 % in 1984/1985, in contrast to the increase in the combined market share held by the products originating in Brazil and Mexico.  30. With regard to the prices charged by the Community industry it was found that the prices of the sole producer, which did not import into the Community the product originating in Brazil, were undercut by 11 % and that it had to reduce its list prices in 1984/1985 by an average of 9 %, so that it was not able to cover its increased costs of production.  31. As far as the profitability of the Community producers is concerned, a significant negative development between 1981/1982 and 1984/1985 was found, in particular with regard to producers in Belgium and France. It was also found that five plants had had to close in Belgium, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands and that the number of people employed in the production of sisal twine in the Community was reduced by half during this period. Consequently the Commission determined that imports of the product originating in Brazil caused material injury to the Community industry.  32. Furthermore, the Commission examined in the light of the criteria laid down in Article 4 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 whether these imports would also constitute a threat of injury. It was found that the rate of increase of the dumped and subsidized imports from Brazil was significant between 1982 and 1985 and that the Brazilian producers/exporters concerned in this investigation have significant spare production capacity (approximately 26 %). It was also found that another company had started manufacturing and exporting binder and baler twine. No special facilities are required in Brazil or in the Community should the producers/exporters decide to export larger quantities to the Community.  However, with regard to the product concerned originating in Mexico, the Commission determined that these imports did not cause material injury given the sharp decrease in volume and market share.  33. The Commission has considered whether injury has been caused by other factors such as the decline in consumption in the Community due, amongst other reasons, to the replacement of sisal twine by synthetic twine. It has been established, however, that this decline has affected Community production more than it has affected the dumped and subsidized imports.  The amount of dumped and subsidized imports from Brazil and their impact on the Community industry led the Commission to determine that the effects of imports originating in this country taken in isolation have to be considered as constituting material injury to the Community industry concerned. Furthermore, it is considered that the expiry of the measures taken in 1977 will again lead to injury or threat of injury, in particular in the light of the facts mentioned under paragraph 32.  E. Community interest  34. On behalf of the Brazilian producers/exporters and their main agent in the Community, it was argued that it was not in the Community's interest to take action, mainly because the region in Brazil where the industry concerned is situated is highly dependent on the production of sisal fibre and twine and should therefore be given preferential treatment.  The Commission considered that this argument is to be examined in the light of Article 13 of the GATT anti-dumping code providing that special regard must be given by developed countries to the special situation of developing countries when considering the application of anti-dumping measures. In particular, it is provided that possibilities of constructive remedies shall be explored before applying anti-dumping duties where they would affect the essential interests of developing countries. It results from this Article that the stage of development of exporting countries should be taken into account when examining what measures are most appropriate in a particular case, but should not determine whether or not it is appropriate to take protective measures at all. That interpretation is also considered to be in line with Article 14 of the Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI and XXIII of the GATT.  35. It was also stated that any duty or remedy would either eliminate Brazilian twine from the Community market or would lead to increased prices to the detriment of Community farmers.  This argument cannot be accepted in general terms because the adoption of protective measures is not designed to exclude the imported products from the Community market but only to remove the injury caused by unfairly traded imports. In addition, no supporting evidence whatsoever was submitted to show that in this case a measure designed to remove the injury would eliminate the Brazilian product from the Community market. As far as the alleged cost increase for farmers resulting from any measures is concerned, such increase is negligible in comparison with their total expenses. In this respect it should be underlined that no submissions were made to the Commission on behalf of users of the product concerned.  Therefore, in view of the serious difficulties facing the Community industry, the Commission has come to the conclusion that it is in the Community's interests that action be taken, with regard to the imports from Brazil, at least as long as the conversion of the Community industry from signal twine to synthetic twine has not been completed. In view of the findings with regard to injury caused by the dumped and subsidized imports from Brazil, such injury, would be sufficiently offset by neutralizing the price depression which was found to be in the order of 9 % (see paragraph 30).  With regard to the imports originating in Mexico, it is considered appropriate to maintain the existing measures, given the fact that in the past the Mexican producer exported significant quantities to the Community and the likelihood that it is still capable of resuming such supplies. Since the Mexican producer/exporter did not cooperate with the Commission during the investigation, no evidence to the contrary is available. Therefore, it is considered that the renewal of the undertaking is in the interests of the Community since it will eliminate the threat of injury.  F. Acceptance of undertakings  36. The Brazilian producers/exporters of binder and baler twine were informed of the main findings of the preliminary investigation and commented on them. Despite objections, mainly to the dumping calculations, they were prepared to offer undertakings with regard to their exports to the Community. The Commission considered the new terms and conditions of these undertakings acceptable. In these circumstances the investigation concerning imports of binder and baler twine originating in Brazil may be terminated without imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties.  With regard to the imports of the product concerned originating in Mexico, the Commission was informed that Cordemex does not intend to denounce the undertaking given in 1977.  Objections to this course were raised in the Advisory Committee,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  The undertakings given by:  - Brascorda, João Pessoa (Paraíba)  - Cisaf, Natal (Rio Grande do Norte)  - Cisal, João Pessoa (Paraíba)  - Cosibra, João Pessoa (Paraíba)  - Fibrasa, João Pessoa (Paraíba)  - Fisalplast, Salvador (Bahia)  - Sisalana, Salvador (Bahia)  - Stella Azzurra, Salvador (Bahia)  in connection with the anti-dumping/anit-subsidy investigation concerning imports of binder and baler twine of sisal for agricultural machines falling within heading No ex 59.04 of the Common customs Tariff, corresponding to NIMEXE code ex 59.04-31, originating in Brazil, are hereby accepted.  Article 2  The acceptance of the undertaking offered by Cordemex (Mexico) in 1977 in connection with the anti-dumping/anti-subsidy investigation concerning imports of binder and baler twine of sisal for agricultural machines falling within heading No ex 59.04 of the Common Customs Tariff, corresponding to NIMEXE code ex 59.04-31, originating in Mexico, is hereby renewed. Article 3  The investigations referred to under Articles 1 and 2 are hereby terminated.  Done at Brussels, 19 January 1987.  For the Council  The President  P. de KEERSMAEKER  (1) OJ No L 201, 30. 7. 1984, p. 1.  (2) OJ No C 216, 9. 9. 1977, p. 2.  (3) OJ No C 89, 14. 4. 1977, p. 5.  (4) OJ No C 80, 28. 3. 1985, p. 3.  (5) OJ No C 315, 6. 12. 1985, p. 2.  (1) OJ No L 106, 18. 4. 1985, p. 19.


Avis juridique important

|

31998D0349

98/349/EC: Commission Decision of 27 May 1998 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of pure silk typewriter ribbon fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China

Official Journal L 155 , 29/05/1998 P. 0055 - 0059

COMMISSION DECISION of 27 May 1998 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of pure silk typewriter ribbon fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China (98/349/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 905/98 (2), and in particular Article 23 thereof,Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (3), and in particular Articles 14 and 15 thereof,After consulting the Advisory Committee,Whereas:A. ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES IN FORCE (1) In July 1990, a provisional anti-dumping duty of 24,6 % was imposed on pure silk typewriter ribbon fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China, by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1937/90 (4). By the same Regulation, the Commission accepted a price undertaking from the China National Silk Import and Export Corporation - Zhejiang Branch (the only known exporter in the People's Republic of China, hereinafter referred to as 'the exporter`). This exporter was thus exempted from the definitive anti-dumping duty which was subsequently imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3200/90 (5), still at a level of 24,6 %.B. REQUEST FOR REVIEW (2) In August 1991, the exporter lodged a request for a review of the undertaking, alleging changed circumstances since the entry into force of the measures. The main grounds were as follows:(a) There was no longer significant Community production of pure silk typewriter ribbon fabrics, since the only Community producer had switched to producing mixed fabrics of polyester/silk.(b) The Community producer had not increased its selling prices since the entry into force of the undertaking, and was aiming to secure a monopoly of the Community market.(c) Since the exporter had not exported any pure silk typewriter ribbon fabrics to the Community since 1989, it could no longer be causing injury to the Community industry.(3) The Commission was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence of changed circumstances to justify the initiation of a review of the measures in force.C. REVIEW INVESTIGATION (4) In January 1992, the Commission published a notice of initiation (6) of a review of Regulation (EEC) No 1937/90 accepting an undertaking with regard to imports of pure silk typewriter ribbon fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China, and of Regulation (EEC) No 3200/90 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on the above imports, and reopened the investigation in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88.The Commission officially advised the Community producer, the exporter and importers known to be concerned, as well as the representatives of the exporting country. All parties directly concerned were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time-limit set in the Notice of initiation.(5) The following interested parties all completed the Commission's questionnaire and made their views known in writing:(a) Complainant: International Association of users of Yarn of man-made Fabrics and of Natural Silk (Aiuffass), on behalf of the sole Community producer.(b) Community producer: Spinnhütte GmbH Co. KG, Celle, Germany, hereinafter referred to as 'Spinnhütte` or 'Community producer`.(c) Unrelated importer: Delacamp GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg, Germany.(d) Exporter in the People's Republic of China: China National Silk Import and Export Corporation, Zhejiang Branch.Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the Community producer and the importer.The Community producer and the exporter requested and were granted hearings.The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 January 1991 to 31 December 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the investigation period`). Originally, the examination of injury had covered the period from 1989 up to the end of the investigation period.(6) In October 1993, in view of the length of the investigation and the different arguments put forward by the parties about the changed situation on the market for the product concerned, it was thought appropriate to update the data up to and including 1993.Spinnhütte did not provide some essential information, such as a breakdown of sales and audit/management reports, despite the granting of various extensions of the deadline.(7) As the initial measures would normally have expired on 6 November 1995, a Notice (7) was published in accordance with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, indicating that the anti-dumping measures would remain in force beyond the end of the five-year period, pending the outcome of the review.D. PRODUCT CONCERNED/LIKE PRODUCT Description of the product concerned (8) The product concerned is the same as in the original investigation, namely plain woven silk fabric made out of raw silk of a weight of 40 g/m2 or more, but not exceeding 50 g/m2. This product (hereinafter referred to as 'silk typewriter ribbon fabrics`) is used by the office supplies industry, and for the further manufacture of typewriter ribbon spools.Spinnhütte requested that the definition of the like product be widened so as to extend the weight range of 40 to 50 grams per m2 (g/m2) to a weight between 30 g/m2 and 70 g/m2. It was further proposed to extend the product definition to include a mixed silk/polyester product produced by Spinnhütte, which had been introduced on the market after the initiation of the original investigation.In respect of the request for an extension of the definition of the product concerned, the following should be noted:First, no evidence has been submitted suggesting that an extension of the weight criteria is justified. The fact that the Community industry has knowledge of offers or transactions marginally outside the relevant weight range only demonstrates the existence of a market for different products, and does not in itself justify extending the scope of measures to these; in any event, Spinnhütte did not produce any evidence of unfairly traded imports resulting from such offers.Secondly, although the mixed product in question is said to be interchangeable and to compete directly with the silk typewriter ribbon fabrics concerned in this proceeding, it has to be noted that the basic physical characteristics of both products differ significantly. In any event, as will be shown in Parts E and F, the conclusion reached with respect to injury and recurrence of injury would not have been different had the mixed product been considered part of the product concerned in this investigation, given the decline in demand in the Community for typewriter ribbon fabrics in general.E. INJURY As there is only one producer in the Community, data is given in indexed form for reasons of confidentiality.1. Community production, consumption, capacity utilization and employment (9) Over the period from 1989/90 to 1992/93, Spinnhütte's total production of typewriter ribbon fabrics, namely silk typewriter ribbon fabrics and mixed silk/polyester typewriter ribbon fabrics, fell by more than 60 %. As regards the 'like product`, the fall in production over this period was much higher, at around 85 %.In this context, it has to be noted that Spinnhütte in 1989 introduced a new typewriter ribbon fabric manufactured from a mixture of silk and polyester. In 1989, Spinnhütte hoped that this patented new product would come to represent 50 % of its production, thus gradually replacing the pure silk version, which is now of minor importance, given a severe fall in demand.As to consumption, as there have been no imports of the product concerned and as there is only one supplier on the Community market, sales made by Spinnhütte represent total Community consumption of the like product.In 1989, according to Spinnhütte, 30 % of its weaving mill capacity was engaged in the production of silk typewriter ribbons fabrics. It is estimated that only 10 % of capacity was used for the like product by the end of the period examined.Over the period, total employment appeared to be stable at about 35 people.2. Imports of the product concerned (10) According to the undertaking reports made by the Chinese producer, as confirmed by the relevant Eurostat figures, there have been no imports of the product concerned since 1989.3. Spinnhütte's sales of the product concerned on the Community market (11) Spinnhütte's sales volumes, in m2, of silk typewriter ribbon fabrics on the Community market declined between 1 January 1989 and 30 June 1993 by 72 %, while prices fell by 66 % over the same period.4. Profitability (12) On the basis of the information available, and in the light of the fact that sales prices fell by less than volumes, together with a lowering of the price of raw silk, the Community producer has apparently been able, by the end of the period, to restore a satisfactory level of profitability on a per-unit level and to obtain a reasonable return on capital. On an indexed basis, with 1988/89 as 100, profitability had reached 112 in 1992/93.5. Conclusion on injury (13) While the investigation has shown that the Community industry has experienced substantial economic difficulties in terms of decreases in production, sales and prices, it is clear that these developments are, in the absence of imports, due solely to reduced demand, arising from the general diversification away from the use of cloth typewriter ribbon to plastic ribbon and from typewriters to word-processors. In the face of such a basic shift, Spinnhütte could do little, except restructure its range of production (see below).F. RECURRENCE OF INJURIOUS DUMPING (14) The absence of exports following the imposition of anti-dumping measures is not in itself a sufficient reason for their removal. It has to be examined whether removing the measures would lead to a foreseeable and imminent recurrence of injury caused by dumped imports from the People's Republic of China.1. Recurrence of dumping (15) The Commission recalls that in this particular case, normal value had to be constructed on the basis of cost of production plus a reasonable profit calculated by reference to those incurred and realised by the Community producer.In this respect, the investigation has shown that there has been a sharp decline in normal value as compared to the original investigation. The information available, and Spinnhütte's submission of 5 December 1995, show that the price of raw silk, the major cost element for the product concerned, has declined by 50 % since 1989/90, and that there have been favourable developments in manufacturing and other costs since that time. In addition, there are now increased opportunities for obtaining raw silk on the world market; the Community producer is no longer dependent on Chinese supplies of raw silk. Moreover, the provisional application of the Agreement between the Community and China, which was the subject of Council Decision 95/155/EEC (8), should prevent situations whereby finished goods are exported at prices of about, or below, the price of the raw silk content.A combination of these factors leads the Commission to the view that the decline of constructed normal value would tend to remove, or at least greatly reduce, the margin of dumping, although, as discussed below, it is not at all clear that, given the fall in demand, exports would resume if the present measures were to expire. Moreover, the sole Chinese producer capable of offering silk typewriter ribbon fabrics produces more than 35 other products in addition to silk typewriter ribbon fabric, and is not, therefore, likely to be interested in the product concerned which has been subject to sharply decreasing demand.Further, according to information submitted by the Chinese producer, its total output is destined for the Chinese market, and any increased production to supply the Community market is unlikely; changing looms would not be profitable, given the better returns available from other silk products in the face of declining demand for the product concerned.(16) The Community producer recognized that there was no evidence on Chinese imports of the product concerned between November 1989 and 1 October 1995 - that is, since before the imposition of the anti-dumping measure in 1990 - although, it was maintained that the measures were being circumvented in various ways, for example by transhipment via third countries with misdeclaration of origin, misdescription of product, and manipulation of the weight limits covered by the definition of the product concerned.Further, it was alleged that there were indications that the Chinese exporter was still interested in the Community market.First, offers had apparently been made by another Chinese exporter for sales on the Community market of silk typewriter ribbon fabrics of Chinese origin. In addition, the reportedly poor financial results of the Chinese silk industry suggested that a recurrence of injurious dumping was likely if measures were to expire. Reference was also made to several other offers and transactions, at prices below the normal value of the Chinese product, entering the Community market via Switzerland.Secondly, the Community producer contested the view that the total output of the sole Chinese producer of the like product was destined solely for the Chinese market, since it claimed to have evidence that sales of the Chinese product were being made in the United States of America. In addition, overcapacity in the Chinese silk industry and the recent bilateral EC-China agreement, which did not cover the product concerned, were put forward as reasons why exports of silk typewriter fabrics would be of interest to the Chinese producer. Resumption of such exports would cause a recurrence of injurious dumping, and anti-dumping measures are the only means of protection against this. Finally, the request for a review proceeding made by the Chinese in August 1991, and the adjustment of the price undertaking in February 1994 at the request of the Chinese exporter, were adduced as evidence of continuing interest in the Community market.(17) The Commission examined these contentions, but cannot accept them.As to circumvention, no evidence was produced to corroborate the allegations. In particular, as to the imports transited through Switzerland, it was established that these did not concern typewriter ribbon fabrics, since they did not conform to the necessary length requirements of 220 yards per roll, as is recognized by the Community producer.As to the offers made by another Chinese exporter, it was found that these were not relevant; indeed, according to the complaint itself, the exporting company in question is not authorized to handle exports of the product concerned.With respect to possible sales on the US market and the potential effects of overcapacity in the Chinese silk industry, the Commission recalls that its information indicates that the total output of the sole producer in China is intended for domestic sales. Notwithstanding these conflicting indications on export sales to third-country markets, however, the Commission maintains the view expressed above, namely that any increase in Chinese production of the like product for export to the Community, where the market has been in sharp decline, is unlikely, given the advanced stage of the product's life-cycle and the cost of switching production to the product concerned, when better returns are available on other silk products. Further, given its product mix, the Chinese producer would not seem to be dependent on the production and sale of typewriter ribbon fabrics.As to the Chinese request for a review and the adaptation of the price undertaking, these, in isolation, cannot be evidence of a threat of a recurrence of injury, particularly in the absence of imports into the Community since 1989 - that is to say, before the introduction of measures.2. Recurrence of injury (18) It was claimed by the Community producer that anti-dumping measures were still necessary to prevent a recurrence of injury while the company, which is small, was completing an ongoing restructuring. Although production was being diversified away from silk typewriter ribbon fabrics, the transformation was said to be as yet incomplete, and the production of the like product remained essential for Spinnhütte's survival.(19) In this context, it should first be noted that the purpose of any anti-dumping measure is not to facilitate the Community industry's restructuring process, but to eliminate the trade-distorting effects of injurious dumping and thus to enable the Community industry to compete on equal terms with the dumped imports.Further, it should be recalled that no imports have taken place since November 1989, and therefore that no injury could have been caused to the Community industry by dumped imports of the product concerned since then.Since the Community producer and the Chinese producer are the only two producers of silk typewriter ribbon fabrics in the world, the Community producer has been enjoying a monopoly position within the Community since 1989.It is clear, therefore, that a recommencement of imports would, by increasing competition on the market, affect the position of Spinnhütte. However, as outlined above, it is unlikely that exports of the product concerned at dumped prices would re-start if the measures were repealed.(20) Finally, as it believes that injurious dumping is likely to re-occur if the existing measures lapse, the Community producer requested that Regulation (EEC) No 3200/90 imposing a definitive duty be maintained, but that the measures be immediately suspended pursuant to Article 14(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96.The Commission cannot agree to this request. As they were intended to address entirely different situations, the application of the provisions of Article 14(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 is inappropriate in the circumstances of this proceeding.G. CONCLUSION (21) In view of the above, the Commission concludes that there is no evidence pointing to a current risk that the removal of anti-dumping measures would lead to a foreseeable and imminent recurrence of injury due to dumped imports from China. Indeed, it seems likely that the Community industry will continue to experience difficulties, not from Chinese imports, but from the substitute products and the growth in the demand for word processors and personal computers, which will inevitably continued to reduce sales of conventional typewriters using textile ribbons.(22) It is considered, therefore, that, in the light, in particular, of the decline in demand for the product concerned, the apparent restoration of profitability, and the fact that a recurrence of injurious dumping is unlikely, the measures in force should be allowed to expire.(23) The Commission informed interested parties, including the Community industry, of its conclusions. After being informed by the Commission of the above facts and conclusions, representatives of the Community industry made further representations, both in writing and orally, concerning the impact of the Chinese imports in question on the Community industry. However, no information or argument was provided which could, on examination, reverse the above conclusions.(24) Member States did not raise any objections to the termination of the proceeding,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Sole Article The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of pure silk typewriter ribbon fabrics falling within CN codes ex 5007 10 00, ex 5007 20 11, ex 5007 20 19 and ex 5007 20 21 originating in the People's Republic of China is hereby terminated.Done at Brussels, 27 May 1998.For the CommissionLeon BRITTANVice-President(1) OJ L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1.(2) OJ L 128, 30. 4. 1998, p. 18.(3) OJ L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1.(4) OJ L 174, 7. 7. 1990, p. 27.(5) OJ L 306, 6. 11. 1990, p. 21.(6) OJ C 12, 18. 1. 1992, p. 5.(7) OJ C 291, 4. 11. 1995, p. 20.(8) OJ L 104, 6. 5. 1995, p. 2.


title: Council Decision (EU) 2015/2399 of 26 October 2015 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Colombia on the short-stay visa waiver

text:
               19.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 333/1

         COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2015/2399
   of 26 October 2015
   on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Colombia on the short-stay visa waiver
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular point (a) of Article 77(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5), thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Regulation (EU) No 509/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) transferred the reference to the Republic of Colombia from Annex I to Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (2).

               (2)

               That reference to the Republic of Colombia is accompanied by a footnote indicating that the exemption from the visa requirement shall apply from the date of entry into force of an agreement on visa exemption to be concluded with the European Union.

               (3)

               Pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 509/2014, the Commission assessed the situation of the Republic of Colombia with regard to the criteria set out in that Regulation. On 29 October 2014, the Commission adopted a report concluding that the significant improvement of the Colombian economic, social and security situation in recent years provided justification for exempting Colombian nationals from the visa requirement when travelling to the European Union.

               (4)

               On 19 May 2015, the Council adopted a decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with the Republic of Colombia for the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Colombia on the short-stay visa waiver (the ‘Agreement’).

               (5)

               Negotiations on the Agreement were held on 20 May 2015 and were successfully finalised by the initialling thereof on 9 June 2015.

               (6)

               The Agreement should be signed, and the declarations attached to the Agreement should be approved, on behalf of the Union. The Agreement should be applied on a provisional basis as from the day following the date of signature thereof, pending the completion of the procedures for its formal conclusion.

               (7)

               This Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC (3); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

               (8)

               This Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC (4); Ireland is therefore not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The signing on behalf of the Union of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Colombia on the short-stay visa waiver (the ‘Agreement’) is hereby authorised, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.
   The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   The declarations attached to this Decision shall be approved on behalf of the Union.
   Article 3
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.
   Article 4
   The Agreement shall be applied on a provisional basis as from the day following the date of signature thereof (5), pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion.
   Article 5
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Luxembourg, 26 October 2015.

            For the Council

            The President

         C. DIESCHBOURG

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 509/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ L 149, 20.5.2014, p. 67).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 131, 1.6.2000, p. 43).

      (4)  Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland's request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 20).

      (5)  The date of signature of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the General Secretariat of the Council.


Avis juridique important

|

31986D0565

86/565/EEC: Commission Decision of 19 November 1986 amending Decision 73/351/EEC setting up an Advisory Committee on Customs Matters

Official Journal L 331 , 25/11/1986 P. 0018

*****COMMISSION  DECISION  of 19 November 1986  amending Decision 73/351/EEC setting up an Advisory Committee on Customs Matters  (86/565/EEC)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Whereas, in order to gather the opinions of professional and consumer circles on problems arising from the operation of the customs union, the Commission set up an Advisory Committee on Customs Matters by its Decision 73/351/EEC (1), as last amended by Decision 83/111/EEC (2);  Whereas it is necessary, in view of the accession of Spain and Portugal, to assure the representative nature of this Committee by increasing by two the number of its members;  Whereas, by the nature of its professional activities, the category of customs agents (including specialized transport carriers) is particularly well qualified to contribute to the smooth functioning of the Committee; whereas it is consequently desirable to attribute the two supplementary seats to this category,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  Article 3 of Commission Decision 73/351/EEC is hereby replaced by the following:  'Article 3  1. The Committee shall consist of 40 members.  The Committee shall be composed of representatives from the following categories: industrialists, craftsmen, agriculturists, tradesmen, carriers, banking and insurance institutions, customs agents (including specialized transport carriers), tourist boards, workers, consumers, and other parties concerned with customs problems.  2. Representation of the Committee shall be as follows:  - four representatives of industry,  - one representative of craft industry,  - four representatives of agriculture (of which one shall be a representative of agricultural cooperatives and one shall be a representative of the agri-foods section),  - four representatives of commerical organizations,  - four representatives of Chambers of Commerce and Industry,  - one representative of rail transport,  - one representative of road transport,  - one representative of shipping,  - one representative of inland waterways transport,  - one representative of air transport,  - one representative of banking institutions,  - one representative of insurance institutions,  - five representatives of customs agents (including specialized transport carriers),  - two representatives of tourist boards,  - four representatives of workers,  - three representatives of consumers (of which one shall be for consumer cooperatives),  - two representatives of other parties concerned with customs problems.'  Article 2  This Decision shall take effect on 19 November 1986.  Done at Brussels, 19 November 1986.  For the Commission  COCKFIELD  Vice-President  (1) OJ No L 321, 22. 11. 1973, p. 37.  (2) OJ No L 66, 12. 3. 1983, p. 23.


Avis juridique important

|

31986D0664

86/664/EEC: Council Decision of 22 December 1986 establishing a consultation and cooperation procedure in the field of tourism

Official Journal L 384 , 31/12/1986 P. 0052 - 0053 Finnish special edition: Chapter 1 Volume 2 P. 0069  Swedish special edition: Chapter 1 Volume 2 P. 0069

COUNCIL DECISION of 22 December 1986  establishing a consultation and cooperation procedure in the field of tourism (86/664/EEC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article  235 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1), Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2), Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee(3), Whereas Article 2 of the Treaty provides that the Community shall have as its task in particular to  promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and  balanced expansion and closer relations between the States belonging to it; whereas tourism can  help to achieve these objectives; Whereas the Council resolution of 10 April 1984 on a Community policy on tourism(4) emphasizes the  need for consultation between the Member States and the Commission on tourism; Whereas consultation is a useful means of facilitating cooperation between the Member States and  the Commission with a view to achieving the objectives of the Treaty; Whereas each Member State should give the other Member States and the Commission the benefit of its  experience in the field of tourism; Whereas, with a view to consultation in the field of tourism, exchanges of information between the  Member States and the Commission should be ensured; Whereas such consultation should not duplicate work carried out in other Community bodies, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Article 1 An Advisory Committee on Tourism, hereinafter referred to as the 'Committee', shall be  set up under the auspices of the Commission. It shall be made up of members designated by each  Member State. Article 2 The task of the Committee shall be to facilitate exchanges of information, consultation  and, where appropriate, cooperation on tourism, and, in particular, on the provision of services  for tourists. Article 3 For the purposes referred to in Article 2, each Member State shall send the Commission,  once a year, a report on the most significant measures it has taken and, as far as possible, on  measures it is considering taking in the provision of services for tourists which could have  consequences for travellers from the other Member States. The Commission shall inform the other Member States thereof. Article 4 1.  The Committee, which shall meet at least once a year, shall hold an exchange of  views on the basis of the reports referred to in Article 3 in order to facilitate, where necessary,  future cooperation amongst the Member States in pursuit of the objectives referred to in Article  2. 2.  At the request of the Commission or a Member State, the Committee shall also discuss any matter  which may be of interest to a number of Member States. 3.  The Committee shall also advise the Commission on any question on which the latter has  requested an opinion. 4.  The information and consultations provided for in this Decision shall be covered by  professional secrecy. Article 5 The Committee shall be chaired by the Commission. The Commission shall provide the Committee with secretarial services. Done at Brussels, 22 December 1986. For the CouncilThe PresidentG. SHAW (1)OJ N° C 114, 15. 5. 1986, p. 8.  (2)Opinion delivered on 12 December 1986 (not yet published in the Official Journal).  (3)OJ N° C 328, 22. 12. 1986, p. 1.  (4)OJ N° C 115, 30. 4. 1984, p. 1.


Avis juridique important

|

31997D0743

97/743/EC, Euratom: Council Decision of 27 October 1997 appointing a member of the Economic and Social Committee

Official Journal L 301 , 05/11/1997 P. 0016 - 0016

COUNCIL DECISION of 27 October 1997 appointing a member of the Economic and Social Committee (97/743/EC, Euratom)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 194 thereof,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 166 thereof,Having regard to Council Decision 94/660/EC, Euratom of 26 September 1994 appointing the members of the Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 1994 to 20 September 1998 (1),Whereas a seat as a member of that Committee has fallen vacant following the resignation of Mr Werner Löw, of which the Council was notified on 14 May 1997;Having regard to the nominations submitted by the German Government,Having obtained the opinion of the Commission of the European Communities,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Sole Article Ms Renate Hornung-Draus is hereby appointed a member of the Economic and Social Committee in place of Mr Werner Löw for the remainder of the latter's term of office, which runs until 20 September 1998.Done at Luxembourg, 27 October 1997.For the CouncilThe PresidentR. GOEBBELS(1) OJ L 257, 5. 10. 1994, p. 20.


title: 2012/616/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2012 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the SESAR Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010

text:
               17.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 286/349

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 10 May 2012
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the SESAR Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010
   (2012/616/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the SESAR Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the SESAR Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010, together with the replies of the Joint Undertaking (1),

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 21 February 2012 (06086/2012 - C7-0050/2012),

               —

               having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1361/2008 of 16 December 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 219/2007 on the establishment of a joint undertaking to develop the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR) (3), and in particular Article 4b thereof,

               —

               having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0114/2012),

               1.

               Grants the Executive Director of the SESAR Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2010;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this Decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the Executive Director of the SESAR Joint Undertaking, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

            The President

         Martin SCHULZ

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ C 368, 16.12.2011, p. 32.

      (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 352, 31.12.2008, p. 12.

      (4)  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.
    ---documentbreak---

               17.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 286/350

         RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 10 May 2012
   with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget for the SESAR Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the SESAR Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the SESAR Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010, together with the replies of the Joint Undertaking (1),

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 21 February 2012 (06086/2012 - C7-0050/2012),

               —

               having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1361/2008 of 16 December 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 219/2007 on the establishment of a joint undertaking to develop the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR) (3), and in particular Article 4b thereof,

               —

               having regard to the Financial Rules of the SESAR Joint Undertaking adopted by the SESAR Administrative Board on 28 July 2009 (‘SESAR Financial Rules’),

               —

               having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0114/2012),

               A.

               whereas the SESAR Joint Undertaking (‘the Joint Undertaking’) was set up in February 2007 to run the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) programme,

               B.

               whereas the Joint Undertaking started to work autonomously in August 2007,

               C.

               whereas the Joint Undertaking will own all the tangible and intangible assets which it creates or which are transferred to it for the development phase of the SESAR project in accordance with specific agreements with its members,

               D.

               whereas the Court of Auditors states that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular,

               E.

               whereas in April 2010 the Court of Auditors delivered Opinion No 2/2010 on the SESAR Financial Rules,

               F.

               whereas the budget for the 2008-2013 development phase of the SESAR project is EUR 2 100 000 000,

               G.

               whereas for the financial year 2010 the final budget of the Joint Undertaking amounted to EUR 143 000 000,

      Budget and financial management

               1.

               Takes note that the Joint Undertaking’s final budget for the financial year 2010 included commitment appropriations of EUR 135 000 000 and payment appropriations of EUR 143 000 000; further acknowledges that the utilisation rates for commitment and payment appropriations were 97,3 % and 82,2 % respectively;

               2.

               Establishes from the Court of Auditors that, at year-end 2010, the Joint Undertaking had a positive budget outturn of EUR 53 500 000 and that deposits in bank accounts represented EUR 57 200 000; notes that the situation resulted from:

                           —

                           the contributions from members: EUR 55 600 000,

                           —

                           the outturn of the previous year: EUR 86 500 000,

                           —

                           payments to the Joint Undertaking: EUR 84 900 000,

                           —

                           carry-over of appropriations: EUR 3 700 000;

               3.

               Reminds the Joint Undertaking that this situation is against the budgetary principle of equilibrium; notes however the Joint Undertaking’s replies to the Court of Auditors that the 2010 cash balance decreased by 34 % compared to 2009 and that out of the EUR 55 600 000 of contributions from members, EUR 43 800 000 were received in the last weeks of 2010 to ensure the funding of operations in 2011; calls on the Joint Undertaking to develop an Action Plan with concrete measures and deadlines to keep its budget balanced and to inform the discharge authority about this matter;

               4.

               Underlines that according to Article 6 of the SESAR Financial Rules, no expenditure may be committed or authorised in excess of the appropriations authorised by the budget; is seriously concerned that for two budget headings — administrative expenditure, studies and development — authorised expenditure exceeded budgetary appropriations by 11 % and 9 % respectively; takes note that the Joint Undertaking considers that it can only enter the total payment appropriations once into the overall budget for 2007-2016, in order to avoid exceeding the total budget ceiling by the end of the SESAR development phase in 2016; reminds the Joint Undertaking that it must comply with its own Financial Rules and expects that authorised expenditure exceeding budgetary appropriations shall not occur in future financial years;

      Internal control systems

               5.

               Notes that in 2010, the Joint Undertaking began to use the financial reporting systems also used by the Commission (ABAC and SAP); regrets that the Joint Undertaking operational programme management system was not integrated into these financial reporting systems and that at the end of 2010, the underlying business processes had not been validated by the Accounting Officer as required by the SESAR Financial Rules;

               6.

               Understands from the Joint Undertaking that it has developed an operational programme management system that complements the financial and budgetary information and considers that it has integrated its systems as far as possible, given the constraints on its use of ABAC and SAP; notes moreover that the Joint Undertaking planned to implement ABAC Assets and ABAC Contract by the end of 2011 and that the report of the Accounting Officer on the validation of the local systems was to be finalised in 2011;

               7.

               Calls on the Joint Undertaking to inform the discharge authority about:

                           —

                           the nature of the constraints experienced by the Joint Undertaking on its use of ABAC and SAP,

                           —

                           the state of validation of the underlying business processes and in particular the local systems;

               8.

               Urges the Joint Undertaking, nevertheless, to integrate its financial reporting systems (ABAC and SAP) with its operational programme management system allowing costs to be allocated to specific work packages and funding sources of operational costs to be identified;

      Project management

               9.

               Acknowledges from the Joint Undertaking 2010 Annual Activity Report (AAR) that the SESAR Programme consisted of 304 projects of which 171 were initiated in 2009 while 114 additional projects were launched in 2010; takes note that 80,9 % of the projects are in execution phase, excluding those projects that have been cancelled (3) or suspended (10); notes that, for each cancelled or suspended project, the Joint Undertaking provided justification and explained the corrective actions undertaken; notes in particular in respect of the currently suspended projects that:

                           —

                           about 60 % are related to activities that require other projects to deliver first mature results before being re-started,

                           —

                           about 20 % is related to projects which have not a reliable coupling with other programme activities,

                     the remaining 20 % has been suspended due to a lack of clear link with the future concept of operations or because of the lack of connection with the Master Plan;

               10.

               Urges the Joint Undertaking to continue to inform the discharge authority on the stage of implementation of the projects under the SESAR programme and to present the results achieved;

      Performance

               11.

               Encourages the Commission and the Member States to increase the effectiveness of how the Single European Sky Regulations are applied, in order to increase the effectiveness of investments in the SESAR project;

               12.

               Draws attention to the sound management of financial resources and emphasises the importance of the Joint Undertaking to the Single European Sky;

               13.

               Establishes from the AAR that a comprehensive review of the SESAR Programme implementation approach was conducted and that its conclusions highlighted the need to break down the Programme high-level objectives into a more technical and operational level defining in detail what has to be done, by whom and when, and thus to clearly identify the SESAR validated deliverables which will contribute to the SESAR Development Phase objectives as well as to the specific 2012 Strategic Objectives; calls on the Joint Undertaking to develop an Action Plan with concrete measures and deadlines to address the results of the comprehensive review;

               14.

               Notes moreover that, at the end of 2009, it was decided to establish a common SESAR execution framework to enable adequate programme/project management through streamlined monitoring and control activities; takes note that at year-end 2010 the execution framework has been completely defined and is about 85 % implemented and deployed; calls on the Joint Undertaking to inform the discharge authority of the current stage of implementation and deployment of the execution framework as well as the progress achieved;

               15.

               Acknowledges that the Commission carried out the first intermediate evaluation of the Joint Undertaking in 2010; notes that the evaluation underlines the ability of the Joint Undertaking to provide an optimal response to the needs of the airspace users and service providers; is nevertheless of the opinion that interim evaluations and evaluations should be carried out by external and independent experts;

      Internal audit

               16.

               Welcomes the fact that at the end of 2010 the Executive Director of the Joint Undertaking established the Internal Audit Capability (IAC), appointed the former Joint Undertaking’s Internal Auditor to assume the IAC role, and approved the IAC audit work programme for 2011;

               17.

               Acknowledges from the final annual accounts that the Joint Undertaking signed a framework contract for audit services in May 2010;

               18.

               Welcomes that the Joint Undertaking and the Commission have taken action to ensure a clearer definition of the respective operational roles of the Commission’s Internal Audit Service (IAS) and of the internal auditing function of the Joint Undertaking; albeit notes that the Statutes of the Joint Undertaking have not been amended;

               19.

               Notes with satisfaction that the IAS confirmed its responsibilities under the general Financial Regulation as the Internal Auditor of the Joint Undertakings and that the Joint Undertaking’s Administrative Board has modified the charter of its internal auditing function accordingly;

      Late payment of membership contributions

               20.

               Is concerned that the deadline for payment of the cash contributions to the Joint Undertaking from its members was not respected; takes note that the payment delays ranged from 12 to 113 days and that at the end of 2010 two members had paid no contribution at all; notes the Joint Undertaking’s reply that those contributions were received at the beginning of 2011;

      Horizontal observations on the Joint Undertakings

               21.

               Underlines that seven Joint Undertakings have so far been established by the Commission under Article 187 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; notes that six Joint Undertakings (IMI, Artemis, ENIAC, Clean Sky, FCH and ITER-F4E) are in the research area under the Commission’s DGs RTD and INFSO and one is charged with developing the new air traffic management system (SESAR) in the transport domain whose activities are supervised by DG MOVE;

               22.

               Notes that the total indicative resources deemed necessary for the Joint Undertakings for their period of existence amounts to EUR 21 793 000 000;

               23.

               Notes that the total Union contribution deemed necessary for the Joint Undertakings for their period of existence amounts to EUR 11 489 000 000;

               24.

               Notes that, for the financial year 2010, the overall Union contribution to the budget of the Joint Undertakings amounted to EUR 505 000 000;

               25.

               Calls on the European Commission to provide the discharge authority annually with consolidated information on the total annual funding per Joint Undertaking made from the general budget of the Union in order to ensure transparency and clarity on the use of the Union’s funds and restore trust among the European taxpayers;

               26.

               Welcomes the initiative of Artemis to include information in its AAR on the monitoring and review of its ongoing projects; believes this is a practice that should be followed by the other Joint Undertakings;

               27.

               Recalls that Joint Undertakings are public-private partnerships and that as a consequence public and private interests are intertwined; is of the opinion that under the circumstances the likelihood of conflicts of interest should not be dismissed but addressed properly; calls therefore on the Joint Undertakings to inform the discharge authority on the verification mechanisms which exist in their respective structures to enable a proper management and prevention of conflicts of interest;

               28.

               Notes, with the notable exception of the Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy, that Joint Undertakings are relatively small structures and geographically-concentrated; believes therefore that they should pool their resources where possible;

               29.

               Calls on the Court of Auditors to provide the discharge authority with a follow-up on the comments it has made for each of the Joint Undertakings in their respective report on the annual accounts for the financial year 2011;

               30.

               Invites the Court of Auditors to provide, within a reasonable deadline, a special report to Parliament, on the added value of the establishment of the Joint Undertakings for the efficient execution of Union research, technological development and demonstration programmes; further notes that the same report should include an assessment of the effectiveness of the Joint Undertakings’ establishment.

      (1)  OJ C 368, 16.12.2011, p. 32.

      (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 352, 31.12.2008, p. 12.

      (4)  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.


title: Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP of 7 November 2014 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran

text:
               8.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 325/19

         COUNCIL DECISION 2014/776/CFSP
   of 7 November 2014
   amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,
   Having regard to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and in particular Article 23 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 26 July 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/413/CFSP.

               (2)

               By its judgment of 4 June 2014 in Case T-67/12 (2), the General Court of the European Union annulled the Council's decision to include Sina Bank on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.

               (3)

               Sina Bank should be included again on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures, on the basis of a new statement of reasons.

               (4)

               By its judgments of 3 July 2014 in Cases T-155/13, T-157/13 and T-181/13 (3), the General Court of the European Union annulled the Council's decision to include Babak Zanjani, Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers, and Sharif University of Technology, respectively, on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.

               (5)

               Babak Zanjani, Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers, and Sharif University of Technology should be included again on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures, on the basis of a new statement of reasons.

               (6)

               Following the judgment of 28 November 2013 of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-280/12 P (4), Fereydoun Mahmoudian and Fulmen are not included on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.

               (7)

               Therefore, there are no longer grounds for keeping one entity on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.

               (8)

               The identifying information in relation to three entities on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP should be amended.

               (9)

               Decision 2010/413/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP shall be amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 7 November 2014.

            For the Council

            The President

         P. C. PADOAN

      (1)  OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39.

      (2)  Case T-67/12 Sina Bank v Council, judgment of 4 June 2014 (not yet reported).

      (3)  Case T-155/13 Zanjani v Council, judgment of 3 July 2014 (not yet reported); Case T-157/13 Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers Ltd v Council, judgment of 3 July 2014 (not yet reported); Case T-181/13 Sharif University of Technology v Council, judgment of 3 July 2014 (not yet reported).

      (4)  Case C-280/12 P Council v Fulmen and Fereydoun Mahmoudian, judgment of 28 November 2013 (not yet reported).

      ANNEX

                  I.

                  The person and entities listed below shall be inserted in the list set out in Part I of Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP:
                  I.   Persons and entities involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities and persons and entities providing support to the Government of Iran.
                  A.   Persons

                              Name

                              Identifying information

                              Reasons

                              Date of listing

                              45.

                              Babak Zanjani

                              Date of birth: 12 March 1971

                              Babak Zanjani has provided support for the financing of transactions in Iranian crude oil conducted by the Iranian Ministry of Petroleum, which is designated by the EU. In addition, he has assisted the Central Bank of Iran and the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), which are also designated by the EU, to evade the EU's restrictive measures.
                              He has been a facilitator for Iranian oil transactions and has made transfers of oil-related funds, notably through Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO) and Hong Kong Intertrade, which are controlled by the Iranian Government and also designated by the EU.
                              In addition, he provided essential services to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) by enabling transfers of funds for the benefit of Khatam al-Anbiya, an IRGC-owned company subject to UN and EU sanctions.

                              8.11.2014

                        B.   Entities

                              Name

                              Identifying information

                              Reasons

                              Date of listing

                              8.

                              Sina Bank

                                          No. 187, Avenue Motahhari Ave., Teheran, 1587998411, Iran

                                          Tel: (+9821) 88532434-7, (+9821) 88532434-6

                                          E-mail: infor@sinabank.ir

                                          Website: http://www.sinabank.ir/

                              Sina Bank is controlled by the Mostazafan Foundation, a major Iranian parastatal entity directly controlled by the Supreme Leader, and which has an 84 % shareholding in Sina Bank. It provides financial services to the Mostazafan Foundation and its group of subsidiary units and companies. Accordingly, Sina Bank provides financial support to the Government of Iran through the Mostazafan Foundation.

                              8.11.2014

                              156.

                              Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers Ltd. (SCT) (a.k.a.: SCT Bankers; SCT Bankers Kish Company (PJS); SCT Bankers Company Branch; Sorinet Commercial Trust)

                              Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers, Sadaf Tower, 3rd Floor, Suite No. 301, Kish Island, Iran
                              Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers, No.1808, 18th Floor, Grosvenor House Commercial Tower, Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai, UAE, P.O. Box 31988
                              Tehran branch: Reahi Aiiey, First of Karaj, Maksous Road 9, Tehran, Iran. SWIFT codes: SCERIRTH KSH (Kish Island branch), SCTSAEA1 (Dubai branch), SCERIRTH (Tehran branch)
                              Alternative address for Kish Island branch: Kish Banking Fin Activities Centre, No 42, 4th floor, VC25
                              Alternative addresses for Dubai branch: (1) SCT Bankers Kish Company (PJS), Head Office, Kish Island, Sadaf Tower, 3rd floor, Suite 301, P.O. Box 87. (2) Sheykh Admad, Sheykh Zayed Road, 31988, Dubai, Port, Kish Island.
                              Tels:
                              09347695504 (Kish Island branch)
                              09347695504/97-143257022-99 (Dubai branch)
                              09347695504 (Tehran branch)
                              Emails: info@sctbankers.com
                              zanjani@sctbankers.com

                              Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers Ltd. is controlled by Babak Zanjani, who is designated for providing financial support to the Government of Iran by facilitating oil payments on its behalf.

                              8.11.2014

                              161.

                              Sharif University of Technology

                              Azadi Ave/Street, PO Box 11365-11155, Tehran, Iran, Tel: +98 21 66 161
                              Email: info@sharif.ir

                              Sharif University of Technology (SUT) has a number of cooperation agreements with Iranian Government organisations which are designated by the UN and/or the EU and which operate in military or military-related fields, particularly in the field of ballistic missile production and procurement. This includes: an agreement with the EU-designated Aerospace Industries Organisation for inter alia the production of satellites; co-operating with the Iranian Ministry of Defence and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) on smart boat competitions; a broader agreement with the IRGC Air Force which covers developing and strengthening the University's relations, organisational and strategic cooperation;
                              SUT is part of a 6-university agreement which supports the Government of Iran through defence-related research; and SUT teaches graduate courses in unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) engineering which were designed by the Ministry of Science among others. Taken together, these show a significant record of engagement with the Government of Iran in military or military-related fields that constitutes support to the Government of Iran.

                              8.11.2014

                  II.

                  The entries for the entities set out in Part I of Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP listed below are replaced by the following entries:
                  I.   Persons and entities involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities and persons and entities providing support to the Government of Iran.
                  B.   Entities

                              Name

                              Identifying information

                              Reasons

                              Date of listing

                              27.

                              Power Plants' Equipment Manufacturing Company (Saakhte Tajhizate Niroogahi)

                              No. 10, Jahanara Alley, after Hemmat Bridge, Abbaspour St. (previously called Tavanir), Tehran, Post Code 1435733161, Iran

                              Subordinate to AEOI and Novin Energy (both designated under UNSCR 1737). Involved in the development of nuclear reactors.

                              26.7.2010

                              132.

                              Naftiran Intertrade Company (a.k.a. Naftiran Trade Company) (NICO)

                                          (a)

                                                      5th Floor, Petropars Building, No. 35 Farhang Boulevard, Snadat Abad Avenue, Tehran, Iran

                                                      Tel: +98 21 22372486; +98 21 22374681; +98 21 22374678;

                                                      Fax: +98 21 22374678; +98 21 22372481

                                                      Email: info@naftiran.com

                                          (b)

                                          Suite 17, Burlington House, St. Saviours Road, St. Helier, Jersey, UK

                              Subsidiary (100 %) of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC).

                              16.10.2012

                              133.

                              Naftiran Intertrade Company Srl

                                          Avenue de la Tour-Haldimand, 6, 1009 Pully, Switzerland

                                          Tel: +41 21 3106565

                                          Fax: +41 21 3106566/67/72

                                          Email: nico.finance@naftiran.ch

                              Subsidiary (100 %) of the Naftiran Intertrade Company Ltd.

                              16.10.2012

                  III.

                  The entity listed below shall be deleted from the list set out in Part I of Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP:

                              13.

                              (a) Arya Niroo Nik