title: Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1836 of 12 October 2015 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria

text:
               13.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 266/75

         COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2015/1836
   of 12 October 2015
   amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 9 May 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/273/CFSP (1) concerning restrictive measures against Syria.

               (2)

               Since then, the Council has continued to strongly condemn the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria pursued by the Syrian regime. The Council has repeatedly expressed grave concern about the deteriorating situation in Syria and, in particular, the widespread and systematic violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.

               (3)

               On 14 April 2014, in line with the Council Conclusions of 23 January 2012, wherein the Council confirmed the Union's commitment to continue its policy of imposing additional measures against the regime as long as the repression continues, the Council stated that the EU would continue its policy of restrictive measures targeting the regime as long as the repression continues.

               (4)

               The Council has repeatedly noted with great concern the attempts that have been made by the Syrian regime to circumvent EU restrictive measures in order to continue to finance and support the regime's policy of violent repression against the civilian population.

               (5)

               The Council notes that the Syrian regime continues to pursue its policy of repression and, in view of the gravity of the situation which persists, the Council considers it necessary to maintain and ensure the effectiveness of the restrictive measures in place, by further developing them while maintaining its targeted and differentiated approach and bearing in mind the humanitarian conditions of the Syrian population. The Council considers that certain categories of persons and entities are of particular relevance for the effectiveness of these restrictive measures, given the specific context prevailing in Syria.

               (6)

               The Council has assessed that because of the close control exercised over the economy by the Syrian regime, an inner cadre of leading businesspersons operating in Syria is only able to maintain its status by enjoying a close association with, and the support of, the regime, and by having influence within it. The Council considers that it should provide for restrictive measures to impose restrictions on admission and to freeze all funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by those leading businesspersons operating in Syria, as identified by the Council and listed in Annex I, in order to prevent them from providing material or financial support to the regime and, through their influence, to increase pressure on the regime itself to change its policies of repression.

               (7)

               The Council has assessed that, in the context of power in Syria traditionally being exercised on a family basis, power in the present Syrian regime is concentrated in influential members of the Assad and Makhlouf families. The Council considers that it should provide for restrictive measures to freeze all funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by certain members of the Assad and Makhlouf families, and to impose restrictions on admission for such persons, as identified by the Council and listed in Annex I, both to directly influence the regime through members of those families to change its policies of repression, as well as to avoid the risk of circumvention of restrictive measures through family members.

               (8)

               Ministers within the Syrian Government should be considered jointly and severally responsible for the policy of repression pursued by the Syrian regime. The Council has assessed that former Ministers of the Government of Syria, in the particular context of the present Syrian regime, are likely to have a continuing influence within that regime. The Council therefore considers that it should provide for restrictive measures to freeze all funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by both Ministers within the Syrian Government, and Ministers who held office after May 2011, and to impose restrictions on admission for such persons, as identified by the Council and listed in Annex I.

               (9)

               The Syrian Armed Forces are a key means by which the regime implements its repressive policies and commits violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and their serving officers present a serious risk of further committing such violations. Furthermore, in the particular context of the Syrian Armed Forces, the Council has assessed that former senior officers in the Armed Forces are likely to have a continuing influence within the regime. The Council therefore considers that it should provide for restrictive measures to freeze all funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by both senior officers in the Syrian Armed Forces and former senior officers in the Syrian Armed Forces who held such a position after May 2011, and to impose restrictions on admission for such persons, as identified by the Council and listed in Annex I.

               (10)

               The Syrian security and intelligence services are a key means by which the regime implements its repressive policies and commits violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and their serving officers present a serious risk of further committing such violations. Furthermore, in the particular context of the Syrian security and intelligence services, the Council has assessed that former officers in those services are likely to have a continuing influence within the regime. The Council therefore considers that it should provide for restrictive measures to freeze funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by both members of the Syrian security and intelligence services and former members of those services who held such a position after May 2011, and to impose restrictions on admission for such persons, as identified by the Council and listed in Annex I.

               (11)

               The Council has assessed that regime-affiliated militias support the Syrian regime in its repressive policies, commit abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law on the order, and in the name of, the Syrian regime and that their members present a serious risk of further committing such violations. The Council therefore considers that it should provide for restrictive measures to freeze all funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by members of Syrian regime-affiliated militias, and to impose restrictions on admission for such persons, as identified by the Council and listed in Annex I.

               (12)

               In order to prevent violations of human rights and international humanitarian law through the use of chemical weapons in Syria, the Council considers that it should provide for restrictive measures against persons, entities, units, agencies, bodies or institutions operating in that sector, as identified by the Council and listed in Annex I.

               (13)

               The restrictive measures are without prejudice to the privileges and immunities enjoyed by members of diplomatic and consular missions who are accredited to an EU Member State, in accordance with international law, including the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963. Furthermore, the restrictive measures are without prejudice to the performance of diplomatic functions and consular assistance of Member States in Syria.

               (14)

               Persons or entities within one of the categories referred to in recitals 6 to 12 should not be subject to restrictive measures if there is sufficient information that they are not, or are no longer, associated with the regime or exercise influence over it or do not pose a real risk of circumvention.

               (15)

               All listing decisions should be made on an individual and case-by-case basis taking into account the proportionality of the measure.

               (16)

               Decision 2013/255/CFSP (2), which replaced Decision 2011/273/CFSP, should therefore be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Decision 2013/255/CFSP is amended as follows:

               (1)

               the following recitals are added:

                           ‘(3)

                           The Council has repeatedly noted with great concern the attempts that have been made by the Syrian regime to circumvent EU restrictive measures in order to continue to finance and support the regime's policy of violent repression against the civilian population.

                           (4)

                           The Council notes that the Syrian regime continues to pursue its policy of repression and, in view of the gravity of the situation which persists, the Council considers it necessary to maintain and ensure the effectiveness of the restrictive measures in place, by further developing them while maintaining its targeted and differentiated approach and bearing in mind the humanitarian conditions of the Syrian population. The Council considers that certain categories of persons and entities are of particular relevance for the effectiveness of these restrictive measures, given the specific context prevailing in Syria.

                           (5)

                           The Council has assessed that because of the close control exercised over the economy by the Syrian regime, an inner cadre of leading businesspersons operating in Syria is only able to maintain its status by enjoying a close association with, and the support of, the regime and by having influence within it. The Council considers that it should provide for restrictive measures to impose restrictions on admission and to freeze all funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by those leading businesspersons operating in Syria, as identified by the Council and listed in Annex I, in order to prevent them from providing material or financial support to the regime and, through their influence, to increase pressure on the regime itself to change its policies of repression.

                           (6)

                           The Council has assessed that, in the context of power in Syria traditionally being exercised on a family basis, power in the present Syrian regime is concentrated in influential members of the Assad and Makhlouf families. The Council considers that it should provide for restrictive measures to freeze all funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by certain members of the Assad and Makhlouf families, and to impose restrictions on admission for such persons, as identified by the Council and listed in Annex I, both to directly influence the regime through members of those families to change its policies of repression, as well as to avoid the risk of circumvention of restrictive measures through family members.

                           (7)

                           Ministers within the Syrian Government should be considered jointly and severally responsible for the policy of repression pursued by the Syrian regime. The Council has assessed that former Ministers of the Government of Syria, in the particular context of the present Syrian regime, are likely to have a continuing influence within that regime. The Council therefore considers that it should provide for restrictive measures to freeze all funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by both Ministers within the Syrian Government, and Ministers who held office after May 2011, and to impose restrictions on admission for such persons, as identified by the Council and listed in Annex I.

                           (8)

                           The Syrian Armed Forces are a key means by which the regime implements its repressive policies and commits violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and their serving officers present a serious risk of further committing such violations. Furthermore, in the particular context of the Syrian Armed Forces, the Council has assessed that former senior officers in the Armed Forces are likely to have a continuing influence within the regime. The Council therefore considers that it should provide for restrictive measures to freeze all funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by both senior officers in the Syrian Armed Forces and former senior officers in the Syrian Armed Forces who held such a position after May 2011, and to impose restrictions on admission for such persons, as identified by the Council and listed in Annex I.

                           (9)

                           The Syrian security and intelligence services are a key means by which the regime implements its repressive policies and commits violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and their serving officers present a serious risk of further committing such violations. Furthermore, in the particular context of the Syrian security and intelligence services, the Council has assessed that former officers in those services are likely to have a continuing influence within the regime. The Council therefore considers that it should provide for restrictive measures to freeze funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by both members of the Syrian security and intelligence services and former members of those services who held such a position since May 2011, and to impose restrictions on admission for such persons, as identified by the Council and listed in Annex I.

                           (10)

                           The Council has assessed that regime-affiliated militias support the Syrian regime in its repressive policies, commit abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law on the order, and in the name of, the Syrian regime and that their members present a serious risk of further committing such violations. The Council therefore considers that it should provide for restrictive measures to freeze all funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by members of Syrian regime affiliated militias, and to impose restrictions on admission for such persons, as identified by the Council and listed in Annex I.

                           (11)

                           In order to prevent violations of human rights and international humanitarian law through use of chemical weapons in Syria, the Council considers that it should provide for restrictive measures against persons, entities, units, agencies, bodies or institutions operating in this sector, as identified by the Council and listed in Annex I.

                           (12)

                           The restrictive measures are without prejudice to the privileges and immunities enjoyed by members of diplomatic and consular missions who are accredited to an EU Member State, in accordance with international law, including the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963. Furthermore, the restrictive measures are without prejudice to the performance of diplomatic functions and consular assistance of Member States in Syria.

                           (13)

                           Persons or entities within one of the categories referred to in recitals 5 to 11 should not be subject to restrictive measures if there is sufficient information that they are not, or are no longer, associated with the regime or exercise influence over it or do not pose a real risk of circumvention.

                           (14)

                           All listing decisions should be made on an individual and case-by-case basis taking into account the proportionality of the measure.’;

               (2)

               recital 3 is renumbered as recital 15;

               (3)

               Article 27 is replaced by the following:
               ‘Article 27
               1.   Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of the persons responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, persons benefiting from or supporting the regime, and persons associated with them, as listed in Annex I.
               2.   In accordance with the assessments and determinations made by the Council in the context of the situation in Syria as set out in recitals 5 to 11, Member States shall also take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into, or transit through, their territories of:

                           (a)

                           leading businesspersons operating in Syria;

                           (b)

                           members of the Assad or Makhlouf families;

                           (c)

                           Syrian Government Ministers in power after May 2011;

                           (d)

                           members of the Syrian Armed Forces of the rank of “colonel” and the equivalent or higher in post after May 2011;

                           (e)

                           members of the Syrian security and intelligence services in post after May 2011;

                           (f)

                           members of regime-affiliated militias; or

                           (g)

                           persons operating in the chemical weapons proliferation sector,
                           and persons associated with them, as listed in Annex I.

                     3.   Persons within one of the categories referred to in paragraph 2 shall not be included or retained on the list of persons and entities in Annex I if there is sufficient information that they are not, or are no longer, associated with the regime or do not exercise influence over it or do not pose a real risk of circumvention.
               4.   All listing decisions shall be made on an individual and case-by-case basis taking into account the proportionality of the measure.
               5.   Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not oblige a Member State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory.
               6.   Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be without prejudice to the cases where a Member State is bound by an obligation of international law, namely:

                           (a)

                           as a host country to an international intergovernmental organisation;

                           (b)

                           as a host country to an international conference convened by, or under the auspices of, the UN;

                           (c)

                           under a multilateral agreement conferring privileges and immunities; or

                           (d)

                           under the 1929 Treaty of Conciliation (Lateran pact) concluded by the Holy See (State of the Vatican City) and Italy.

                     7.   Paragraph 6 shall be considered as also applying in cases where a Member State is host country to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
               8.   The Council shall be duly informed in all cases where a Member State grants an exemption pursuant to paragraph 6 or 7.
               9.   Member States may grant exemptions from the measures imposed under paragraphs 1 and 2 where travel is justified on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need, or on grounds of attending intergovernmental meetings, including those promoted by the Union, or hosted by a Member State holding the Chairmanship in office of the OSCE, where a political dialogue is conducted that directly promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Syria.
               10.   A Member State wishing to grant exemptions referred to in paragraph 9 shall notify the Council in writing. The exemption shall be deemed to be granted unless one or more of the Council members raises an objection in writing within two working days of receiving notification of the proposed exemption. Should one or more of the Council members raise an objection, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to grant the proposed exemption.
               11.   Where, pursuant to paragraphs 6 to 10, a Member State authorises the entry into, or transit through, its territory of persons listed in Annex I, the authorisation shall be limited to the purpose for which it is given and to the person concerned therewith.’;

               (4)

               Article 28 is replaced by the following:
               ‘Article 28
               1.   All funds and economic resources belonging to, or owned, held or controlled by persons responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, persons and entities benefiting from or supporting the regime, and persons and entities associated with them, as listed in Annexes I and II, shall be frozen.
               2.   In accordance with the assessments and determinations made by the Council in the context of the situation in Syria as set out in recitals 5 to 11, all funds and economic resources belonging to, or owned, held or controlled by:

                           (a)

                           leading businesspersons operating in Syria;

                           (b)

                           members of the Assad or Makhlouf families;

                           (c)

                           Syrian Government Ministers in power after May 2011;

                           (d)

                           members of the Syrian Armed Forces of the rank of “colonel” and the equivalent or higher in post after May 2011;

                           (e)

                           members of the Syrian security and intelligence services in post after May 2011;

                           (f)

                           members of regime-affiliated militias; or

                           (g)

                           members of entities, units, agencies, bodies or institutions operating in the chemical weapons proliferation sector,
                           and persons associated with them, as listed in Annex I, shall be frozen.

                     3.   Persons, entities or bodies within one of the categories referred to in paragraph 2 shall not be included or retained on the list of persons and entities in Annex I if there is sufficient information that they are not, or are no longer, associated with the regime or do not exercise influence over it or do not pose a real risk of circumvention.
               4.   All listing decisions shall be made on an individual and case-by-case basis taking into account the proportionality of the measure.
               5.   No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of, the natural or legal persons or entities listed in Annexes I and II.
               6.   The competent authority of a Member State may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources, under such conditions as it deems appropriate, after having determined that the funds or economic resources concerned are:

                           (a)

                           necessary to satisfy the basic needs of the persons listed in Annexes I and II and their dependent family members, including payments for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges;

                           (b)

                           intended exclusively for the payment of reasonable professional fees and the reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services;

                           (c)

                           intended exclusively for the payment of fees or service charges for the routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources; or

                           (d)

                           necessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that the competent authority has notified the competent authorities of the other Member States and the Commission of the grounds on which it considers that a specific authorisation should be granted, at least two weeks prior to the authorisation;

                           (e)

                           necessary for humanitarian purposes, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, and provided that, in the case of release of frozen funds or economic resources, the funds or economic resources are released to the UN for the purpose of delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance in Syria in accordance with the Syria Humanitarian Assistance Response Plan (SHARP);

                           (f)

                           to be paid into or from an account of a diplomatic or consular mission or an international organisation enjoying immunities in accordance with international law, in so far as such payments are intended to be used for official purposes of the diplomatic or consular mission or international organisation;

                           (g)

                           necessary for evacuations from Syria;

                           (h)

                           intended for the Central Bank of Syria or Syrian State-owned entities, as listed in Annexes I and II, to make payments on behalf of the Syrian Arab Republic to the OPCW for activities related to the OPCW verification mission and the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons, and in particular to the OPCW Syrian Special Trust Fund for activities related to the complete destruction of Syrian chemical weapons outside the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic.

                     A Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation it grants under this paragraph.
               7.   By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, the competent authorities of a Member State, may authorise the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources, provided that the following conditions are met:

                           (a)

                           the funds or economic resources are subject of an arbitral decision rendered prior to the date on which the person or entity referred to in paragraph 1 or 2 was listed in Annex I or II or of a judicial or administrative decision rendered in the Union, or a judicial decision enforceable in the Member State concerned, prior to or after that date;

                           (b)

                           the funds or economic resources will be used exclusively to satisfy claims secured by such a decision or recognised as valid in such a decision, within the limits set by applicable laws and regulations governing the rights of persons having such claims;

                           (c)

                           the decision is not for the benefit of a person or entity listed in Annex I or II; and

                           (d)

                           recognising the decision is not contrary to public policy in the Member State concerned.

                     A Member State shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any authorisation granted under this paragraph.
               8.   Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not prevent a designated person or entity from making a payment due under a contract entered into before the listing of such a person or entity, provided that the relevant Member State has determined that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.
               9.   Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not prevent a designated entity listed in Annex II, for a period of two months after the date of its designation, from making a payment from frozen funds or economic resources received by such entity after the date of its designation, where such payment is due under a contract in connection with the financing of trade, provided that the relevant Member State has determined that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1 or 2.
               10.   Paragraph 5 shall not apply to the addition to frozen accounts of:

                           (a)

                           interest or other earnings on those accounts; or

                           (b)

                           payments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that were concluded or arose prior to the date on which those accounts became subject to this Decision,
                           provided that any such interest, other earnings and payments remain subject to paragraphs 1 and 2.

                     11.   Paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 shall not apply to a transfer by or through the Central Bank of Syria of funds or economic resources received and frozen after the date of its designation or to a transfer of funds or economic resources to or through the Central Bank of Syria after the date of its designation where such transfer is related to a payment by a non-designated financial institution due in connection with a specific trade contract, provided that the relevant Member State has determined, on a case-by-case basis, that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1 or 2.
               12.   Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to a transfer by or through the Central Bank of Syria of frozen funds or economic resources where such transfer is for the purpose of providing financial institutions under the jurisdiction of Member States with liquidity for the financing of trade, provided that the transfer has been authorised by the relevant Member State.
               13.   Paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 shall not apply to a transfer, by or through a financial entity listed in Annex I or II, of frozen funds or economic resources where the transfer is related to a payment by a person or entity not listed in Annex I or II in connection with the provision of financial support to Syrian nationals pursuing an education, professional training or engaged in academic research in the Union, provided that the relevant Member State has determined, on a case-by-case basis, that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1 or 2.
               14.   Paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 shall not apply to acts or transactions carried out, with regard to Syrian Arab Airlines, for the sole purpose of evacuating citizens of the Union and their family members from Syria.
               15.   Paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 shall not apply to the transfer by or through the Commercial Bank of Syria of funds or economic resources received from outside the Union and frozen after the date of its designation or to a transfer of funds or economic resources to or through the Commercial Bank of Syria received from outside the Union after the date of its designation where such transfer is related to a payment by a non-designated financial institution due in connection with a specific trade contract for medical supplies, food, shelter, sanitation or hygiene for civilian use, provided that the relevant Member State has determined, on a case-by-case basis, that the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity referred to in paragraph 1 or 2.’;

               (5)

               Article 30(2) is replaced by the following:
               ‘2.   The Council shall communicate its decision on the listing, including the grounds therefor, to the person, entity or body concerned, either directly, if the address is known, or through the publication of a notice, providing such person, entity or body with an opportunity to present observations. In particular, where a person, entity or body is listed in Annex I on the basis that they fall within one of the categories of persons, entities or bodies set out in Articles 27(2) and 28(2), the person, entity or body may present evidence and observations as to why, although they fall within such a category, they consider that their designation is not justified.’.

         Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Luxembourg, 12 October 2015.

            For the Council

            The President

         F. MOGHERINI

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 121, 10.5.2011, p. 11).

      (2)  Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14).


title: 2013/376/EU: Decision of the European Central Bank of 28 June 2013 repealing Decision ECB/2013/13 on temporary measures relating to the eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Republic of Cyprus (ECB/2013/21)

text:
               13.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 192/75

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
   of 28 June 2013
   repealing Decision ECB/2013/13 on temporary measures relating to the eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Republic of Cyprus
   (ECB/2013/21)
   (2013/376/EU)
   THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first indent of Article 127(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 12.1 and the second indent of Article 34.1, in conjunction with the first indent of Article 3.1 and Article 18.2 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 18.1 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter the ‘Statute of the ESCB’), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks of Member States whose currency is the euro may conduct credit operations with credit institutions and other market participants, with lending being based on adequate collateral. The criteria determining the eligibility of collateral for the purposes of Eurosystem monetary policy operations are laid down in Annex I to Guideline ECB/2011/14 of 20 September 2011 on monetary policy instruments and procedures of the Eurosystem (1) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘General Documentation’).

               (2)

               Pursuant to Section 1.6 of the General Documentation, the Governing Council of the ECB may, at any time, change the instruments, conditions, criteria and procedures for the execution of Eurosystem monetary policy operations. Pursuant to Section 6.3.1 of the General Documentation, the Eurosystem reserves the right to determine whether an issue, issuer, debtor or guarantor fulfils its requirements for high credit standards on the basis of any information it may consider relevant.

               (3)

               Decision ECB/2013/13 of 2 May 2013 on temporary measures relating to the eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Republic of Cyprus (2) temporarily suspended, as an exceptional measure, the Eurosystem’s minimum requirements for credit quality thresholds applicable to marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Republic of Cyprus.

               (4)

               The Republic of Cyprus has decided to launch a debt management exercise involving marketable debt instruments that it has issued.

               (5)

               The adequacy as collateral for Eurosystem operations of the marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Republic of Cyprus has been further negatively affected by the decision to launch a debt management exercise.

               (6)

               Decision ECB/2013/13 should be repealed,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Repeal of Decision ECB/2013/13
   Decision ECB/2013/13 is repealed.
   Article 2
   Entry into force
   This Decision shall enter into force on 28 June 2013.

      Done at Frankfurt am Main, 28 June 2013.

            The President of the ECB

         Mario DRAGHI

      (1)  OJ L 331, 14.12.2011, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 133, 17.5.2013, p. 26.


title: 2006/452/EC: Council Decision of  29 April 2004  on the signing and provisional application of a Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union

text:
               6.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 185/1

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 29 April 2004
   on the signing and provisional application of a Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union
   (2006/452/EC)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 44(2), the last sentence of Article 47(2), and Articles 55, 57(2), 71, 80(2), 93, 94, 133 and 181a, in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2),
   Having regard to the Treaty of Accession of 16 April 2003, and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,
   Having regard to the Act annexed to the Treaty of Accession, and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 8 December 2003, the Council authorised the Commission, on behalf of the Community and its Member States, to negotiate with the Republic of Azerbaijan a Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union, and to provide for certain technical adjustments linked to the institutional and legal developments within the European Union.

               (2)

               Subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, the Protocol has been negotiated between the Parties and should now be signed on behalf of the European Community and its Member States.

               (3)

               The Protocol should be applied on a provisional basis as from the date of accession, pending completion of the relevant procedures for its formal conclusion,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign, on behalf of the European Community and its Member States, the Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union, subject to possible conclusion at a later stage.
   The text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision (1).
   Article 2
   Pending its entry into force, the Protocol shall be applied on a provisional basis from the date of accession.

      Done at Luxembourg, 29 April 2004.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. McDOWELL

      (1)  See page 3 of this Official Journal,
    ---documentbreak---

               6.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 185/3

         PROTOCOL
   to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, and the Slovak Republic to the European Union
   THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM,
   THE CZECH REPUBLIC,
   THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK,
   THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY,
   THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA,
   THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC,
   THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN,
   THE FRENCH REPUBLIC,
   IRELAND,
   THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC,
   THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS,
   THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA,
   THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA,
   THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG,
   THE REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY,
   THE REPUBLIC OF MALTA,
   THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS,
   THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA,
   THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND,
   THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC,
   THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA,
   THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC,
   THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND,
   THE KINGDOM OF SWEDEN,
   THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND,
   hereinafter referred to as the ‘Member States’ represented by the Council of the European Union, and
   THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY,
   hereinafter referred to as ‘the Communities’ represented by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission,
   of the one part, and
   THE REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN,
   of the other part,
   HAVING REGARD TO the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union on 1 May 2004,
   HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia shall be Parties to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Azerbaijan, of the other part, signed in Luxembourg on 22 April 1996 (hereinafter the Agreement) and shall respectively adopt and take note, in the same manner as the other Member States of the Community, of the texts of the Agreement and of the documents attached to it.
   Article 2
   To take account of recent institutional developments within the European Union, the Parties agree that, following expiry of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, existing provisions in the Agreement referring to the European Coal and Steel Community shall be deemed to refer to the European Community, which has taken over all rights and obligations contracted by the European Coal and Steel Community.
   Article 3
   This Protocol shall form an integral part of the Agreement.
   Article 4
   1.   This Protocol shall be approved by the Communities, by the Council of the European Union on behalf of the Member States, and by the Republic of Azerbaijan in accordance with their own procedures.
   2.   The Parties shall notify each other of the accomplishment of the corresponding procedures referred to in the preceding paragraph. The instruments of approval shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union.
   Article 5
   1.   This Protocol shall enter into force on the same day as the 2003 Treaty of Accession, provided that all the instruments of approval of this Protocol have been deposited before that date.
   2.   Where not all the instruments of approval of this Protocol have been deposited before that date, this Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of the first month following the date of the deposit of the last instrument of approval.
   3.   Where not all the instruments of approval of this Protocol have been deposited before 1 May 2004, this Protocol shall apply provisionally with effect from 1 May 2004.
   Article 6
   The texts of the Agreement, the Final Act and all documents annexed to it are drawn up in the Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovene languages.
   These texts are annexed (1) to this Protocol and are equally authentic with the texts in the other languages in which the Agreement, the Final Act and the documents annexed to it are drawn up.
   Article 7
   This Protocol is drawn up in duplicate in the Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish, Swedish and in Azerbaijani languages, each of these texts being equally authentic.

      Hecho en Bruselas, el dieciocho de mayo de dos mil cuatro.
      V Bruselu dne osmnáctého května dva tisíce čtyři
      Udfærdiget i Bruxelles den attende maj to tusind og fire.
      Geschehen zu Brüssel am achtzehnten Mai zweitausendundvier.
      Kahe tuhande neljanda aasta maikuu kaheksateistkümnendal päeval Brüsselis
      Έγινε στις Βρυξέλλες, στις δέκα οκτώ Μαΐου δύο χιλιάδες τέσσερα.
      Done at Brussels on the eighteenth day of May in the year two thousand and four.
      Fait à Bruxelles, le dix-huit mai deux mille quatre.
      Fatto a Bruxelles, addì diciotto maggio duemilaquattro.
      Briselē, divi tūkstoši ceturtā gada astoņpadsmitajā maijā.
      Priimta du tūkstančiai ketvirtų metų gegužės aštuonioliktą dieną Briuselyje.
      Kelt Brüsszelben, a kétezer-negyedik év május havának tizennyolcadik napján.
      Maghmul fi Brussel, nhar it-tmintax ta' Mejju, 2004
      Gedaan te Brussel, de achttiende mei tweeduizendvier.
      Sporządzono w Brukseli, dnia osiemnastego maja roku dwa tysiące czwartego
      Feito em Bruxelas, em dezoito de Maio de dois mil e quatro.
      V Bruseli dňa osemnásteho mája dvetisícštyri
      V Bruslju, dne osemnajstega maja leta dva tisoč štiri.
      Tehty Brysselissä kahdeksantenatoista päivänä toukokuuta vuonna kaksituhattaneljä.
      Som skedde i Bryssel den artonde maj tjugohundrafyra.
      Brüsseldә iki min dördüncü ilin mayın on sәkkizindә imzalanmışdır.

         Por los Estados miembros
         Za členské státy
         For medlemsstaterne
         Für die Mitgliedstaaten
         Liikmesriikide nimel
         Για τα κράτη μέλη
         For the Member States
         Pour les États membres
         Per gli Stati membri
         Dalībvalstu vārdā
         Valstybių narių vardu
         A tagállamok részéről
         Għall-Istati Membri
         Voor de lidstaten
         W imieniu Państw Członkowskich
         Pelos Estados-Membros
         Za členské štáty
         Za države članice
         Jäsenvaltioiden puolesta
         På medlemsstaternas vägnar
         Üzv dövlәtlәr adından

         Por las Comunidades Europeas
         Za Evropská společenství
         For De Europæiske Fællesskaber
         Für die Europäischen Gemeinschaften
         Euroopa ühenduste nimel
         Για τις Ευρωπαϊκές Κοινότητες
         For the European Communities
         Pour les Communautés européennes
         Per le Comunità europee
         Eiropas Kopienu vārdā
         Europos Bendrijų vardu
         Az Európai Közösségek részéről
         Għall-Komunitajiet Ewropej
         Voor de Europese Gemeenschappen
         W imieniu Wspólnot Europejskich
         Pelas Comunidades Europeias
         Za Európske spoločenstvá
         Za Evropske skupnosti
         Euroopan yhteisöjen puolesta
         På Europeiska gemenskapernas vägnar
         Avropa Birliyi adından

         Por la República de Azerbaiyán
         Za Ázerbájdžánskou republiku
         For Republikken Aserbajdsjan
         Für die Republik Aserbaidschan
         Aserbaidžaani Vabariigi nimel
         Για τη Δημοκρατία του Αζερμπαϊτζάν
         For the Republic of Azerbaijan
         Pour la République d'Azerbaïdjan
         Per la Repubblica dell'Azerbaigian
         Azerbaidžānas Republikas vārdā
         AzerbaidÞano Respublikos vardu
         Azerbajdzsán részéről
         Għar-Repubblika ta' l-Ażerbajġan
         Voor de Republiek Azerbeidzjan
         W imieniu Republiki Azerbejdżanskiej
         Pela República do Azerbaijão
         Za Azerbajdžanskú republiku
         Za Azerbajdžansko republiko
         Azerbaidžanin tasavallan puolesta
         På Republiken Azerbajdzjans vägnar
         Azәrbaycan Respublikası adından

      (1)  The Czech, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovenian versions of the Agreement shall be published in the special edition of the Official Journal at a later date.


( UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION ) DECISION NO. 19 OF 26 APRIL CONCERNING THE APPLICATION TO MILITARY INVALIDITY PENSIONS OF THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH ( 2 ) OF ARTICLE 11 OF REGULATION NO. 3 RELATING TO REDUCTION OR SUSPENSION CLAUSES OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS


Avis juridique important

|

31980D0339

80/339/EEC: Council Decision of 17 March 1980 appointing a member of the Management Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

Official Journal L 078 , 25/03/1980 P. 0014

****( 1 ) OJ NO L 39 , 13 . 2 . 1975 , P . 1 .    COUNCIL DECISION   OF 17 MARCH 1980   APPOINTING A MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT BOARD OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING  ( 80/339/EEC )   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY ,   HAVING REGARD TO COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 337/75 OF 10 FEBRUARY 1975 ON THE CREATION OF A EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING ( 1 ), AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 4 THEREOF ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE COUNCIL DECISION OF 15 JANUARY 1979 APPOINTING THE MEMBERS OF THE MANAGEMENT BOARD OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 14 JANUARY 1982 ,   WHEREAS A SEAT ON THE MANAGEMENT BOARD OF THE ABOVE CENTRE IN THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES CATEGORY HAS BECOME VACANT AS A RESULT OF THE RESIGNATION OF MR ESTGEN , OF WHICH THE COUNCIL WAS INFORMED ON 7 MARCH 1980 ;   HAVING REGARD TO THE NOMINATION SUBMITTED ON 7 MARCH 1980 ,   HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :   SOLE ARTICLE   MR NORBERT FELTGEN IS HEREBY APPOINTED A MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT BOARD OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING TO REPLACE MR ESTGEN FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE LATTER ' S TERM OF OFFICE , NAMELY UNTIL 14 JANUARY 1982 .   DONE AT BRUSSELS , 17 MARCH 1980 .   FOR THE COUNCIL   THE PRESIDENT   J . SANTER


title: Decision (EU) 2015/1648 of the European Parliament of 29 April 2015 on the closure of the accounts of the European Banking Authority for the financial year 2013

text:
               30.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 255/210

      DECISION (EU) 2015/1648 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
      of 29 April 2015
      on the closure of the accounts of the European Banking Authority for the financial year 2013
      THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

                  —

                  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Banking Authority for the financial year 2013,

                  —

                  having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the European Banking Authority for the financial year 2013, together with the Authority's replies (1),

                  —

                  having regard to the statement of assurance (2) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2013, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

                  —

                  having regard to the Council's recommendation of 17 February 2015 on discharge to be given to the Authority in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2013 (05304/2015 — C8-0054/2015),

                  —

                  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 (3),

                  —

                  having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (4), and in particular Article 208 thereof,

                  —

                  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (5), and in particular Article 64 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 (6),

                  —

                  having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1271/2013 of 30 September 2013 on the framework financial regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 208 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7), and in particular Article 108 thereof,

                  —

                  having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

                  —

                  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A8-0072/2015),

         1.

            Notes that the final annual accounts of the European Banking Authority are as annexed to the Court of Auditors' report;

         2.

            Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Banking Authority for the financial year 2013;

         3.

            Instructs its President to forward this Decision to the Executive Director of the European Banking Authority, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

               The President

            Martin SCHULZ

               The Secretary-General

            Klaus WELLE

         (1)  OJ C 442, 10.12.2014, p. 112.

         (2)  See footnote 1.

         (3)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

         (4)  OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.

         (5)  OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 12.

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

         (7)  OJ L 328, 7.12.2013, p. 42.


Avis juridique important

|

31996D0371

96/371/EC, ECSC, Euratom: Commission Decision of 7 June 1996 adjusting the weightings applicable from 1 March 1995 to the remuneration of officials of the European Communities serving in third countries

Official Journal L 146 , 20/06/1996 P. 0050 - 0051

COMMISSION DECISION of 7 June 1996 adjusting the weightings applicable from 1 March 1995 to the remuneration of officials of the European Communities serving in third countries (96/371/Euratom, ECSC, EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities,Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the conditions of employment of other servants of the Communities laid down by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2963/95 (2), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X thereto,Whereas, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, Council Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 578/96 (3) laid down the weightings to be applied from 1 January 1995 to the remuneration of officials serving in third countries, payable in the currency of their country of employment;Whereas the Commission has made a number of adjustments to these weightings (4) in recent months, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations;Whereas, some of these weightings should be adjusted with effect from 1 March 1995 given that the statistics available to the Commission show that in certain third countries the variation in the cost of living measured on the basis of the weighting and the corresponding exchange rate has exceeded 5 % since weightings were last laid down or adjusted,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Sole Article With effect from 1 March 1995 the weightings applicable to the remuneration of officials serving in third countries payable in the currency of their country of employment are adjusted as shown in the Annex.The exchange rates for the calculation of such remuneration shall be those used for implementation of the general budget of the European Communities for the month preceding the date referred to in the first paragraph.Done at Brussels, 7 June 1996.For the CommissionHans VAN DEN BROEKMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 56, 4. 3. 1968, p. 1.(2) OJ No L 310, 22. 12. 1995, p. 1.(3) OJ No L 83, 2. 4. 1996, p. 4.(4) OJ No L 126, 24. 5. 1996, p. 54 to 63.ANNEX >TABLE>


Avis juridique important

|

32002D0743

2002/743/EC: Commission Decision of 14 August 2002 amending Decision 97/634/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway

Official Journal L 240 , 07/09/2002 P. 0051 - 0062

Commission Decisionof 14 August 2002amending Decision 97/634/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway(2002/743/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 2238/2000(2), and in particular Article 8 thereof,Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community(3), and in particular Article 13 thereof,After consulting the Advisory Committee,Whereas:A. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE(1) On 31 August 1996, by means of two separate notices published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, the Commission announced the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding(4) and an anti-subsidy proceeding(5) in respect of imports of farmed Atlantic salmon (the product concerned) originating in Norway.(2) These proceedings resulted in anti-dumping and countervailing duties being imposed in September 1997 by Council Regulations (EC) No 1890/97(6) and (EC) No 1891/97(7) in order to eliminate the injurious effects of dumping and subsidisation.(3) In parallel to this, by Decision 97/634/EC(8), as last amended by Decision 2002/157/EC(9), the Commission accepted undertakings from 190 Norwegian exporters and imports of the product concerned to the Community by these companies were exempted from the said anti-dumping and countervailing duties.(4) The form of the duties was later reviewed and Regulations (EC) No 1890/97 and (EC) No 1891/97 were replaced by Regulation (EC) No 772/1999(10), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 322/2002(11).(5) Following indications that the existing measures may not be achieving their intended results, an interim review of the measures(12) was initiated in February 2002 pursuant to Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (the basic Anti-Dumping Regulation) and Article 19(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 (the basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation).(6) Having reason to suspect that certain companies were not observing the terms of their undertakings, by Regulation (EC) No 452/2002(13) (the Registration Regulation) and pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and Article 16(4) of the basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation, the Commission made imports by Norwegian companies with undertakings subject to registration. The duration of the Registration Regulation was extended for a further period by Regulation (EC) No 1008/2002(14). Consequently, in the event of a finding of a breach or withdrawal of an undertaking, duties may be levied retroactively on goods entered into free circulation in the Community from the date of the breach or withdrawal of the undertaking.B. BREACHES OF THE UNDERTAKINGS1. Obligations of companies with undertakings(7) The undertakings offered by the Norwegian companies oblige them, inter alia, to export the product concerned to the Community at or above certain minimum import price levels (MIPs) laid down in the undertaking. These MIPs, which eliminate the injurious effects of dumping, are applicable to different "presentations" or categories of the product concerned (e.g. "presentation b - gutted fish, head-on"). A degree of flexibility is built into the MIPs whereby an exporter can make some export transactions for the product concerned at prices below the MIP (i.e. down to 85 % of the MIP), as long as the net weighted average sales price for all transactions in the quarter for the presentation concerned is at or above the MIP.(8) The terms of the undertakings also oblige the companies to provide the Commission with regular and detailed information in the form of a quarterly report of their sales to the Community (or resales by any related parties in the Community) of farmed Atlantic salmon. It is stipulated in Clause E.10 of the undertakings that such reports are to be received by the Commission no later than 30 days from the end of each quarter.(9) Pursuant to Article 8(7) of the basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, the Commission performs on-spot verification visits on a regular basis at the premises of selected companies in order to determine the veracity and accuracy of the information provided in their quarterly reports.2. Nordic Group ASA(10) At one company visited, Nordic Group ASA (UT No 1/111, TARIC Additional Code 8217 ), it was found that the net weighted average sales prices for "presentation b" salmon during one quarter of 2001 was significantly below the MIP fixed in clause C.3 of its undertaking.(11) As a breach of the undertaking had occurred, the company was informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to withdraw the Commission's acceptance of its undertaking and also that of a related company (see recital 18), and to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties. A period was granted within which representations could be made both in writing and orally. Comments received were taken into account where appropriate.(12) While Nordic Group ASA did not deny that the weighted average sales price of "presentation b" salmon for the quarter in question was below the MIP level, it was, however, claimed that there were mitigating circumstances for this. It was stated that employees of Nordic Group ASA had verbal instructions concerning the use of the salmon undertaking's "15 % flexibility" clause (see recital 7) and that great care was to be taken to ensure that sales to a customer below the MIP were counterbalanced by sales above the MIP. In this regard, it was claimed that one employee wilfully disobeyed this instruction over a period of time between January and March 2001 and it was the action of this person which led to the breach of the undertaking. The employee concerned not only sold salmon below prices necessary to achieve compliance with the quarterly MIP, but also issued credit notes against the instructions of the company. Nordic Group ASA therefore argued that the action of this person was beyond the control of the company and that the breach was the consequence of force majeure.(13) It was also stated that the company became suspicious of the actions of the employee in question in the early part of 2001 following unexpectedly low margins being achieved on sales to the country in the Community for which that person was responsible. Based on these suspicions, the employee was confronted and placed under "administrative surveillance" from mid-February 2001 until the person's final departure from the company on 31 March 2001. It was established, however, that during this period of administrative surveillance, the employee continued to make sales to the Community at prices which contributed to the average price for the period falling below the MIP.(14) It was the view of the company that it could not be held responsible for the actions of its employee vis-à-vis the non-respect of the MIP for the quarter in question. The Commission does not share this view as it is considered that a company must normally be held responsible for its employees' actions carried out in the course of his or her employment. In the present case, the company detected problems with regard to its sales prices early in the quarter and confronted the person concerned and placed the employee under scrutiny. However, despite this, the company continued to make sales at prices which were not in conformity with the undertaking, therefore the claim that force majeure occurred cannot be accepted.(15) It was also submitted that there should exist a reasonable relationship between action taken by the Community institutions within the framework of the present system of price undertakings for farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway and the intended aims of these measures. In this regard it was argued that this was "... probably a one-time incident ..." unique to Nordic Group ASA, and that such a situation would be unlikely to occur again in the salmon industry. In consequence, the company submitted, that if the Commission were to take no action with regard to the price violation, this would not lead to a deterioration in the overall market prices and therefore the effectiveness of the system of undertakings currently in force for the product concerned.(16) The Commission does not share this view and considers that since an individual undertaking was offered by the company concerned, it is obliged to respect that undertaking and to take effective measures to ensure its compliance. Indeed, it is only through each company observing its undertakings on an individual basis (or having acceptance withdrawn if they do not), that the collective system of undertakings can function. In addition, given the nature and transparency of the Community market for salmon, the argument of Nordic Group ASA that the actions of a single company in selling below the MIP does not have a more general "knock on" effect on market prices is not considered to be accurate.(17) The arguments presented by the company do not alter the Commission's initial view that a breach of the undertaking occurred as it failed to demonstrate that the violation was due to force majeure. In any event, the issue of proportionality is not relevant to the decision to impose a duty as any breach of the undertaking is sufficient ground for its withdrawal(18) It is also noted that Nordic Group ASA has a fully owned subsidiary company in Norway called Northern Seafood A/S and that this company also has an undertaking accepted by the Commission (UT No 1/121, TARIC Additional Code 8307 ). In order to make the action to be taken against a company which has been found to have committed a price violation effective, and to prevent it in the future from simply channelling its exports through its related company with an undertaking, it is considered appropriate to withdraw the undertakings of the violating company and its related companies and to impose definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties against them. Nordic Group ASA was advised of this but made no comment.(19) In the light of the above, the names of Nordic Group ASA and Northern Seafood A/S should be deleted from the Annex to Decision 97/634/EC which lists the companies from which undertakings are accepted.3. Norexport A/S, Nor-Fa Fish AS and Norfra Eksport A/S(20) It was also found that the net weighted average sales prices for "presentation b" salmon sold to the Community during certain quarters of 2001 by three other Norwegian companies, Norexport A/S (UT No 1/113, TARIC Additional Code 8223 ), Nor-Fa Fish AS (UT No 1/191, TARIC Additional Code 8102 ) and Norfra Eksport A/S (UT No 1/116, TARIC Additional Code 8229 ) were also below the MIP fixed in clause C.3 of their undertakings.(21) As breaches of the undertakings appeared to have occurred, the companies were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission's acceptance of their undertakings might be withdrawn (preliminary disclosure) and the imposition of definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties in their place. A period was granted within which representations could be made both in writing and orally, however, only one of these companies submitted comments and requested a hearing.(22) During the hearing, the company confirmed that the weighted average sales price of presentation b salmon for the quarter in question was below the MIP level. It was, however, claimed that there were mitigating circumstances for this as the prices of its Norwegian competitors were also, allegedly, below the MIPs and that this was the only way it could sell to the Community.(23) The fact that there are indications that other companies may be breaching their undertakings does not mean that a company has carte blanche not to respect its undertaking. Accordingly a breach of the undertaking by the company concerned has occurred.(24) As concerns the other two companies which received preliminary disclosure, one also confirmed that it had sold salmon at prices below the MIPs and the other did not respond.(25) Accordingly, breaches of the undertakings were considered to have occurred and the three companies were therefore informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission's acceptance of their undertakings would be withdrawn and of the recommendation to impose definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties against them (final disclosure). No new facts or legal comments were received subsequent to the final disclosure.(26) Accordingly, the names of Norexport A/S, Nor-Fa Fish AS and Norfra Eksport A/S should be deleted from the Annex to Decision 97/634/EC which lists the companies from which undertakings are accepted.4. Sangoltgruppa A/S(27) For one quarter of 2001, another Norwegian company, Sangoltgruppa A/S (UT No 1/151, TARIC Additional Code 8262 ) failed to present its sales report within the due deadline. It should be noted that the company had received a reminder by fax just prior to the deadline for submitting the report that its report had not yet been received by the Commission.(28) As a breach of the undertaking appeared to have occurred, the company was informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission's acceptance of its undertaking might be withdrawn and a recommendation made to impose definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties against it (i.e. preliminary disclosure). The company was also granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to this disclosure both in writing and orally.(29) It was stated in writing that a change in the company's ownership had occurred and that the new owners did not realise that they had an obligation to report their sales, however, no evidence was provided which showed that the late submission of the report was caused by reasons beyond the control of the company. It was therefore considered that the company had taken insufficient steps to ensure compliance with its undertaking and that a breach of the undertaking by Sangoltgruppa A/S had occurred.(30) The company was informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission's acceptance of its undertaking would be withdrawn (i.e. final disclosure) and of the recommendation to impose definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties against it and was granted a further period within which to make representations subsequent to this disclosure.(31) The company subsequently reiterated that it had been sold during 2001 by its owner (Company A), to another Norwegian company (Company B). This was followed later in 2001 by the re-sale of Sangoltgruppa A/S to another company (Company C), which is related to Company A.(32) As Sangoltgruppa A/S was owned by Company A when it failed to submit the report in time and that this breach occurred before Sangoltgrupa A/S was purchased by its current owner, it was claimed that the new owner should not lose the benefit of the undertaking due to the failure of the previous owner of the company to respect the undertaking. In this regard, the company cited a case held before a WTO Panel and the WTO Appellate Body (US - CVD on UK bismuth steel, WT/DS138/R, 23 December 1999) where, it was argued, the European Communities had taken a contradictory position to the one being considered in the present case involving Sangoltgruppa A/S.(33) In this regard, it should be remembered that the price undertaking in question was accepted from the limited company, Sangoltgruppa A/S, which has a legal personality, and not from Companies A, B or C. Indeed, whilst it is a normal fact of commercial life that the ownership of a limited liability company can change as different shareholders buy or sell stakes in that company, despite these changes in the shareholding, the legal identity of the company remains the same. It is therefore the legal person, Sangoltgruppa A/S, which has the obligation to respect the undertaking, regardless of who constitutes the shareholders of the company at any given time. As concerns the argument that this approach is inconsistent with the arguments made by the European Communities in WTO case referred to above, it should be recalled that the case in question involved the granting in the past of aid to a State owned, nationalised company which was then sold off to the private sector. It was argued by the European Communities that a private purchaser of a company at fair market value obtains no benefit from aid previously granted to the seller and that any benefit stream established for the purposes of allocating the benefit granted to the previous owner ceases to apply. It follows that any comparison of these circumstances to the circumstances of the take-over of Sangoltgruppa A/S, and its failure to respect the undertaking is incorrect.(34) Moreover, it should be stressed that if the company's reasoning were to be considered as valid, this would mean that the change of ownership of Sangoltgruppa A/S, while not affecting its corporate name, was such as to entail substantive changes which would clearly affect the considerations on which the acceptance of the undertaking was originally based. In accordance with the Commission's consistent practice in this respect, and despite the absence of a change of name, the likely result of such a conclusion would be that the supposedly "new" company (i.e. under new ownership), could not continue to keep the undertaking previously accepted by the Commission, a result with which Sangoltgruppa A/S would also presumably not have agreed.(35) The company then submitted that the wording of the undertakings means that the Commission is not obliged to impose anti-dumping and countervailing duties whenever there is a violation of a formal nature, as is the case here, and that it has discretionary powers in this regard. It was also argued that as the breach was of a minor nature and that as "... no harm has been caused to the Community industry as a result of this procedural violation", the Commission's discretion should be exercised and duties should not be imposed particularly as to do so would be punitive in its view.(36) It should first be pointed out that in accordance with Article 8(7) of the basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and Article 13(7) of the basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation, failure to comply with the obligation to provide relevant information (e.g. non-compliance with any of the reporting requirements) "... shall be construed as a breach of the undertaking". Furthermore, in accordance with Article 8(9) of the basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and Article 13(9) of the basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation, a definitive duty shall be imposed, in case of a breach of the undertaking. It is considered that these Articles underline the "stand alone" importance of the reporting obligation. This is further emphasised by the clear and precise language of the undertakings themselves in which the reporting obligation is set out.(37) In the present case, however, whilst it was not disputed that the sales report was submitted after the due deadline by Sangoltgruppa A/S, and whilst force majeure was claimed by the company as having occurred, no evidence was provided which showed that the late receipt of the report in question was caused by reasons beyond the control of the company. It is therefore considered that the conditions for applying the force majeure criteria not have been met.(38) As concerns the argument that formal violations (stemming from failure to observe the reporting obligations) are of a secondary nature to price violations, the Commission does not share this opinion. In particular in a proceeding such as the present case where many individual price undertakings are simultaneously in force, the timely submission of undertaking reports by all the parties concerned in the correct format is the key for effective monitoring by the Commission. In these circumstances, compliance with the reporting formalities must be regarded as forming part of the primary obligations of the undertakings, in so far as those formalities are not only intended to simplify administrative procedures, but are also necessary for the proper functioning of the undertaking system as a whole.(39) It follows with regard to the question of whether harm has been done to the Community industry by the company concerned that, as breaches of a formal nature put the efficacity of the undertakings system into jeopardy (a system set up to specifically defend the Community salmon producers from injurious dumping and subsidisation), the Commission must consider that the violation is detrimental to those producers. In any event, the supposed gravity of the breach or its consequences for Community producers is not relevant to the decision to impose a duty as any breach of the undertaking is sufficient ground for its withdrawal.(40) As concerns whether the reimposition of duties is "punitive", it should be recalled that undertakings should have the same effect as duties in removing the injurious effects of dumping or subsidisation. Accordingly, the reimposition of duties in case of a breach of an undertaking is not a "punishment", but a way of restoring and ensuring the effectiveness of the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures originally imposed.(41) In its submission, the company also referred to the action taken in Commission Decision 2002/157/EC(15) whereby a new undertaking was accepted from a Norwegian company (Gje-Vi AS) which had acceptance of its original undertaking withdrawn in 1998, and Council Regulation (EC) No 322/2002(16) which exempted the said company from the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties.(42) It was argued that the circumstances surrounding the acceptance of the new undertaking from this company (inter alia, changed circumstances, different internal management structure and no reason to believe that the same breach would re-occur if a new undertaking were to be accepted) reflect the situation in Sangoltgruppa A/S after its most recent change of ownership. Because of these alleged parallels, it was submitted that there was no need to withdraw acceptance of Sangoltgruppa A/S's undertaking.(43) In this regard, it should be recalled that Gje-Vi AS had requested a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and Article 19(1) of the basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation and that the Commission's decision as to whether or not acceptance of another undertaking from that company would be appropriate were based on the verified findings of that review. In addition, the review in question was initiated after a period of more than three years had elapsed since acceptance of the original undertaking had been withdrawn and that the company was able to prove that the circumstances had changed and that it had introduced new management controls, etc. (see Regulation (EC) No 322/2002, recitals 10 and following).(44) In the case of Sangoltgruppa A/S, no such review investigation has been carried out and no reasonable time period as required under the basic Anti-Dumping and Anti-Subsidy Regulations has elapsed since the violation occurred. Therefore, as the Commission is not in a position to make any determination as to what the company might or might not do in the future, the argument of the company on this point must be rejected.(45) Accordingly, the name of this company should be deleted from the Annex to Decision 97/634/EC.5. Kr Kleiven &  Co A/S, Seaco A/S and Mesan Holding AS(46) Three other Norwegian companies with undertakings namely Kr Kleiven &  Co A/S (UT No 1/80, TARIC Additional Code 8182 ), Seaco A/S (UT No 1/157, TARIC Additional Code 8268 ) and Mesan Holding AS (UT No 1/194, TARIC Additional Code A034), failed to present their sales reports for one or more quarters of 2001. It should be noted that all the companies had received reminders by fax just prior to the deadline for submitting the reports that their reports had not yet been received by the Commission.(47) As breaches of their undertaking appeared to have occurred, the companies were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission's acceptance of their undertakings might be withdrawn and a recommendation made to impose definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties against them. The companies were also granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to this disclosure both in writing, and orally, however, none of them responded.(48) In the absence of any information to the contrary, breaches of the undertakings are therefore considered to have occurred and, accordingly, the companies were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission's acceptance of their undertakings would be withdrawn and of the recommendation to impose definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties against them. No responses were received from any of the companies in this regard.(49) It is therefore considered appropriate to withdraw acceptance of the undertaking of these companies and to impose definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties against them. Accordingly, the names of Kr Kleiven &  Co A/S, Seaco A/S and Mesan Holding AS should be deleted from the Annex to Decision 97/634/EC.6. Johan J. Helland A/S(50) Another Norwegian company with an undertaking, Johan J. Helland A/S (UT No 1/77, TARIC Additional Code 8179 ), failed to present its sales reports for one reporting period of 2001 within the due time limit.(51) As a breach of its undertaking appeared to have occurred, the company was informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission's acceptance of its undertakings might be withdrawn and a recommendation made to impose definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties against it. The company was also granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to this disclosure both in writing and orally. The company made a written submission, but did not request to be heard.(52) It was not disputed that the report was submitted late but the company claimed that the late submission of the report was caused due to internal problems, however, no evidence was provided which demonstrated that these reasons were caused by circumstances beyond its control. Consequently, a breach of its undertaking has occurred.(53) It is therefore considered appropriate to withdraw acceptance of the undertaking of this company and to impose definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties against it. Accordingly, the name of Johan J. Helland A/S should also be deleted from the Annex to Decision 97/634/EC.7. Oskar Einar Rydbeck(54) In order to allow the effective monitoring of the undertakings accepted within the framework of the measures, parties are required by Clause E.11 of their undertakings to "... cooperate in providing whatever information is considered necessary by the European Commission for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this undertaking ...".(55) In this regard, the Commission considers it necessary to update its records periodically concerning parties in Norway with undertakings and any relationships these parties may have, directly or indirectly, with other parties in Norway and/or the European Union.(56) Accordingly, a short questionnaire was sent to all parties with undertakings requesting details of such relationships. In view of the importance of this information to the Commission, the parties were clearly warned that non-submission of the information requested within the deadline set would be considered as a breach of the undertaking. In such a case, and in accordance with Article 8(9) of the basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and Article 13(9) of the basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation, parties were advised that the Commission would propose withdrawing acceptance of their undertakings and imposing anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties in their place.(57) In this regard, Oskar Einar Rydbeck, a sole proprietor (UT No 1/198, TARIC Additional Code A050) failed to submit at all the information requested. As a breach of the undertaking appeared to have occurred, Mr Rydbeck was informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission's acceptance of its undertaking might be withdrawn and a recommendation made to impose definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties against him. He was also granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to this disclosure both in writing, and orally, however, he did not respond.(58) As no evidence was provided by Mr Rydbeck which showed that the non-submission of the information considered necessary by the Commission was caused by reasons beyond his control, a breach of the undertaking has therefore occurred. He was therefore informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission's acceptance of his undertaking would be withdrawn and of the recommendation to impose definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties against it, however, no response was received.(59) It is therefore considered appropriate to withdraw acceptance of the undertaking of this exporter and to impose definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties against it. Accordingly, the name of Oskar Einar Rydbeck should also be deleted from the Annex to Decision 97/634/EC.(60) It should also be noted that the Norwegian company Norexport A/S mentioned in recitals 20 and following also failed to fulfil its undertaking obligations by not providing the information requested concerning relationships with other parties. Accordingly, in addition to the breaches set out concerning price violations, Norexport A/S is also considered to have breached its undertaking in respect of Clause E.11 thereof as well.C. NEW EXPORTERS AND CHANGES OF NAME1. New exporters(61) Since the original imposition of definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties, certain Norwegian companies have made themselves known to the Commission, claiming to be new exporters, and requested, in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 772/1999 in conjunction with Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97, that the exemption to the duties be extended to them.(62) In this regard, seven such exporters, Athena Seafoods AS, Norsk Havfisk A/S, Rodé Vis International AS, Seaborn AS, Triton AS, Nordlaks Produkter AS and Codfarms AS all demonstrated that they had not exported the product concerned to the Community during the investigation period which led to the current anti-dumping and countervailing duties.(63) The companies also showed that they are not related to any of the companies in Norway which are subject to anti-dumping and countervailing duties. In addition, they provided evidence that they had entered into irrevocable contractual obligations to export a significant amount of the product concerned to the Community.(64) The companies have offered undertakings which are identical to those previously accepted from other Norwegian companies exporting farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway. By doing so, they have all agreed, inter alia, to respect the minimum import prices laid down therein and to provide the Commission with regular and detailed information concerning their exports to the Community.(65) Since the undertakings offered by the companies concerned can be monitored by the Commission in the same way as those already in place, and they eliminate the injurious effects of dumping and subsidisation, the offers are considered acceptable. The companies have all been informed of the essential facts, considerations and obligations upon which this acceptance is based.(66) Notwithstanding the fact that the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures are currently subject to an interim review, the names of Athena AS, Norsk Havfisk AS, Rodé Vis International AS, Seaborn AS, Triton AS, Nordlaks Produkter AS and Codfarms AS should nevertheless be added in the meantime to the list of companies from which undertakings are accepted in the Annex to Decision 97/634/EC.2. Changes of name(67) Four Norwegian exporters with undertakings, Borkowski &  Rosnes A/S (UT No 1/26, TARIC Additional Code 8124 ), Fjord Seafood ASA (UT No 1/43, TARIC Additional Code 8140 ), Sea-Bell A/S (UT No 1/156, TARIC Additional Code 8267 ) and Astor A/S (UT No 1/22, TARIC Additional Code 8120 ), advised the Commission that the groups of companies to which they belonged had been re-organized and that other companies within their respective groups were now responsible for exports of salmon to the Community. Borkowski &  Rosnes A/S therefore requested that its name be replaced by that of Rossa Salmon AS on the list of companies from which undertakings are accepted in the Annex to Decision 97/634/EC, and the names of Fjord Seafood ASA, by that of Fjord Marin Sales AS, Sea-Bell A/S by that of Sea Bell Salmon AS and Astor A/S by that of Midnor Processing AS on the same list.(68) The Commission considers after verification that the requests are all acceptable since the modifications do not entail any substantive changes which would affect the re-assessment of dumping or subsidisation, nor do they affect any of the considerations on which the acceptance of the undertaking was based.(69) Consequently, the names of Borkowski &  Rosnes A/S, Fjord Seafood ASA, Sea-Bell A/S and Astor A/S should be changed to Rossa Salmon AS, Fjord Marin Sales AS, Sea Bell Salmon AS and Midnor Processing AS respectively on the list of companies from which undertakings are accepted in the Annex to Decision 97/634/EC.D. AMENDMENT OF THE ANNEX TO DECISION 97/634/EC(70) In view of all the preceding, the list of companies from which undertakings are accepted in the Annex to Decision 97/634/EC should be amended accordingly.(71) The Advisory Committee has been consulted on all of the above and has raised no objections.(72) For the sake of clarity, an updated version of the Annex to that Decision is published herewith, showing all the exporters whose undertakings are currently in force.(73) In parallel to this Decision, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1593/2002(17) has also withdrawn the exemption from the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties granted to Nordic Group ASA, Northern Seafood A/S, Norexport A/S, Nor-Fa Fish AS, Norfra Eksport A/S, Sangoltgruppa A/S, Kr Kleiven &  Co A/S, Seaco A/S, Mesan Holding AS, Johan J. Helland A/S and Oskar Einar Rydbeck; granted exemption from those duties to Athena Seafoods AS, Norsk Havfisk A/S, Rodé Vis International AS, Seaborn AS, Triton AS, Nordlaks Produkter AS and Codfarms AS, and changed the names of Borkowski &  Rosnes A/S, Fjord Seafood ASA, Sea-Bell A/S and Astor A/S to Rossa Salmon AS, Fjord Marin Sales AS, Sea Bell Salmon AS and Midnor Processing AS respectively, by amending the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 772/1999.E. RETROACTIVE COLLECTION OF DUTIES(74) As mentioned previously, imports of the product concerned are currently subject to registration by customs authorities, thus allowing the possibility of retroactive collection of anti-Dumping and anti-subsidy duties in cases of breach or withdrawal of undertakings.(75) However, as the breaches of the undertaking by the various companies set out in this Decision all occurred prior to the entry into force of the Registration Regulation, as extended (and were identified by the Commission with final disclosure thereof notified to the companies concerned also before entry into force of the Registration Regulation), it has been decided not to impose duties retroactively in this particular case,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 11. The undertakings offered by the following companies: Athena Seafoods AS, Norsk Havfisk A/S, Rodé Vis International AS, Seaborn AS, Triton AS, Nordlaks Produkter AS and Codfarms AS in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway are hereby accepted.2. The acceptance of undertakings offered by the following exporters: Nordic Group ASA, Northern Seafood A/S, Norexport A/S, Nor-Fa Fish AS, Norfra Eksport A/S, Sangoltgruppa A/S, Kr Kleiven &  Co A/S, Seaco A/S, Mesan Holding AS, Johan J. Helland A/S and Oskar Einar Rydbeck in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway is hereby withdrawn.Article 2The Annex to Decision 97/634/EC is replaced by the Annex hereto.Article 3This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.Done at Brussels, 14 August 2002.For the CommissionPascal LamyMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.(2) OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2.(3) OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1.(4) OJ C 253, 31.8.1996, p. 18.(5) OJ C 253, 31.8.1996, p. 20.(6) OJ L 267, 30.9.1997, p. 1.(7) OJ L 267, 30.9.1997, p. 19.(8) OJ L 267, 30.9.1997, p. 81.(9) OJ L 51, 22.2.2002, p. 32.(10) OJ L 101, 16.4.1999, p. 1.(11) OJ L 51, 22.2.2002, p. 1.(12) OJ C 53, 20.2.2002, p. 10.(13) OJ L 72, 14.3.2002, p. 7.(14) OJ L 153, 13.6.2002, p. 9.(15) OJ L 51, 22.2.2002, p. 32.(16) OJ L 51, 22.2.2002, p. 1.(17) See page 22 of this Official Journal.ANNEXLIST OF COMPANIES FROM WHICH UNDERTAKINGS ARE ACCEPTED>TABLE>


title: 2012/342/EU: Council Decision of 22 June 2012 appointing a German alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

text:
               28.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 168/37

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 22 June 2012
   appointing a German alternate member of the Committee of the Regions
   (2012/342/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal of the German Government,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.

               (2)

               An alternate member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Manfred RICHTER,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The following is hereby appointed as alternate member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

               —

               Ms Barbara HACKENSCHMIDT, Mitglied des Landtags Brandenburg.

         Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Luxembourg, 22 June 2012.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. VESTAGER

      (1)  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

      (2)  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.