title: 2010/577/EU: Commission Decision of 28 September 2010 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates and releasing the amounts secured by way of the provisional duties imposed

text:
               29.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 254/40

         COMMISSION DECISION
   of 28 September 2010
   terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates and releasing the amounts secured by way of the provisional duties imposed
   (2010/577/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
   After consulting the Advisory Committee,
   Whereas:
   A.   PROCEDURE

   1.   Provisional measures

               (1)

               On 3 September 2009, the Commission announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (the countries concerned). On 1 June 2010, the Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 472/2010 (3) (the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran and the United Arab Emirates.

               (2)

               The proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 20 July 2009 by the Polyethylene Terephthalate Committee of Plastics Europe (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of certain polyethylene terephthalate.

               (3)

               As set out in recital 11 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP (period considered).

               (4)

               In the parallel anti-subsidy proceeding, the Commission by Regulation (EU) No 473/2010 (4) imposed a provisional countervailing duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran and the United Arab Emirates.

         2.   Subsequent procedure

               (5)

               Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (provisional disclosure), several interested parties made written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings. The parties who so requested were also granted the opportunity to be heard.

               (6)

               The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties following the provisional disclosure were considered and, where appropriate, the provisional findings were modified accordingly.

               (7)

               All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the termination of the proceeding and the release of amounts secured by way of provisional duties imposed (final disclosure). They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

               (8)

               The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and, where appropriate, the findings were modified accordingly.

         3.   Parties concerned by the proceeding

               (9)

               Some interested parties claimed that the sample of EU producers was not representative and inconsistent and that therefore the injury analysis was deficient. In particular, it was claimed that sampling was not necessary since the number of producers was not large. In addition, it was claimed that by ‘artificially’ splitting company groups into individual legal entities, the sample would not contain some of the market leaders (Artenius, M&G Polimeri) and that the methodology for the selection of the sample is inconsistent since the sample also included two groups of companies. It was also claimed that the sample was not representative since it did not contain any producer that is selling to a related PET processor in sufficient quantities. As a result, the institutions allegedly could not assess the real supply capability of the Union industry and did not take into account the Union industry’s conflict of interest. Moreover, as one company did not provide all necessary information and was excluded from the sample, the representativity allegedly dropped to 28 % of EU production. The same parties claimed that the selected sample was not statistically valid.

               (10)

               With regard to the argument that sampling was not necessary since the number of producers was not large, it is reiterated that in the sampling exercise 14 Union producers belonging to eight groups of companies came forward. Given the objectively high number of EU producers that cooperated, i.e. 14, sampling was applied in accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation on the basis of the largest representative volume of sales that could reasonably be investigated within the time available. The sample selected consisted of five individual companies (with six producing locations).

               (11)

               With regard to the first claim concerning the representativity of the sample, it should be noted that the institutions can include individual companies which are part of a company group within the sample as long as they are representative and have separate financial accounts. Otherwise, investigating all 14 EU producers belonging to the eight groups of companies would have prevented the timely completion of the investigation. However, the fact that two company groups have been included in the sample is not inconsistent with the sampling methodology applied in this case, i.e. the largest representative volumes of sales to EU clients.

               (12)

               As regards Indorama, this group had two different production plants in the IP — one in the Netherlands and the other one in UK. Including this group in the sample is in line with the sampling methodology applied since those plants formed one entity from the legal and financial perspective. As regards Equipolymers, which had two separate entities producing PET in the IP (one in Italy and another one in Germany), the company reported consolidated figures for both locations. Given that the verification of these consolidated figures was possible during one visit at the company’s headquarters, it was decided to accept this consolidated reporting and to treat Equipolymers PET producing companies as one entity for the purpose of this proceeding. With regard to the claim that Artenius and M&G Polimeri had to be included in the sample because they were the market leaders, it is noted that none of their individual entities belonged to the companies with the highest volumes of sales to EU clients.

               (13)

               As regards the claim that the sample was not representative because it did not include one producer who produces mainly for internal consumption, it should be noted that the capability to supply can be examined in the framework of the Union interest analysis if such a claim is made and for that purpose the captive consumption can be deducted from the production volume. Thus, there is no need to have such a producer in the sample for the examination of certain injury factors. Secondly, any double interest resulting from the position of a company as EU producer and processor at the same time can also be assessed in the Union interest analysis. The position of a company as EU producer and processor is not linked with the performance of the Union industry where sales to unrelated customers in the EU are taken as a benchmark. The claim is thus rejected.

               (14)

               With regard to the claim concerning the overall representativity of the sample, it is reiterated that the reduction of the sample to four companies lowered the representativity from 65 % to 47 % of the sales by all cooperating producers. The same four companies accounted for 52 % of the Union production. This is considered to be a representative sample of the EU producers in terms of sales to independent customers in the EU.

               (15)

               As regards the claim that the sample selected was not statistically valid, it is noted that Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation clearly allows for a sample to be based on the largest representative volume of the sales that can reasonably be investigated in the time available, as an alternative for a ‘statistically valid’ sample.

               (16)

               In the absence of any other comments concerning the findings, recitals 3 to 10 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

         B.   PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

               (17)

               It is recalled that, in recital 12 of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned was defined as polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, originating in the countries concerned and currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20.

               (18)

               Moreover, in recital 14 of the provisional Regulation, it was stated that the investigation showed that PET produced and sold in the Union by the Union industry, and the PET produced and sold on the domestic markets of the countries concerned, and exported to the Union were like products.

               (19)

               Since the product under investigation was considered a homogeneous product, it was not further subdivided into different product types for calculating the dumping and the injury margins.

               (20)

               One exporting producer claimed that PET should be subdivided into different product types according to their different viscosity numbers since the viscosity number is essential to determine the different applications for the PET types produced. It was considered that the claim should be accepted and the methodology for calculating the dumping and injury margins was adapted accordingly.

         C.   DUMPING

               (21)

               As explained in recital 20, the methodology for the calculation of the dumping margin was adapted and the dumping margin for each country concerned is now calculated for each product type separately.

         1.   Iran

   1.1.   Normal value

               (22)

               In the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recitals 16 to 18 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

         1.2.   Export price

               (23)

               In the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recital 19 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

         1.3.   Comparison

               (24)

               In recital 23 of the provisional Regulation it was stated that the Iranian exporter was not able to quantify the alleged impact of the sanctions against Iran in a way that could be supported by any evidence. In its comments to the provisional Regulation, the company claimed that it would be upon the investigating authority to ensure a fair comparison, not the exporter. However, in accordance with Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation, an adjustment may be made for differences in other factors if it is demonstrated that they affect the price comparability, in particular that customers consistently pay different prices on the domestic market because of the differences in such factors. As it is for the exporting producer to demonstrate the existence of any other factor, the claim is rejected and the methodology explained in recitals 20 to 23 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

         1.4.   Dumping margin

               (25)

               In the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recitals 24 to 25 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

               (26)

               The definitive dumping margin for Iran, expressed as a percentage of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is 26,8 %.

         2.   Pakistan

   2.1.   Normal value

               (27)

               In the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recitals 27 to 29 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

         2.2.   Export price

               (28)

               In the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recital 30 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

         2.3.   Comparison

               (29)

               In the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recitals 31 to 32 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

         2.4.   Dumping margin

               (30)

               In the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recital 33 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

               (31)

               The definitive dumping margin for the sole Pakistani exporting producer, Novatex Limited, expressed as a percentage of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is 0,6 %, i.e. below de minimis in the sense of Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation.

               (32)

               Since there are no other producers of the product concerned in Pakistan, no definitive measures should be imposed.

         3.   United Arab Emirates

   3.1.   Normal value

               (33)

               Following the change in methodology explained in recitals 20 and 21, the results of the ordinary course of trade test as described in recitals 37 and 38 of the provisional Regulation changed with regard to some product types. Thus, where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales of that type only.

               (34)

               Where there were no profitable sales of a certain product type, it was considered that this product type was sold in insufficient quantities for the domestic price to provide an appropriate basis for the establishment of the normal value.

               (35)

               Wherever domestic prices of a particular product type sold by the exporting producers could not be used in order to establish normal value, the normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.

               (36)

               When constructing normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the amounts for selling, general and administrative costs and for profits have been based, pursuant to Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, on the actual data pertaining to the production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the exporting producer under investigation.

         3.2.   Export price

               (37)

               In the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recital 39 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

         3.3.   Comparison

               (38)

               In the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recitals 40 to 41 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

         3.4.   Dumping margin

               (39)

               In the absence of any comments other than those already mentioned in the above recitals 20 and 21, the methodology explained in recital 42 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

               (40)

               The definitive dumping margin for the sole UAE exporting producer, JBF RAK LLC, expressed as a percentage of the cif Union frontier price, duty unpaid, is 0,6 %, i.e. below de minimis in the sense of Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation.

               (41)

               Since there are no other producers of the product concerned in the UAE, no definitive measures should be imposed.

         D.   INJURY

   1.   Union production, Union industry and Union consumption

               (42)

               No comments have been received with regard to Union production, Union industry and Union consumption. Consequently, the recitals 45 to 50 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

         2.   Imports from the countries concerned

   2.1.   Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned

               (43)

               It is reiterated that in recital 52 of the provisional Regulation, it was considered that as the dumping margin found for Pakistan was de minimis, the effect of those imports could not be assessed together with imports provisionally found to be dumped from Iran and the UAE.

               (44)

               Given that the further investigation showed that the dumping margin for the UAE is also de minimis, it is considered that the effect of those imports cannot be assessed together with dumped imports from Iran. Consequently, no cumulative assessment of the imports is made.

         2.2.   Volume of the imports concerned

               (45)

               The volume of dumped imports of the product concerned into the EU started from a relatively low level in 2006, but increased gradually until the IP, reaching 55 500 tonnes in the IP. More specifically, imports from Iran more than doubled between 2006 and 2007, before further increasing by over 100 percentage points in 2008 compared to 2007 and almost another 130 percentage points between 2008 and the IP.

                  Table 1

                           2006

                           2007

                           2008

                           IP

                           Volume of dumped imports from Iran (tonnes)

                           11 752

                           26 624

                           40 101

                           55 500

                           Index (2006 = 100)

                           100

                           227

                           341

                           472

                           Market share of dumped imports from Iran

                           0,4 %

                           0,9 %

                           1,4 %

                           1,9 %

                              Source: Eurostat.

         2.3.   Market share of the imports concerned

               (46)

               The market share held by dumped imports from Iran stood at 0,4 % during 2006 and increased steadily by 1,5 percentage points throughout the period considered. More specifically, it rose by 0,5 percentage points between 2006 and 2007, by further 0,5 percentage points between 2007 and 2008 and by 0,5 percentage points between 2008 and the IP. In the IP, the market share of dumped imports from Iran was 1,9 %.

         2.4.   Prices

   (i)   Price evolution

               (47)

               The average import price decreased by 11 % in the period considered with the sharpest decline between 2008 and the IP. More specifically, the average price remained stable in 2007 and decreased by 2 percentage points in 2008, before dropping by further 9 percentage points in the IP.

                  Table 2

                           2006

                           2007

                           2008

                           IP

                           Price of imports from the Iran (EUR/tonne)

                           1 033

                           1 034

                           1 008

                           920

                           Index

                           100

                           100

                           98

                           89

                              Source: Eurostat.

         (ii)   Price undercutting

               (48)

               Following the provisional disclosure, the Iranian exporter commented that its injury margin was overstated since the weighted average unit sales price established was understated, incorrectly calculating the amount of level of trade adjustment; however, no alternative quantification of the level of trade adjustment was proposed. Indeed, the basis for the level of trade used for the provisional calculation was a fixed amount per tonne that is a commission charged by the cooperating importing agent and represent around 1 % of the average cif price. No other information is available for such adjustment and the claim is thus rejected. The same party also claimed that the 2 % rate taken for post-importation costs appeared to be understated. It is reiterated in this regard that no importer cooperated in this investigation and it was not possible to verify the actual post-importation cost. Thus, in absence of any other information available, the rate used in previous proceedings was applied.

               (49)

               Given the above, it is definitively confirmed that the dumped products originating in Iran sold in the Union undercut the prices of the Union industry by 3,2 %.

         3.   Situation of the Union industry

               (50)

               Some interested parties claimed that injury did not exist as given the alleged wrong sample no results could be extrapolated for the total Union industry. As an example it was claimed that since one company (not in the sample) had indicated that it was using over 100 % of its capacity it would be a clear sign of no injury. It is noted that the information submitted is an extract of this company’s submission to the stock exchange authorities and not verified. This information does not square with the information on the file. Moreover, and in any event, the capacity utilisation of one EU producer alone cannot alter the findings of injury concerning almost all other injury indicators for the sampled EU producers and the other EU producers.

               (51)

               In the absence of any other claims or comments, recitals 63 to 82 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

         4.   Conclusion on injury

               (52)

               In the absence of any specific comments, the conclusion on injury laid down in recitals 83 to 85 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

         E.   CAUSATION

   1.   Effect of the dumped imports

               (53)

               The increase in the volume of the dumped imports from Iran by almost five times between 2006 and the IP, and of its corresponding share of the Union market, i.e. by 1,5 percentage points, as well as the undercutting found (3,2 % during the IP) generally coincided with the deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry. Therefore, it can be concluded that dumped imports from Iran had an impact on the injury found to the Union industry.

               (54)

               It is important to stress that in the parallel anti-subsidy proceeding, the cumulated subsidised imports from Pakistan, the UAE and Iran were found to cause material injury to the Union industry.

               (55)

               On the other hand, given the considerable volumes and the low prices of imports from Korea and Pakistan, it is also confirmed, as stated in recitals 94 and 96 of the provisional Regulation, that those imports contributed to a certain extent to the injury suffered by the Union industry.

               (56)

               Additionally, in this proceeding, considerable imports from the UAE (around 150 000 t) were also undercutting the Union industry prices.

               (57)

               At the same time, the market share of the Iranian imports was below 1 % in 2006 and in 2007 and in the IP it was only close to 2 %, corresponding to 55 000 t.

               (58)

               It also has to be noted that the undercutting established for the Iranian producer was lower than in the case of non-dumped imports from the UAE.

         2.   Conclusion on causation

               (59)

               In conclusion, while the above analysis showed that dumped imports originating in Iran have had some negative impact on the situation of the Union industry, this impact, taken in isolation, did not exist to a degree that could be considered material as required by Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation.

         F.   TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING

               (60)

               The investigation has shown that imports of the product concerned from Pakistan and from the UAE were not sold at dumped prices. Consequently the proceeding with regard to Pakistan and the UAE shall be terminated without the imposition of measures.

               (61)

               The investigation has shown that imports of the product concerned from Iran were made at dumped prices and contributed to some extent to the injury suffered by the Union industry.

               (62)

               However, as indicated in recital 59, it was established that the negative impact of the Iranian imports on the situation of the Union industry did not exist to a degree that would enable it to be classified as material.

               (63)

               In light of the above, considering the lack of material injury caused by the dumped imports originating in Iran, it is concluded that the proceeding should be terminated without the imposition of measures also with regard to Iran.

               (64)

               The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 472/2010 should be released,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISON:
   Article 1
   The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20 and originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates is hereby terminated.
   Article 2
   Regulation (EU) No 472/2010 is hereby repealed. The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 472/2010 on imports of polyethylene terephthalate having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g or higher, according to the ISO Standard 1628-5, currently falling within CN code 3907 60 20 and originating in Iran and the United Arab Emirates shall be released.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 28 September 2010.

            For the Commission

            The President

         José Manuel BARROSO

      (1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

      (2)  OJ C 208, 3.9.2009, p. 12.

      (3)  OJ L 134, 1.6.2010, p. 4.

      (4)  OJ L 134, 1.6.2010, p. 25.


Avis juridique important

|

31970D0372

70/372/EEC: Council Decision of 20 July 1970 setting up a Standing Committee for Feeding-stuffs

Official Journal L 170 , 03/08/1970 P. 0001 - 0001 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 3 P. 0060  Danish special edition: Series I Chapter 1970(II) P. 0470  Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 3 P. 0060  English special edition: Series I Chapter 1970(II) P. 0534  Greek special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 5 P. 0155  Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 4 P. 0015  Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 4 P. 0015

COUNCIL DECISION  of 20 July 1970  setting up a Standing Committee for Feeding-stuffs  (70/372/EEC)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community;  Having regard to the draft decision submitted by the Commission;  Whereas the instruments adopted by the Council relating to feeding-stuffs provide, for the purpose of facilitating implementation of such instruments, for a procedure establishing close co-operation between Member States and the Commission ; whereas, in order to achieve such co-operation, a Committee should be set up to carry out the duties devolving upon it under those instruments;  Whereas it is desirable that such co-operation should extend to all fields covered by those instruments ; whereas that Committee should accordingly be empowered to consider any question relating to such fields;  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:    Article 1 A Standing Committee for Feeding-stuffs (hereinafter called the "Committee") is hereby set up and shall consist of representatives of the Member States with a representative of the Commission as Chairman.   Article 2 The Committee shall, in the cases and under the conditions provided for therein, carry out the duties devolving upon it under the instruments relating to feeding-stuffs adopted by the Council.  It may, moreover, consider any other question arising under such instruments and referred to it by the Chairman either on his own initiative or at the request of a Member State.   Article 3 The Committee shall adopt its own rules of procedure.     Done at Brussels, 20 July 1970.  For the Council  The President  W. SCHEEL


Important legal notice

|

E2001C1206(04)

Authorisation of State aid pursuant to Articles 59(2), 61 and 63 of the EEA Agreement, Article 1(3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections)

Official Journal C 344 , 06/12/2001 P. 0010 - 0010

Authorisation of State aid pursuant to Articles 59(2), 61 and 63 of the EEA Agreement, Article 1(3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement(EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections)(2001/C 344/11)A copy of the decision may be obtained in the authentic language version upon request addressed to: EFTA Surveillance Authority Competition and State Aid Directorate Rue de Trèves, 74 B - 1040 Brussels.Date of adoption: 19 September 2001EFTA State: NorwayAid No: SAM 030.01.005Title: Compensation granted to Widerøe's Flyveselskap ASA for the temporary operation of air transport services on the route between Olso and FagernesObjective: Maintenance of transport services on air route in the public interestSector: Transport (civil aviation)Legal basis: Contract between Royal Ministry of Transport and Communications and air carrier; State BudgetForm of aid: GrantAid amount: NOK 3430200 (approximately EUR 429999)Duration: 1 October 2001 to 31 March 2002


title: 71/236/Euratom: Council Decision of 21 June 1971 adopting a five-year research and training programme of the European Atomic Energy Community in the field of biology and health physics

text:
                                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      401
29.6.71                             Official Journal of the European Communities                              No L 143 /31
                                                COUNCIL DECISION
                                                    of 21 June 1971
              adopting a five-year research and training programme of the European Atomic Energy
                                  Community in the field of biology and health physics
                                                   (71 /236/Euratom)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,                      HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the                                            Article 1
European Atomic Community, and in particular
Articles 7 and 172 thereof;                                    A research and training programme in the field of
                                                               biology and health physics consisting of a joint
Having regard to the Treaty establishing a Single              programme and a complementary programme, in
Council and a Single Commission of the European                which the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and
Communities ;                                                  the Netherlands shall participate, shall be adopted for
                                                               a five-year period from 1 January 1971 . This
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission              programme is set out in the Annex to this Decision.
submitted after consultation with the Scientific and
Technical Committee;                                                                     Article 2
Having regard to the Council Resolution of 6                   The upper limit for expenditure commitments and
December     1969    on the future    activities of the        for staff necessary for the implementation of this
European Atomic Energy Community;                              programme shall be 17-335 million units of account
                                                               and 97 Community servants in the case of the joint
Having regard to the Council Decision of 27 October            programme and 5-61 million units of account and 10
19701 adopting a research and training programme of            Community servants in the case of the
the European Atomic Energy Community for the                   complementary programme, the unit of account
financial year 1971 comprising a joint programme               being defined in Article 19 of the Financial
and complementary programmes, as amended by the                Regulation3 establishing and implementing the
Council Decision of 25 January 19712 ;                         research and investment budget of the EAEC and
                                                               concerning the responsibility of authorising and
Whereas it is in the interest of the Community to              accounting officers (Article 183 (a) and (c) of the
acquire the information necessary to guarantee                 Treaty).
adequate protection of the individual, the general
                                                                                Article 3
public and the environment against dangers arising
from radiation ;                                               This Decision repeals and replaces, as regards the
Whereas nuclear techniques and methods are of                  'Biology and Health Physics' programme, the Council
importance to medical and agricultural research and            Decision of 25 January 1971 .
whereas exploitation of the potential created in the
 Community is of major significance in this field;             Done at Luxembourg, 21 June 1971 .
                                                                                For the Council
Whereas a multi-annual programme is necessary in                                                      The President
 order to ensure the continuity necessary for
 biological research;                                                                                M. SCHUMANN
1 OJ No L 245 , 11.11.1970, p. 27.
2 OJ No L 31 , 8.2.1971 , p . 14.                              3 OJ No 74 , 16.11.1961 , p. 1433/61 .
 ---pagebreak--- 402                           Official Journal of the European Communities
                                                    ANNEX
    'BIOLOGY AND HEALTH PHYSICS ' JOINT PROGRAMME AND COMPLEMENTARY
                                                PROGRAMME
    1. 'Radiation protection' joint programme
        An amount of 17-335 million units of account shall be allocated to this objective and the upper
        limit for staff shall be fixed at ninety-seven servants. The aim of the work is to acquire and
        promote the scientific and technical knowledge necessary for the accurate determination of
        permissible radiation levels in man and contamination of the environment and for the
        improvement of the practical organisation of radiation protection by the Member States.
        This aim also includes studies on radioactive contaminants , with particular reference to the
        path which they follow in man and the environment, on the effects of radiation on living
        matter , and on dosimetric methods and instruments .
        These activities shall be carried out mainly under contracts of association or similar contracts
        and partly by the 'Biology' Group set up at the Ispra Establishment.
    2. 'Adaptations' complementary programme
      - ( a) Definition of programme
             An amount of 5-61 million units of account shall be allocated to the objective and the
             upper limit for staff shall be ten Community setvants.
             The aim of the work consists in the development of nuclear techniques and the application
             of nuclear methods with a view to their use in agricultural and medical research.
             The work shall be carried out under contracts of association or similar contracts ,
        (b) Financial contributions from the Member States to this programme
                                         Germany                   41%
                                         Italy                     23%
                                         Netherlands               36%


title: Council Decision (EU) 2016/2025 of 8 November 2016 appointing three members and two alternate members, proposed by the Republic of Poland of the Committee of the Regions

text:
               19.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 313/23

         COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2016/2025
   of 8 November 2016
   appointing three members and two alternate members, proposed by the Republic of Poland of the Committee of the Regions
   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 Polish Government,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020.

               (2)

               Three members' seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Jacek PROTAS, Mr Marek SOWA and Mr Jerzy ZAJĄKAŁA.

               (3)

               An alternate member's seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Krysztof PASZYK.

               (4)

               An alternate member's seat has become vacant following the appointment of Mr Władysław ORTYL as a member of the Committee of the Regions,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:

               (a)

               as members:

                           —

                           Gustaw Marek BRZEZIN, marszałek województwa warmińsko-mazurskiego,

                           —

                           Władysław ORTYL, marszałek województwa podkarpackiego,

                           —

                           Dariusz Antoni STRUGAŁA, burmistrz miasta i gminy Jaraczewo;

                     and

               (b)

               as alternate members:

                           —

                           Jacek KRUPA, marszałek województwa malopolskiego,

                           —

                           Wojciech SAŁUGA, marszałek województwa śląskiego.

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

      Done at Brussels, 8 November 2016.

            For the Council

            The President

         P. KAŽIMÍR

      (1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/116 of 26 January 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42).

      (2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/190 of 5 February 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25).

      (3)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/994 of 23 June 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70).


title: 2010/329/CFSP: Council Decision 2010/329/CFSP of 14 June 2010 amending and extending Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP on the European Union police mission undertaken in the framework of reform of the security sector (SSR) and its interface with the system of justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUPOL RD Congo)

text:
               15.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 149/11

         COUNCIL DECISION 2010/329/CFSP
   of 14 June 2010
   amending and extending Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP on the European Union police mission undertaken in the framework of reform of the security sector (SSR) and its interface with the system of justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUPOL RD Congo)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28 and 43(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 12 June 2007, the Council adopted Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP (1) establishing a European Union police mission within the framework of reform of the security sector (SSR) and its interface with the system of justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUPOL RD Congo).

               (2)

               On 23 June 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/485/CFSP (2) amending and extending Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP until 30 June 2009.

               (3)

               On 15 June 2009, the Council adopted Joint Action 2009/466/CFSP (3) amending and extending Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP until 30 June 2010. Joint Action 2009/466/CFSP provided that the Council would establish a new financial reference amount in order to cover expenditure related to the mission for the period from 1 November 2009 to 30 June 2010, which was done with Joint Action 2009/769/CFSP (4) amending Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP.

               (4)

               On 13 April 2010, following consultation with the Congolese authorities and other parties concerned, the Political and Security Committee endorsed an extension of the mission for 3 months, namely from 1 July 2010 until 30 September 2010.

               (5)

               The mandate of the mission is being carried out in a security context that is liable to deteriorate and to undermine the objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as defined in Article 24 TEU.

               (6)

               Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:

               1.

               in Article 9(1), the following subparagraph shall be added:
               ‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mission for the period from 1 July 2010 to 30 September 2010 shall be EUR 2 020 000’;

               2.

               in Article 16, the second paragraph shall be replaced by the following:
               ‘It shall expire on 30 September 2010’.

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

      Done at Luxembourg, 14 June 2010.

            For the Council

            The President

         C. ASHTON

      (1)  OJ L 151, 13.6.2007, p. 46.

      (2)  OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 44.

      (3)  OJ L 151, 16.6.2009, p. 40.

      (4)  OJ L 274, 20.10.2009, p. 45.


title: 2013/295/EU: Commission Decision of 17 June 2013 amending Decisions 2006/799/EC, 2007/64/EC, 2009/300/EC, 2009/543/EC, 2009/544/EC, 2009/563/EC, 2009/564/EC, 2009/567/EC, 2009/568/EC, 2009/578/EC, 2009/598/EC, 2009/607/EC, 2009/894/EC, 2009/967/EC, 2010/18/EC and 2011/331/EU in order to prolong the validity of the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel to certain products (notified under document C(2013) 3550)

text:
               19.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 167/57

         COMMISSION DECISION
   of 17 June 2013
   amending Decisions 2006/799/EC, 2007/64/EC, 2009/300/EC, 2009/543/EC, 2009/544/EC, 2009/563/EC, 2009/564/EC, 2009/567/EC, 2009/568/EC, 2009/578/EC, 2009/598/EC, 2009/607/EC, 2009/894/EC, 2009/967/EC, 2010/18/EC and 2011/331/EU in order to prolong the validity of the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel to certain products
   (notified under document C(2013) 3550)
   (2013/295/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular point (c) of Article 8(3) thereof,
   After consulting the European Union Eco-Labelling Board,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Commission Decision 2006/799/EC of 3 November 2006 establishing revised ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements for the award of the Community eco-label to soil improvers (2) expires on 31 December 2013.

               (2)

               Commission Decision 2007/64/EC of 15 December 2006 establishing revised ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements for the award of the Community eco-label to growing media (3) expires on 31 December 2013.

               (3)

               Commission Decision 2009/300/EC of 12 March 2009 establishing the revised ecological criteria for the award of the Community Eco-label to televisions (4) expires on 31 October 2013.

               (4)

               Commission Decision 2009/543/EC of 13 August 2008 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to outdoor paints and varnishes (5) expires on 30 June 2013.

               (5)

               Commission Decision 2009/544/EC of 13 August 2008 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to indoor paints and varnishes (6) expires on 30 June 2013.

               (6)

               Commission Decision 2009/563/EC of 9 July 2009 on establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label for footwear (7) expires on 10 July 2013.

               (7)

               Commission Decision 2009/564/EC of 9 July 2009 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label for campsite services (8) expires on 10 July 2013.

               (8)

               Commission Decision 2009/567/EC of 9 July 2009 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community Ecolabel for textile products (9) expires on 10 July 2013.

               (9)

               Commission Decision 2009/568/EC of 9 July 2009 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community Eco-label for tissue paper (10) expires on 10 July 2013.

               (10)

               Commission Decision 2009/578/EC of 9 July 2009 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label for tourist accommodation service (11) expires on 10 July 2013.

               (11)

               Commission Decision 2009/598/EC of 9 July 2009 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community Ecolabel for bed mattresses (12) expires on 10 July 2013.

               (12)

               Commission Decision 2009/607/EC of 9 July 2009 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to hard coverings (13) expires on 10 July 2013.

               (13)

               Commission Decision 2009/894/EC of 30 November 2009 on establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label for wooden furniture (14) expires on 1 December 2013.

               (14)

               Commission Decision 2009/967/EC of 30 November 2009 on establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community Ecolabel for textile floor coverings (15) expires on 1 December 2013.

               (15)

               Commission Decision 2010/18/EC of 26 November 2009 on establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community Ecolabel for wooden floor coverings (16) expires on 27 November 2013.

               (16)

               Commission Decision 2011/331/EU of 6 June 2011 on establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for light sources (17) expires on 6 June 2013.

               (17)

               An assessment has been carried out to evaluate the relevance and appropriateness of the current ecological criteria, as well as of the related assessment and verification requirements, established by those Decisions. Given the different stages of the revision process for those Decisions, it is appropriate to prolong the periods of validity of the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements which they set out. The period of validity of the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements set out in Decisions 2009/567/EC, 2009/543/EC, 2009/544/EC and 2009/598/EC should be prolonged until 30 June 2014. The period of validity of the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements set out in Decisions 2009/300/EC should be prolonged until 31 October 2014. The period of validity of the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements set out in Decisions 2006/799/EC, 2007/64/EC, 2009/894/EC and 2011/331/EU should be prolonged until 31 December 2014. The period of validity of the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements set out in Decisions 2009/563/EC and 2009/568/EC should be prolonged until 30 June 2015. The period of validity of the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements set out in Decisions 2009/564/EC and 2009/578/EC should be prolonged until 30 November 2015. The period of validity of the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements set out in Decisions 2009/967/EC and 2010/18/EC should be prolonged until 31 December 2015 and the period of validity of the ecological criteria and the related assessment and verification requirements set out in Decisions 2009/607/EC should be prolonged until 30 November 2017.

               (18)

               Decisions 2006/799/EC, 2007/64/EC, 2009/300/EC, 2009/543/EC, 2009/544/EC, 2009/563/EC, 2009/564/EC, 2009/567/EC, 2009/568/EC, 2009/578/EC, 2009/598/EC, 2009/607/EC, 2009/894/EC, 2009/967/EC, 2010/18/EC and 2011/331/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.

               (19)

               The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Article 6 of Decision 2006/799/EC is replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 6
      The ecological criteria for the product group “soil improvers” and the related assessment and verification requirements shall be valid until 31 December 2014.’

   Article 2
   Article 5 of Decision 2007/64/EC is replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 5
      The ecological criteria for the product group “growing media” and the related assessment and verification requirements shall be valid until 31 December 2014.’

   Article 3
   Article 3 of Decision 2009/300/EC is replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 3
      The ecological criteria for the product group “televisions”, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 31 October 2014.’

   Article 4
   Article 3 of Decision 2009/543/EC is replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 3
      The ecological criteria for the product group “outdoor paints and varnishes”, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 30 June 2014.’

   Article 5
   Article 3 of Decision 2009/544/EC is replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 3
      The ecological criteria for the product group “indoor paints and varnishes”, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 30 June 2014.’

   Article 6
   Article 3 of Decision 2009/563/EC is replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 3
      The ecological criteria for the product group “footwear”, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 30 June 2015.’

   Article 7
   Article 4 of Decision 2009/564/EC is replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 4
      The ecological criteria for the product group “campsite service”, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 30 November 2015.’

   Article 8
   Article 3 of Decision 2009/567/EC is replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 3
      The ecological criteria for the product group “textile products”, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 30 June 2014.’

   Article 9
   Article 3 of Decision 2009/568/EC is replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 3
      The ecological criteria for the product group “tissue paper”, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 30 June 2015.’

   Article 10
   Article 4 of Decision 2009/578/EC is replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 4
      The ecological criteria for the product group “tourist accommodation service”, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 30 November 2015.’

   Article 11
   Article 3 of Decision 2009/598/EC is replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 3
      The ecological criteria for the product group “bed mattresses”, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 30 June 2014.’

   Article 12
   Article 3 of Decision 2009/607/EC is replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 3
      The ecological criteria for the product group “hard coverings”, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 30 November 2017.’

   Article 13
   Article 3 of Decision 2009/894/EC is replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 3
      The ecological criteria for the product group “wooden furniture”, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 31 December 2014.’

   Article 14
   Article 3 of Decision 2009/967/EC is replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 3
      The ecological criteria for the product group “textile floor coverings”, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 31 December 2015.’

   Article 15
   Article 3 of Decision 2010/18/EC is replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 3
      The ecological criteria for the product group “wooden floor coverings”, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 31 December 2015.’

   Article 16
   Article 3 of Decision 2011/331/EU is replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 3
      The criteria for the product group “light sources”, as well as the related assessment and verification requirements, shall be valid until 31 December 2014.’

   Article 17
   This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

      Done at Brussels, 17 June 2013.

            For the Commission

         Janez POTOČNIK

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 27, 30.1.2010, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 325, 24.11.2006, p. 28.

      (3)  OJ L 32, 6.2.2007, p. 137.

      (4)  OJ L 82, 28.3.2009, p. 3.

      (5)  OJ L 181, 14.7.2009, p. 27.

      (6)  OJ L 181, 14.7.2009, p. 39.

      (7)  OJ L 196, 28.7.2009, p. 27.

      (8)  OJ L 196, 28.7.2009, p. 36.

      (9)  OJ L 197, 29.7.2009, p. 70.

      (10)  OJ L 197, 29.7.2009, p. 87.

      (11)  OJ L 198, 30.7.2009, p. 57.

      (12)  OJ L 203, 5.8.2009, p. 65.

      (13)  OJ L 208, 12.8.2009, p. 21.

      (14)  OJ L 320, 5.12.2009, p. 23.

      (15)  OJ L 332, 17.12.2009, p. 1.

      (16)  OJ L 8, 13.1.2010, p. 32.

      (17)  OJ L 148, 7.6.2011, p. 13.


title: 2010/741/EU: Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2009/027 NL/Noord Brabant and Zuid Holland Division 18 from the Netherlands)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 318/38

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
   of 24 November 2010
   on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2009/027 NL/Noord Brabant and Zuid Holland Division 18 from the Netherlands)
   (2010/741/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,
   Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.

               (2)

               The scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.

               (3)

               The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.

               (4)

               The Netherlands submitted an application on 30 December 2009 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in 70 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 18 (printing and reproduction of recorded media) in the two contiguous NUTS II regions Noord Brabant (NL41) and Zuid Holland (NL33) and supplemented it with additional information up to 11 May 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contribution as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 890 027.

               (5)

               The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by the Netherlands,

         HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 2 890 027 in commitment and payment appropriations.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Strasbourg, 24 November 2010.

            For the European Parliament

            The President

         J. BUZEK

            For the Council

            The President

         O. CHASTEL

      (1)  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.


title: 2011/450/EU: Council Decision of 19 July 2011 on the position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 193/9

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 19 July 2011
   on the position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms
   (2011/450/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 and Article 218(9) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Protocol 31 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1) (the EEA Agreement) contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms.

               (2)

               It is appropriate to continue the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement in Union actions funded from the general budget of the Union regarding the implementation, operation and development of the internal market.

               (3)

               Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended cooperation to continue beyond 31 December 2010.

               (4)

               The position of the Union within the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the attached draft Decision,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on day of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 19 July 2011.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. SAWICKI

      (1)  OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3.

      DRAFT
      DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
      No …/2011
      of …
      amending Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms
      THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,
      Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area (the Agreement), and in particular Articles 86 and 98 thereof,
      Whereas:

                  (1)

                  Protocol 31 to the Agreement was amended by Decision No …/… of the EEA Joint Committee of … (1).

                  (2)

                  It is appropriate to continue the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the Agreement in Union actions funded from the general budget of the Union regarding the implementation, operation and development of the internal market.

                  (3)

                  Protocol 31 to the Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended cooperation to continue beyond 31 December 2010,

            HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
      Article 1
      Article 7 of Protocol 31 to the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

                  (1)

                  the words ‘years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010’ in paragraph 6 shall be replaced by the words ‘years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011’;

                  (2)

                  the words ‘years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010’ in paragraph 7 shall be replaced by the words ‘years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011’;

                  (3)

                  the words ‘years 2008, 2009 and 2010’ in paragraph 8 shall be replaced by the words ‘years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011’.

            Article 2
      This Decision shall enter into force on the day following the last notification to the EEA Joint Committee under Article 103(1) of the Agreement (2).
      It shall apply from 1 January 2011.
      Article 3
      This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

         Done at …, …

               For the EEA Joint Committee

               The President

               The Secretaries to the EEA Joint Committee

         (1)  OJ L …

         (2)  [No constitutional requirements indicated.] [Constitutional requirements indicated.]


title: 2013/563/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 17 April 2013 on the closure of the accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2011

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 308/187

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 17 April 2013
   on the closure of the accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2011
   (2013/563/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2011,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2011, together with the College’s replies (1),

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 12 February 2013 (05753/2013 – C7-0041/2013),

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               having regard to 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 (3), and in particular Article 208 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL) and repealing Decision 2000/820/JHA (4), and in particular Article 16 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 (5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Commission Decision C(2011)4680 of 30 June 2011 granting consent to a derogation requested by the European Police College from Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002,

               —

               having regard to the report of the European Police College of 12 July 2010 on the Reimbursement of Private Expenditure (10/0257/KA),

               —

               having regard to the external audit commissioned by the European Police College (Contract Ref. No CEPOL/2010/001) on the reimbursement of private expenditure,

               —

               having regard to the final report on the five-year external evaluation of the European Police College (Contract Ref. No CEPOL/CT/2010/002),

               —

               having regard to the Annual Activity Report 2009 of the Directorate-General Justice, Freedom and Security,

               —

               having regard to the fourth progress report of the European Police College on the implementation of its Multi-annual Action Plan (MAP) for 2010-2014,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the implementation of the European Police College MAP for 2010-2014,

               —

               having regard to the note of the Internal Audit Service (IAS) of 4 July 2011 (Ref. Ares (2011) 722479) on the third progress report on the implementation of the European Police College MAP for 2010-2014,

               —

               having regard to the report and annexes of the European Police College on the implementation of the European Parliament’s Resolution on ‘2009 Discharge: European Police College’,

               —

               having regard to the report and annex of the European Police College on the application of its Procurement Manual for the period covering 1 July 2010 - 1 July 2011,

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0064/2013),

               1.

               Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2011;

               2.

               Instructs its President to forward this Decision to the Director of the European Police College, 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 388, 15.12.2012, p. 23.

      (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

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

      (4)  OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 63.

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


title: 2014/97/EU: Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument

text:
               20.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 50/19

      DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

   of 20 November 2013
   on the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument
   (2014/97/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (1), and in particular the Article 11 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas, after having examined all possibilities for re-allocating appropriations under heading 1b, it appears necessary to mobilise the flexibility instrument to complement the financing in the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, beyond the ceiling of heading 1b, of EUR 89 330 000 towards the financing of the Cypriot Structural Funds programmes to grant an additional allocation from the Structural Funds to Cyprus for the year 2014 by a total amount of EUR 100 000 000,
   HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, the flexibility instrument shall be used to provide the sum of EUR 89 330 000 in commitment appropriations in heading 1b.
   That amount shall be used to complement the financing of the Cypriot Structural Funds programmes under heading 1b.
   Article 2
   This decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Strasbourg, 20 November 2013.

            For the European Parliament

            The President

         M. SCHULZ

            For the Council

            The President

         V. LEŠKEVIČIUS

      (1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884.


title: Decision (EU, Euratom) 2016/1656 of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 7 September 2016 appointing an Advocate-General to the Court of Justice

text:
               15.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 247/17

         DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2016/1656 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
   of 7 September 2016
   appointing an Advocate-General to the Court of Justice
   THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 253 and 255 thereof,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The terms of office of 14 Judges and four Advocates-General of the Court of Justice expired on 6 October 2015. In addition, Council Decision 2013/336/EU (1) increased the number of Advocates-General of the Court of Justice to 11, with effect from 7 October 2015.

               (2)

               It is on that basis that Mr Evgeni TANCHEV was nominated for the post of Advocate-General of the Court of Justice.

               (3)

               The panel set up by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given an opinion on the suitability of Mr Evgeni TANCHEV to perform the duties of Advocate-General of the Court of Justice.

               (4)

               Mr Evgeni TANCHEV should therefore be appointed for the period from the date of entry into force of this Decision to 6 October 2021,

         HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Mr Evgeni TANCHEV is hereby appointed an Advocate-General of the Court of Justice for the period from the date of entry into force of this Decision to 6 October 2021.
   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 Brussels, 7 September 2016.

            The President

         P. JAVORČÍK

      (1)  Council Decision 2013/336/EU of 25 June 2013 increasing the number of Advocates-General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (OJ L 179, 29.6.2013, p. 92).


title: 86/359/EEC: Council Decision of 14 July 1986 concerning the conclusion of a Community COST Concertation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Swiss Confederation and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on a concerted action project in the field of plant in vitro culture (COST Project 87)

text:
No L 216 / 18                             Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 5 . 8 . 86
                                                      COUNCIL DECISION
                                                          of 14 July 1986
                   concerning the conclusion of a Community COST Concertation Agreement between the
                   European Economic Community and the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Norway, the
                   Kingdom of Sweden , the Swiss Confederation and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
                       on a concerted action project in the field of plant in vitro culture ( COST Project 87)
                                                           ( 86 / 359 / EEC )
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,                                Whereas this Agreement should be approved ,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :
Economic Community ,
Having regard to the draft Decision submitted by the                                                     Article 1
Commission ,
                                                                         The Community COST Concertation Agreement between
Whereas by its Decision 85 / 195 / EEC (>), the Council                  the European Economic Community and the Republic of
adopted a multiannual research action programme for the                  Finland , the Kingdom of Norway , the Kingdom of Sweden ,
European Economic Community in the field of                              the Swiss Confederation and the Socialist Federal Republic of
biotechnology ( 1985 to 1989 ) including a concerted action              Yugoslavia on a concerted action project in the field of plant
project on plant in vitro culture ;                                      in vitro culture ( COST Project 87 ) is hereby approved on
                                                                         behalf of the Community .
Whereas Article 7 ( 1 ) of Decision 85 / 195 / EEC lays down             The text of the Agreement is attached hereto .
that the Community may conclude Agreements with
non-member States participating in European Cooperation
in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research ( COST ) with                                          Article 2
a view to ensuring cooperation between the Community
concerted action project on plant in vitro culture and the               The President of the Council shall give the notification
relevant programmes of such States ;                                     provided for in Article 6 ( 2 ) of the Agreement ( 2 ).
Whereas Article 7 ( 2 ) of the said Decision authorizes the
Commission to negotiate the Agreements ;                                 Done at Brussels , 14 July 1986
                                                                                For the Council
Whereas pursuant to the said Article 7 ( 2 ) the Commission
                                                                                The President
has negotiated an Agreement with Finland , Norway ,
Sweden , Switzerland and Yugoslavia ;                                                                                M. JOPLING
                                                                         ( 2 ) The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in
                                                                               the Official Journal of the European Communities by the
(») OJ No L 83 , 25 . 3 . 1985 , p. 1 .                                        General Secretariat of the Council .


title: Council Decision (EU) 2016/402 of 15 January 2016 concerning the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania and the European Union on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information

text:
               19.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 74/1

         COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2016/402
   of 15 January 2016
   concerning the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania and the European Union on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular Article 37 thereof, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Article 218(5) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(6) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               At its meeting on 20 January 2014, the Council decided to authorise the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) to open negotiations pursuant to Article 37 of the Treaty on European Union and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in order to conclude an Agreement on the security of information between the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania and the European Union.

               (2)

               Following that authorisation, the HR negotiated an Agreement with the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information.

               (3)

               That Agreement should be approved,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The Agreement between the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania and the European Union on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.
   The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 15 January 2016.

            For the Council

            The President

         J.R.V.A. DIJSSELBLOEM


title: Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 1 January 1973 appointing the President and Vice- Presidents of the Commission

text:
I. 1.73                     Official Journal of the European Communities                     No L 2/31
        DECISION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE
                     MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                                           of 1 January 1973
                    appointing the President and Vice-Presidents of the Commission
        THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF
        THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,
        Having regard to the Treaty establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of
        the European Communities, and in particular Article 14 thereof;
        Having regard to the Treaty concerning the accession of new Member States to the
        European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, signed
        on 22 January 1972, and to the Council Decision of 22 January 1972 on the accession
        of new Member States to the European Coal and Steel Community and in particular
        Article 141 of the Act annexed thereto ;
        Having regard to the Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Mem
        ber States of the European Communities of 1 January 1973 appointing Members of
        the Commission ;
        HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :
                                               Sole article
        1.     Mr Francois-Xavier ORTOL1 i§ hereby appointed President of the Commission
        of the European Communities for the period from 6 January 1973 to 5 January 1975
        inclusive.
        2.     Mr Wilhelm HAFERKAMP
               Mr Patrick John HILLERY
               Mr Carlo SCARASCIA MUGNOZZA
               Mr Henri SIMONET
               Sir Christopher SOAMES
        are hereby appointed Vice-Presidents of the Commission of the European Communities
        for the period from 6 January 1973 to 5 January 1975 inclusive.
        Done at Brussels, 1 January 1973 .
                                                                           The President
                                                                            P. HARMEL


Avis juridique important

|

31983D0248

83/248/EEC: Commission Decision of 24 May 1983 accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of polyethylene originating in the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia and Poland and terminating that proceeding

Official Journal L 138 , 27/05/1983 P. 0065 - 0067

*****COMMISSION  DECISION  of 24 May 1983  accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of polyethylene originating in the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia and Poland and terminating that proceeding  (83/248/EEC)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3017/79 of 20 December 1979 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1580/82 (2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,  After consultations within the Advisory Committee provided for in that Regulation,  Whereas in August 1982 the Commission received a complaint lodged by the European Council of Chemical Manufacturers' Federations (Cefic) on behalf of 13 producers accounting for the entire Community production of polyethylene;  Whereas, since the complaint contained sufficient evidence of the existence of dumping in respect of a like product originating in the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia and Poland and of material injury resulting therefrom, the Commission accordingly announced, in a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (3), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of polyethylene originating in the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia and Poland and commenced its investigation at Community level;  Whereas the Commission officially advised the exporters and importers known to be concerned of this decision;  Whereas the Commission gave all the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to present them at an oral hearing;  Whereas a number of those parties took this opportunity to present detailed objections in writing and/or orally;  Whereas, in order to arrive at a preliminary assessment of the margin of dumping and the injury caused, the Commission sought and verified all information it deemed to be necessary from the exporters, importers and Community producers concerned who stated their willingness to cooperate in the investigation, and carried out inspections at the premises of the undertakings where necessary; whereas information was sought from the following undertakings in particular:  - Community importers:  Deutsche Chemapol GmbH (Frankfurt),  Karl O. Helm AG (Hamburg),  Bochako GmbH (Hamburg),  SOGO SA (Paris),  Lubimex BV (Bussum),  Chr. Egelborg A/S (Holbaek),  TR International Ltd (London);  - Community producers:  BASF AG (Ludwigshafen),  Hoechst AG (Frankfurt),  Bayer AG (Leverkusen),  ATO Chimie (Paris - La Défense),  CdF Chimie EP (Paris - La Défense),  Montepolimeri (Milan),  BP Chemicals SA (Geneva),  ICI PLC (London),  Shell International Ltd (London),  DSM NV (Sittard),  Essochem Inc. (Machelen);  - exporters:  Sojuzchimexport (Moscow),  Ciech (Warsaw),  Petrimex (Bratislava),  AHB Chemie (Berlin, GDR);  Whereas the preliminary investigations carried out by the Commission relate to the period 1 July 1981 to 30 June 1982;  Whereas in its initial investigations, the Commission based all its calculations on the weighted average prices for low-density general-purpose polyethylene, i.e. used mainly for film production, since the exporting countries concerned export almost exclusively polyethylene types of this category to the Community;  Whereas, in order to establish whether the abovementioned imports are being dumped, the Commission has to take account of the fact that the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia and Poland are not market economy countries;  Whereas the Commission has therefore to base its calculations on the normal value in a market economy country; whereas, in this connection, the complaint referred to the Swedish domestic market;  Whereas other parties advocated a comparison with the prices in the United States of America or Canada; whereas the Commission considered this possibility but decided, in view of the special features of the production processes used by North American producers of polyethylene, that it was less suitable; whereas the major reason for rejecting the above possibility was the fact that in the USA the price of natural gas, the main raw material used in that country for polyethylene production, is governed by official regulations; whereas, in consequence, the cost price of this raw material in the USA is significantly lower than the price of other hydrocarbons, such as naphtha and gas oil, on which the European producers and also the exporters rely to a very large extent for the production of polyethylene;  Whereas, following investigations at the premises of the Swedish producer and after taking note of the arguments put forward by the parties concerned in writing and orally, the Commission took as the basis for its initial calculations of the normal value the prices for general-purpose low-density polyethylene on the Swedish domestic market; whereas in its decision the Commission took into account the fact that the basic conditions for the production of low-density polyethylene in Sweden, the exporting countries concerned and the Community are to a large extent comparable and that well over half of Swedish demand is covered by imports, mainly from other Scandinavian countries and the Community, and that the customs barriers affecting imports of low-density polyethylene into Sweden are relatively low; whereas the Commission therefore came to the conclusion that the price level on the Swedish market is reasonable in view of the conditions of competition prevailing there;  Whereas for the initial determination of dumping a comparison was therefore made of the Swedish weighted average ex-works prices for sales effected between July 1981 and June 1982 and the prices applied by the countries concerned during the same period in respect of exports to the Community;  Whereas due consideration was given to the differences influencing the comparability of the prices; whereas, in particular, the Commission was careful to base its calculations exclusively on the Swedish domestic prices for general-purpose low-density polyethylene sold to independent film manufacturers; whereas sales of higher-value special types were excluded from the investigation; whereas rebates, other reductions and transport costs were discounted from the Swedish prices for loose goods invoiced on the basis of delivery free at customer's premises; whereas, in addition, an adjustment was made to bring the prices to a cash payment level; whereas some of the export prices of the countries covered by the proceeding were on an fob basis and some on a cif basis, with the result that, where appropriate, a price adjustment had to be made in order to take account of the transport costs and payment terms included in these prices; whereas, in addition, consignments of lower qualities, where this could be established, were not included in the calculation of the export prices;  Whereas a preliminary examination of the facts revealed that dumping was being practised in respect of the imports covered by the investigation and that the margin of dumping corresponded to the amount by which the normal value established as described above was greater than the price of exports to the Community; whereas the extent of the margin of dumping differs according to the country of exportation and the Member State of importation; whereas the weighted average margin of dumping on imports into the Community is as follows: imports originating in the Soviet Union, 47 %; in Poland, 40 %; in the German Democratic Republic, 38 %; and in Czechoslovakia, 34 %;  Whereas, with regard to the injury caused to the Community industry by the dumped imports, the evidence available to the Community during the initial examination showed that total imports of low-density polyethylene from the countries in question into the Community (excluding intra-German trade) rose from 34 900 tonnes in 1979 to 129 000 tonnes in the investigation period of July 1981 to June 1982, representing an increase of 270 %; whereas in the same period the share of the Community market held by these imports rose from 1,1 to almost 5 %; whereas the market share won differed considerably in the individual Member States, being particularly marked in the Netherlands and in Belgium, where the shares rose from 0,6 to 19 % and from 1,6 to 11,5 % respectively; whereas the market shares held by these imports rose, between 1979 and the end of the investigation period, from 0,4 to 6,1 % in France, from 1,4 to 6,3 % in Denmark, from 2,6 to 5,8 % in the Federal Republic of Germany and from 0,2 to 2,3 % in the United Kingdom;  Whereas the selling prices in the Community of general-purpose low-density polyethylene of standard quality originating in the countries concerned undercut the prices of Community producers in the general-purpose sector to differing degrees, the maximum being 25 %;  Whereas price undercutting in the Netherlands and in Belgium was particularly sharp and frequent, leading to a drastic increase in the market share held by the dumped imports in those countries;  Whereas it further emerged from the evidence available to the Commission that the increase in the dumped imports and the winning of appreciable shares of the market were achieved while demand was declining in the Community; whereas the Community producers therefore had to sustain additional losses of sales and, despite appreciable production limitations, were still not able to stabilize the market; whereas the dumped imports constituted a significant factor in the inability to contain an accelerating fall in prices; whereas the losses sustained by the Community producers were increasing to an extent that was no longer tolerable;  Whereas the Commission also investigated the influence of other imports of low-density polyethylene into the Community and established that these had also increased appreciably and expanded their market share; whereas closer investigation revealed that this largely involved low-density polyethylene from Scandinavian countries and Austria which was to some extent intended for higher-value areas of use and was imported into the Community at prices in line with the market;  Whereas, in assessing the impact of the dumped imports, the Commission also took account of the fact that, given the existing overcapacity in the Community for the production of polyethylene, there is appreciable pressure on prices which cannot be attributed to the imports in question; whereas under the prevailing market conditions, neither profits nor prices sufficient to cover costs can be achieved;  Whereas, on the basis of these results, the Commission provisionally concluded that, particularly in the light of the adjustment problems facing the relevant Community industry, the harmful effects of the dumped imports considered in themselves are causing material injury which calls for protective measures; whereas the Community industry engaged in further processing activities argues that the introduction of protective measures would prejudice its competitive position, which would not be in the Community's interest; whereas, however, in view of the particularly difficult position of the polyethylene producers the Commission came to the view that the interests of the Community required immediate action in the form of a provisional anti-dumping duty;  Whereas, confronted with these results, the exporters in the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia and Poland, namely Sojuzchimexport (Moscow), AHB Chemie (Berlin), Petrimex (Bratislava) and Ciech (Warsaw), have offered undertakings which are considered appropriate by the Commission in order to eliminate the injurious effect of the imports concerned; whereas the Advisory Committee provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 3017/79 has raised no objections to the above view; whereas the undertakings from the above exporters can be accepted and the proceeding in respect of them terminated,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Sole Article  The undertakings given by the exporters in the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia and Poland, namely Sojuzchimexport (Moscow), AHB Chemie (Berlin, GDR), Petrimex (Bratislava) and Ciech (Warsaw), are hereby accepted and the proceeding concerning imports of polyethylene originating in the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia and Poland is hereby terminated.  Done at Brussels, 24 May 1983.  For the Commission  Wilhelm HAFERKAMP  Vice-President  (1) OJ No L 339, 31. 12. 1979, p. 1.  (2) OJ No L 178, 22. 6. 1982, p. 9.  (3) OJ No C 230, 3. 9. 1982, p. 2.