Avis juridique important

|

32004D0392

2004/392/CFSP: Council Decision 2004/392/CFSP of 19 May 2003 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Romania on the participation of Romania in the European Union-led forces (EUF) in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Official Journal L 120 , 24/04/2004 P. 0061 - 0061

Council Decision 2004/392/CFSPof 19 May 2003concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Romania on the participation of Romania in the European Union-led forces (EUF) in the Former Yugoslav Republic of MacedoniaTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 24 thereof,Having regard to the recommendation from the Presidency,Whereas:(1) On 27 January 2003, the Council adopted Joint Action 2003/92/CFSP on the European Union Military Operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)(1).(2) Article 8 of that Joint Action provides that the detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third countries are to be the subject of an agreement in conformity with Article 24 of the Treaty.(3) Following the Council Decision of 18 March 2003 authorising the Secretary General/High Representative (SG/HR) to open negotiations, the SG/HR negotiated an agreement with Romania on the participation of Romania in the European Union-led Forces (EUF) in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.(4) This Agreement should be approved,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The Agreement between the European Union and Romania on the participation of Romania in the European Union-led Forces (EUF) in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.Article 2The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the European Union.Article 3The Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.Article 4The Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.Done at Brussels, 19 May 2003.For the CouncilThe PresidentG. Papandreou(1) OJ L 34, 12.2.2003, p. 26.


Avis juridique important

|

32004D0391

2004/391/EC: Commission Decision of 23 April 2004 on the advisory groups dealing with matters covered by the common agricultural policy

Official Journal L 120 , 24/04/2004 P. 0050 - 0060

Commission Decisionof 23 April 2004on the advisory groups dealing with matters covered by the common agricultural policy(2004/391/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Whereas:(1) The Commission should seek the views of socio-economic sectors and consumers on matters arising in connection with the operation of the various common organisations of the market and other areas covered by the common agricultural policy and by the policy of rural development.(2) All the economic sectors directly involved in the operation of the market organisations and affected by agricultural policy decisions, as well as consumers, should have an opportunity to participate in drafting the opinions requested by the Commission.(3) Relevant socio-economic federations and consumer groups in the Member States have set up organisations at Community level, which are thus in a position to represent those concerned in all the Member States.(4) An advisory structure dealing with agricultural issues exists since 1962. Following the reform of the common agricultural policy in 1999 and 2003, and in the light of the enlargement of the European Union in 2004, it is necessary to review that structure. Commission Decision 98/235/EC of 11 March 1998 on the advisory groups dealing with matters covered by the common agricultural policy(1) should therefore be repealed and replaced by a new Decision.(5) In order to avoid confusion with the wording used in Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(2) for the advisory committees, it is appropriate not to use the term "committees" for designating the bodies to be set up by this Decision,DECIDES:Article 11. The following groups are set up under the auspices of the Commission:(a) the advisory groups listed in Annex I;(b) the working groups as provided for in Article 4 (1).2. The advisory groups may be consulted by the Commission on all matters relating to the common agricultural policy and to the policy of rural development and its implementation, and in particular the common organisations of the market and the measures which the Commission is called on to take in that context.Article 21. The groups provided for in Article 1 shall represent the following socio-economic interest groups under the conditions provided for in Article 3:- agricultural producers and agricultural cooperatives,- agricultural and food-manufacturing industries,- agricultural products and foodstuffs trade,- farm workers and workers in the food industry, consumers and environmentalists.In specific cases, other interest groups may be represented.2. The composition of the advisory groups in terms of number of seats allocated to each socio-economic interest group is set out in Annex II.Article 31. The Commission shall invite the socio-economic organisations established at Community level and listed in the Commission's register of interest groups (hereinafter referred to as "the socio-economic organisations") to designate experts. The socio-economic organisations must be those that are most representative of the interests specified in Article 2(1), including the social partners, and their activities must be connected with the common agricultural policy and rural development.2. In designating experts, the socio-economic organisations shall endeavour to ensure that the various interests in their sector are represented.3. The Commission may refuse the expert designated by the socio-economic organisation when this designation does not seem appropriate, notably in the case of a conflict of interest. In such a case, the Commission promptly informs the socio-economic organisation, which as a result designates another expert.Article 41. At the request of an advisory group and in agreement with the Commission, one or more working groups may be set up to examine specific questions. Such groups shall consist of experts in the field designated by the socio-economic organisations. The provisions of Article 3 (3) apply.2. The Commission shall designate and invite experts to attend meetings of the working groups referred to in paragraph 1 when appropriate.3. The Commission shall chair the meetings of working groups referred to in paragraph 1.Article 51. After consultation of the Commission, each advisory group at its first meeting, after the date of application of this decision and at its first meeting after the term of two years provided for in paragraph 3, shall elect a chairperson among its experts as follows:(a) in the case of the first ballot, by a two thirds majority of the experts present;(b) in the case of subsequent ballots, by a simple majority of the experts present; in the event of a tie, the Commission shall provide a chairperson on a temporary basis.2. Each advisory group at its first meeting shall elect two vice chairpersons, in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 1. The vice chairpersons shall be chosen among the representatives of other socio-economic sectors than the one to which the chairperson belongs, subject to derogations to be provided for by the Commission.3. The chairperson and the two vice-chairpersons shall serve a term of two years which shall be renewable. The chairperson shall not serve more than two consecutive terms.4. When choosing a new chairperson, the group should ensure that he/she does not originate from the same socio-economic sector as his/her predecessor.5. The chairperson is responsible for the compilation in a report of an accurate summary record of the meetings.The Commission may amend the chairperson's draft report prior to its distribution and subsequent approval by the group.Article 61. Participation in meetings of groups listed in Annex I shall be limited to experts designated by the socio-economic organisations in accordance with Article 3, within the limit of seats allocated to each organisation as set out in Annex II. Commission representatives and persons invited in accordance with paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of this article may also attend. The chairperson and the two vice-chairpersons attend the meetings as a matter of course.2. The socio-economic organisations shall inform the Commission about their designation of experts at least three working days before the meeting.3. At the request of an organisation to which one or more seats in a group are allocated, the chairperson of the group may, in agreement with the Commission, invite the general secretary of that organisation to attend meetings as an observer.However, if the general secretary of an organisation is unable to attend, he may assign his observer's seat to another person designated by him.4. Observers in meetings shall not have the right to speak. They may, however, be invited to do so by the chairperson in agreement with the Commission.5. At the request of an organisation to which one or more seats are allocated, and when the matters on the agenda are of a highly technical nature, the chairperson of a group may, in agreement with the Commission, invite experts other than those referred in paragraph 1 to take part in the deliberations of the group.The Commission may, on its own initiative, invite any person suitably qualified in one of the subjects on the agenda to take part in the deliberations of the group on that subject as an expert.Experts invited pursuant to this paragraph shall participate only in the discussion and deliberations on the matter for which they are invited.6. Travelling expenses incurred by experts in the context of group meetings are refunded by the Commission in accordance with the regulations in force. The Commission reserves the right to derogate from this rule. Experts and observers shall not be remunerated for their services.Article 71. Meetings of groups shall be convened by the Commission and shall generally take place at the Commission's main offices.2. The Commission provides secretarial services for the groups.Article 8The chairperson in cooperation with the Commission, and in consultation with the other interests represented on the group, shall determine the items to be included on the agenda for the advisory groups at least 25 working days before the group meets. The Commission shall send out agendas to the socio-economic organisations as a general rule 20 working-days before the meeting, preferably by electronic means.The chairperson of each group may propose, on his own initiative or at the request of any of the interest groups represented, that the Commission consult his/her group on any matter within its competence.Article 9The advisory groups shall discuss the matters on which the Commission has requested an opinion. When seeking an opinion of a group, the Commission may set a time limit within which the opinion shall be given.No vote shall take place at the end of the discussion of the advisory groups. If a group reaches unanimous agreement on the opinion to be given, it shall formulate joint conclusions and attach them to the summary report.The Commission shall communicate the outcome of a group's discussions to the Council if proposed by the group.Article 10Without prejudice to Article 287 of the Treaty, where the Commission indicates that the opinion requested or question raised involves a matter of a confidential nature, participants in meetings shall be required not to disclose information which has come to their knowledge through the work of the group in question.Article 11Decision 98/235/EC is repealed.Article 12This Decision shall apply from 1 May 2004.Done at Brussels, 23 April 2004.For the CommissionFranz FischlerMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 88, 24.3.1998, p. 59.(2) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.ANNEX I1. ADVISORY GROUP ON COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY2. ADVISORY GROUP ON CEREALS, OILSEEDS AND PROTEINS3. ADVISORY GROUP ON DRIED FODDER4. ADVISORY GROUP ON STARCH5. ADVISORY GROUP ON SEEDS6. ADVISORY GROUP ON SUGAR7. ADVISORY GROUP ON RICE8. ADVISORY GROUP ON ENERGY AND NON-FOOD CROPS9. ADVISORY GROUP ON COTTON10. ADVISORY GROUP ON FLAX AND HEMP11. ADVISORY GROUP ON MILK12. ADVISORY GROUP ON BEEFMEAT13. ADVISORY GROUP ON SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT14. ADVISORY GROUP ON PIGMEAT15. ADVISORY GROUP ON POULTRYMEAT AND EGGS16. ADVISORY GROUP ON BEEKEEPING17. ADVISORY GROUP ON FRUIT AND VEGETABLES18. ADVISORY GROUP ON FLOWERS AND ORNAMENTAL PLANTS19. ADVISORY GROUP ON WINE-GROWING20. ADVISORY GROUP ON SPIRIT DRINKS21. ADVISORY GROUP ON OLIVES AND DERIVED PRODUCTS22. ADVISORY GROUP ON TOBACCO23. ADVISORY GROUP ON HOPS24. ADVISORY GROUP ON FORESTRY AND CORK25. ADVISORY GROUP ON THE QUALITY OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION26. ADVISORY GROUP ON ORGANIC FARMING27. ADVISORY GROUP ON PROMOTION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS28. ADVISORY GROUP ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT29. ADVISORY GROUP ON WOMEN IN RURAL AREAS30. ADVISORY GROUP ON AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENTANNEX II1. ADVISORY GROUP ON THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY>TABLE>2. ADVISORY GROUP ON CEREALS, OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS>TABLE>3. ADVISORY GROUP ON DRIED FODDER>TABLE>4. ADVISORY GROUP ON STARCH>TABLE>5. ADVISORY GROUP ON SEEDS>TABLE>6. ADVISORY GROUP ON SUGAR>TABLE>7. ADVISORY GROUP ON RICE>TABLE>8. ADVISORY GROUP ON ENERGY AND NON FOOD CROPS>TABLE>9. ADVISORY GROUP ON COTTON>TABLE>10. ADVISORY GROUP ON FLAX AND HEMP>TABLE>11. ADVISORY GROUP ON MILK>TABLE>12. ADVISORY GROUP ON BEEFMEAT>TABLE>13. ADVISORY GROUP ON SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT>TABLE>14. ADVISORY GROUP ON PIGMEAT>TABLE>15. ADVISORY GROUP ON POULTRYMEAT AND EGGS>TABLE>16. ADVISORY GROUP ON BEEKEEPING>TABLE>17. ADVISORY GROUP ON FRUIT AND VEGETABLES>TABLE>18. ADVISORY GROUP ON FLOWERS AND ORNAMENTAL PLANTS>TABLE>19. ADVISORY GROUP ON WINE-GROWING>TABLE>20. ADVISORY GROUP ON SPIRIT DRINKS>TABLE>21. ADVISORY GROUP ON OLIVES AND DERIVED PRODUCTS>TABLE>22. ADVISORY GROUP ON TOBACCO>TABLE>23. ADVISORY GROUP ON HOPS>TABLE>24. ADVISORY GROUP ON FORESTRY AND CORK>TABLE>25. ADVISORY GROUP ON THE QUALITY OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION>TABLE>26. ADVISORY GROUP ON ORGANIC FARMING>TABLE>27. ADVISORY GROUP ON PROMOTION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS>TABLE>28. ADVISORY GROUP ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT>TABLE>29. ADVISORY GROUP ON WOMEN IN RURAL AREAS>TABLE>30. ADVISORY GROUP ON AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT>TABLE>


Avis juridique important

|

31995D0221

95/221/EC, Euratom, ECSC: European Parliament Decision of 5 April 1995 giving discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Communities for the 1993 financial year as regards Sections I - Parliament, II - Council, III - Commission, IV - Court of Justice and V - Court of Auditors

Official Journal L 141 , 24/06/1995 P. 0058 - 0066

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION of 5 April 1995 giving discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Communities for the 1993 financial year as regards Sections I - Parliament, II - Council, III - Commission, IV - Court of Justice and V - Court of Auditors (95/221/EC, Euratom, ECSC) THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,- having regard to the ECSC Treaty and in particular Article 78g thereof,- having regard to the EC Treaty and in particular Article 206 thereof,- having regard to the EAEC Treaty and in particular Article 180b thereof,- having regard to the budget for the 1993 financial year (1),- having regard to the revenue and expenditure accounts and the financial statement of the European Communities for the 1993 financial year (SEC(94) 0162-0165),- having regard to the report of the Court of Auditors for the 1993 financial year and the replies of the institutions (2),- having regard to the Council recommendation of 20 March 1995 (C4-0099/95),- having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinions of the Committees on Research, Technological Development and Energy, on External Economic Relations, on Social Affairs and Employment, on Regional Policy, on Culture, youth, Education, and the Media, on Development and Cooperation, on Women's Rights, on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection and on Transport and Tourism (A4-0059/95),1. Notes that the authorized revenue and expenditure for the 1993 financial year amounted to:>TABLE>2. Gives the Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the following amounts:>TABLE>3. Accepts that final checks still have to be made of EAGGF expenditure reported by the Member States and that corrections to the figures may yet have to be made;4. Reserves therefore the right to re-examine the amounts above in so far as they relate to expenditure in the EAGGF Guarantee section in the light of the clearance of accounts decision for the 1993 financial year, which shall be forwarded to the European Parliament for a decision complementary to this discharge Decision;5. Records its comments in the resolution which forms an integral part of this Decision;6. Instructs its President to forward this Decision and the resolution containing its comments to the Commission, the Council, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors and the European Investment Bank and to have them published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (L Series).The Secretary-GeneralEnrico VINCIThe PresidentKlaus HÄNSCH(1) OJ No L 31, 8. 2. 1993.(2) OJ No C 327, 24. 11. 1994.RESOLUTION containing the comments which form part of the Decision giving discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Communities for the 1993 financial year THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,- having regard to Article 206 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,- having regard to Article 89 of the Financial Regulation of 13 March 1990 (1) under which each Community institution is required to take all appropriate steps to take action on the comments appearing in the Decisions giving discharge,- whereas, under the same article, the institutions are also required to report, at Parliament's request, on the measures taken in the light of these comments and, in particular, on the instructions given to those of their departments which are responsible for the implementation of the budget,- having regard to the Council recommendation of 20 March 1995 (C4-0099/95),- having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A4-0059/95),General Issues 1. Insists that the presentation of the Court of Auditors' annual report in plenary should provide the media and public opinion in the Member States with a balanced picture of the implementation of the budget in any given year, an aim to which Parliament attaches the greatest importance;2. Calls upon the Commission and the Court of Auditors to provide by 15 November each year information concerning the implementation of:(a) budget headings the remarks against which were amended by Parliament during the previous year's budgetary procedure;(b) new headings created by Parliament, with particular reference to the 'Joint declaration by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 30 June 1982 on various measures to improve the budgetary procedure` (2) (Title IV, paragraph 3 (c)), which stipulates that, in the absence of a basic regulation for the implementation of significant new Community actions, the Council and Parliament undertake to use their best endeavours to adopt a draft regulation (to be presented by the Commission by the end of January) not later than the end of May;3. Instructs its specialized committees to monitor closely the implementation of each year's budget, attaching particular importance to:- headings whose remarks were amended by Parliament,- new headings created by Parliament;4. Reiterates its demand in its resolution of 29 October 1992 on the 1993 draft budget - Section III - Commission (3) that the Commission implement budget items, in particular in those areas where Parliament has amended the Council's draft budget, without delay and reiterates that, if this is not the case, Parliament reserves the right to take every step within its power to enforce the implementation of specific budget items;5. Draws attention in this connection to the Commission's answers on the 29 budget items on which the rapporteur put questions to the Commission on the use of appropriations; notes that the Commission has not acted on all the observations adopted by the budgetary authority, as for instance in the following headings:>TABLE>6. Asks the Commission, for the sake of transparency, to provide the budgetary authority with full and adequate explanations as regards proposed transfers of appropriations, in the absence of which those transfers will be rejected;7. Asks the Court in future to confine itself to publishing its observations and each institution's replies thereto without repeating the innovation in its 1993 report of publishing a reply to Parliament's reply; regrets moreover that the Court truncated the replies of Parliament's financial controller and insists that in future the Court publish the replies of financial controllers in their entirety;8. Deplores the role played by Council in a number of sectors (e.g. milk quotas, wine), whereby Decisions were taken on the basis of political criteria and in disregard of the needs of the markets and of the interests of European taxpayers;9. Asks the Court of Auditors in future to include in its annual reports an analysis of overrule decisions in each institution;10. Reiterates in the interest of good interinstitutional cooperation its demand that the Council adopt its recommendation on the discharge in time for Parliament to take it into consideration;11. Reiterates its demand that the presentation of the Council's recommendation to the Committee on Budgetary Control be made by a political representative of the Council presidency, who will be able to assume political responsibility for its content;Own resources 12. Deplores the fact that the establishment of the large internal market has not been accompanied by greater harmonization of checks designed to safeguard the financial interests of the Community against fraud; invites, in this respect, the Commission to propose relevant measures with a view to:- harmonizing and coordinating the customs departments' post-clearance verifications,- facilitating these checks by allowing these departments access, where necessary, to the computerized databases of other Member States,- assigning supervision of these checks and responsibility for them to the Commission;13. Calls on the Commission to report to the European Parliament on the extent and nature of frauds committed under the Community transit procedure;14. Calls upon it to take all necessary measures to computerize the management of this system;15. Asks the Commission, in accordance with Article 8 of Council Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom, of 31 October 1994 on the system of the Community's own resources (4), to submit proposals aimed at improving and harmonizing the GNP bases and providing for the relevant checks;Agriculture spending 16. Deplores the continuing underutilization of appropriations intended for cofinancing of national controls and anti-fraud measures in the area of EAGGF expenditure; calls upon the Member States to inform the Commission by 1 July 1995 on the use made of these funds since 1990;17. Asks the Commission to inform it about the measures it has taken so far to implement the conclusions of the Court of Auditors' special report No 8/93 on tobacco (5);18. Deplores the fact that, in spite of Community payments of ECU 59,6 million at the end of 1992 for the establishment of the vineyard register, this would not be operative in all wine-producing Member States until 1997; calls upon the Commission, in the context of the proposed reform of the wine sector currently under consideration, to make the establishment of a satisfactory vineyard register a precondition for payments to Member Sates as from 1 January 1998;19. Asks the Commission to take the necessary measures to strengthen the body of specific officials responsible for ensuring uniform implementation of the wine rules throughout the Community, preferably by way of redeployment; in the event of additional recruitments for this body appointments should be made on the basis of medium-term (three to five years) rather than short-term arrangements;20. Regrets the lack of cooperation and the obstructionism shown by the national authorities in France, Italy and Greece towards the body of specific Community officials; asks the Council to ensure that the three Member States concerned include in their reports on the implementation of Article 209a of the EC Treaty adequate and appropriate explanations on the matter;21. Asks the Court of Auditors to follow closely the establishment and functioning of the new common organization of the market in wine and to publish its findings in its annual report;22. Asks the Commission to complete the process of harmonizing the conditions applicable to Community intervention, referred to in paragraph 5.6 of the Court's observations in special report No 3/94 on beef and the Commission's replies, and to inform Parliament by 1 November 1995 of the progress achieved;23. Calls on the Commission to act on the Court's recommendations concerning stock management and control organization in the beef sector in all Member States, with particular reference to improving the reliability of stock controls;24. Asks the Court of Auditors to audit the reform of the beef and veal sector, which came into effect in January 1993 after a period sufficient to allow it to draw valid conclusions, in particular as regards the impact of the reform on structural surpluses, and to publish its findings;25. Urges the Commission to use its full powers under the Treaties to ensure that the Danish authorities heed their control obligations with respect to agricultural spending and to inform Parliament by 30 September 1995 on the action taken and the result achieved;Structural funds 26. Takes the view that, despite the 1993 reform, the problems experienced in implementing the structural policies could be solved if the rules in force were amended or supplemented; calls therefore on the Commission to propose measures aimed at:- ensuring that the Community support frameworks (CSF) and operational programmes include an annex specifying the types of measure and the expenditure eligible for Community support,.- providing for the establishment and regular updating of a typology of costs for the European Social Fund;- assigning to the Monitoring Committees precisely defined powers to select specific measures within an operational programme or a single programming document (DOCUP),- establishing the binding nature of the deadlines laid down in Article 21 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (6), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 (7), for the payment of advances and the balance, and making this requirement subject to a penalty,- establishing a requirement for advances to be deposited with the Treasury of the Central Bank at rates linked to predetermined parameters,- ensuring that the interest generated by advances is used for the objectives of the programme receiving funding,- make payment of the balance of the annual tranche subject to prior delivery of the report provided for in Article 25 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93, which should contain a minimum of essential information (material progress of the operation, broken down by sectors and tranches, list of specific projects financed, supporting documents, impact assessment);27. Is opposed to the practice of conferring the task of implementing Community programmes on external consultancies; calls on the Commission to submit to Parliament a communication detailing, with regard to the 1993 financial year, which external consultancy has been given the task of implementing each programme and what implementing budget was paid to each consultancy;28. Calls on the Commission to set up a coordinating body, which will centralize information and have decision-making powers or the power to deliver binding opinions vis-à-vis the other services involved, thus substantially improving the functioning of the Commission's services;29. Notes that the new rules governing the Funds have made for better evaluation methods, but asks that, on the basis of the prior assessment carried out at the time of the drafting of the CSFs, the Commission on a future occasion carry out an assessment of the (long-term) structural impact of the Funds;30. Recalls the importance of devising a strategy to optimize the effective use of appropriations earmarked for technical assistance, which should be properly incorporated into the programming stage in line with EU legislation and EU policy;31. Notes the announcement by the Commission that it will launch an investigation into assets which have been privatized after having benefited from Structural Fund finances; calls on the Commission to ensure that a report is submitted to Parliament on the outcome of the inquiry;32. Notes that the information available to the Commission regarding irregularities should be improved by the provisions of Article 23 of the coordination regulation and of Regulation (EEC) No 1681/94 (8) on irregularities, but notes, on the other hand, the shortcomings of the on-the-spot checks carried out by the Commission and the national monitoring services; calls on the Commission consequently:- to improve its on-the-spot checks by an increase in their number, better coordination of the various monitoring services, delegation to the national monitoring bodies and prior risk analysis to enable checks to be more effectively targeted,- to take action in the context of the partnership arrangements to reinforce national monitoring systems and to propose an amendment to the rules providing for the application of Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93, in the event of the national system being inadequate,- to ensure that more initiatives are taken by UCLAF, with more attention being paid, for example, to the extension of European exchange programmes for national inspectors, the development of European training projects for such inspectors and the fixing, in cooperation with national services, of Community inspection priorities;33. Calls on the Court of Auditors to submit to it a special report on fraud and irregularities in the sphere of the Structural Funds;34. Calls on the Commission to present, by 30 September 1995, a report on the irregularities in the new German Länder containing the following information:- the percentage of irregularities in relation to the number of cases investigated (number and sums involved),- the sums subject to the Article 24 procedure,- the sums to be recovered and those already recovered,- irregularities detected by the Commission and the Court of Auditors, on the one hand, and those notified by the national authorities in application of the Regulation on irregularities (EC) No 1681/94;Research and internal policies 35. Calls on the Court of Auditors to widen the scope of the remarks in its annual report to cover not only the research sector but also all internal policies;36. Regrets in particular that it is not possible for the Court of Auditors to monitor expenditure under social budget items on a regular basis; therefore calls on the Court of Auditors to make the necessary staff available so that these budget items can also be subject to the Court's financial scrutiny;37. Has learnt with disappointment of the failure to achieve the objective of creating 100 000 apprenticeships for young people which the Commission had set itself under the Petra programme (1992 to 1994);38. Calls on the Commission to step up measures aimed at coordinating national and Community research policies, in order to create the synergy needed to improve the competitiveness of the Community economy, particularly in the following sectors:- special appropriations for coordination using a uniform strategy to identify the specific initiatives to be adopted on the basis of a cost/desirability analysis,- concerted actions, which have a far higher mul tiplier effect than direct and shared-cost actions,- cost, so far limited to a minimal percentage of annual Community investment;39. Calls on the Commission to present the results of coordination of research policies of the Member States in the report pursuant to Article 130p of the EC Treaty;40. Calls on the Commission to take action on the observations of the Court of Auditors' annual report, in paragraphs 11.13, 11.14, 11.15 and 11.16, on the harmonization of contract application procedures, the follow-up of dormant commitments and the auditing of costs;41. Formally calls on the administration of the Joint Research Centre to stop forthwith the practice of automatically generating supplementary commitment proposals where payments are higher than original commitments, as this is in flagrant breach of Article 36 of the Financial Regulation;Tacis and Phare programmes 42. Asks the Commission to prioritize projects aimed at the provision and encouragement of investment in Phare and Tacis countries (the latter as from 1996), in particular projects involving the participation of the EIB and those helping local banks to take on a fuller role in the provision of loan capital to local small and medium-sized enterprises;43. Observes that current procedures for the monitoring, control and evaluation of Phare and Tacis expenditure have proved ineffective; calls on the Commission to set up in-house teams, preferably by redeployment, dedicated exclusively to these activities with the stress on qualitative analysis, on-the-spot controls and troubleshooting;44. Calls on the Commission, in so far as this is compatible with the retention of objective management criteria, to establish a more decentralized management system for Tacis, under which much responsibility for the management and approval of Tacis contracts is delegated to the Commission's local delegations and offices in beneficiary countries; considers that the local representation of the Commission in Tacis countries must therefore be considerably increased; believes that these measures would make the programme more responsive to local conditions and alleviate the practical problems currently caused by low staffing levels in the Commission's central services;45. Believes that the success of the phare programme must be evaluated in terms of its success in preparing beneficiary countries for future membership of the European Union; stresses the importance in this regard of the partnership principle in the Phare programming and decision-making process and the need for Community legislation in other areas to be fully compatible with this objective;46. Reaffirms its support for the principle of Phare regional programmes, notwithstanding the difficulties encountered in implementing such programmes in the past; asks the Commission to institute, in consultation with beneficiary countries, a progressive increase in the appropriations allocated to such programmes;47. Asks the Commission to extend its representation on the ground in Phare countries, with the stress on offices providing technical support and advice and active in publicizing the activities of the Phare programme;48. Calls on the Commission to ensure more effective coordination with other providers of assistance active in the Phare and Tacis countries, in particular by ensuring that its project managers are kept fully informed of the strategies and activities of multinational donors such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in their fields of responsibility;49. Believes that the current contracting practices of the Commission under the Phare and Tacis programmes do not ensure the effective dissemination of the results achieved by individual projects to the wider community once they are concluded; asks the Commission to examine ways in which the multiplier effect of projects could be increased; also asks the Commission to explore new forms of follow-up activity aimed at building on the results of technical assistance, especially through the promotion of inward investment;50. Asks the Commission henceforth to provide the European Parliament, through its Committee on Budgetary Control, on an annual basis with a list of all contractors and subcontractors currently employed by the Phare and Tacis programmes, specifying for each the country of origin, the country of operation, the type of project undertaken and the approximate value of the contract;51. Is deeply concerned at evidence that food aid operations often do not correspond to genuine humanitarian needs and that aid has been provided at the wrong time in the wrong circumstances and has been subject to misuse in the country of destination; calls for greater efforts of post-delivery monitoring and control of food aid and the counterpart funds it generates;Miscellaneous 52. Requests the Commission to take account of the main critiscisms of the Court of Auditors concerning the functioning of the EC Investment Partners (ECIP) facilities, namely to respect the criteria relating to the size of European enterprises and the minimum participation quota of local partners; notes that the Commission proposes, in the light of the considerations of the Court of Auditors, to strengthen management and monitoring of the instrument; urges the Commission to increase the flexibility of the instrument while respecting budgetary and accounting principles;53. Calls on the Commission to make available to the budgetary authority and the Court of Auditors any information available to it concerning the operations of the European Investment Bank involving budgetary funds, including that obtained through its representative on the Bank's board, which may be required for the purposes of the discharge procedure of the preparation of the Court's annual report;54. Calls upon the Commission to ensure that henceforth Parliament is consulted under the codecision procedure on the founding regulations of any new Community bodies and on the revision of existing Regulations, and also that it is consulted on the Financial Regulations of such bodies;55. Notes that the Heads of Administration of Community institutions have taken steps to harmonize their application of the rules governing officials' annual travel between place of employment and place of origin in a spirit of strict compliance with the rules; asks each institution to report to Parliament in the context of the next discharge on the savings in money and working time achieved as a result of these measures;56. Asks the Commission to present proposals for revision of the rules:(a) providing for flat-rate payments for rail journeys;(b) determining the threshold entitling staff members of the annual return to their place of origin; and(c) determining the place of origin;these proposals to be based on thorough analysis of the possible savings in work time and money and of the legal implications.(1) OJ No L 70, 16. 3. 1990, p. 1.(2) OJ No C 194, 28. 7. 1982.(3) OJ No C 305, 23. 11. 1992, p. 135.(4) OJ No L 293, 12. 11. 1994, p. 9.(5) OJ No C 65, 2. 3. 1994.(6) OJ No L 374, 31. 12. 1988, p. 1.(7) OJ No L 193, 31. 7. 1993, p. 20.(8) OJ No L 178, 12. 7. 1994, p. 43.


title: Council Decision of 12 October 2005 adjusting the basic salaries and allowances applicable to Europol staff

text:
               19.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 259/1

      COUNCIL DECISION

   of 12 October 2005
   adjusting the basic salaries and allowances applicable to Europol staff
   (2005/C 259/01)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees (1), (hereinafter referred to as ‘Staff Regulations’), and in particular Article 44 thereof,
   Having regard to the Initiative of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (2),
   Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament (3),
   Having regard to the review of remuneration of officials of Europol by the Management Board of Europol,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               In the aforementioned review the Management Board took account of the changes in the cost of living in the Netherlands, as well as of the changes in salaries in the public service in the Member States.

               (2)

               The said review justifies an increase of 0,2 % of remuneration for the period between 1 July 2003 and 1 July 2004.

               (3)

               It is for the Council, acting unanimously, to adjust the basic salaries and allowances of officials of Europol, on the basis of the review,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   With effect from 1 July 2004, the Staff Regulations are hereby amended as follows:

               (a)

               in Article 45, the table of basic monthly salaries shall be replaced by the following:

                           «1

                           2

                           3

                           4

                           5

                           6

                           7

                           8

                           9

                           10

                           11

                           1

                           14 678,38

                           2

                           13 180,56

                           3

                           9 046,67

                           9 280,32

                           9 513,99

                           9 765,62

                           10 017,25

                           10 280,84

                           10 543,24

                           10 820,06

                           11 098,65

                           11 392,22

                           11 682,78

                           4

                           7 878,38

                           8 088,08

                           8 294,78

                           8 513,45

                           8 732,14

                           8 962,79

                           9 190,45

                           9 433,11

                           9 675,73

                           9 930,37

                           10 185,00

                           5

                           6 491,44

                           6 662,18

                           6 829,92

                           7 009,67

                           7 189,41

                           7 381,12

                           7 569,84

                           7 770,55

                           7 968,26

                           8 177,94

                           8 387,65

                           6

                           5 562,82

                           5 709,58

                           5 856,38

                           6 012,15

                           6 164,91

                           6 326,68

                           6 488,44

                           6 659,19

                           6 829,92

                           7 009,67

                           7 189,41

                           7

                           4 637,17

                           4 759,99

                           4 879,80

                           5 008,62

                           5 137,42

                           5 272,23

                           5 407,03

                           5 550,83

                           5 691,61

                           5 841,40

                           5 991,17

                           8

                           3 942,19

                           4 047,04

                           4 148,88

                           4 259,72

                           4 367,55

                           4 481,40

                           4 595,23

                           4 718,06

                           4 837,87

                           4 966,68

                           5 092,48

                           9

                           3 474,88

                           3 567,74

                           3 660,62

                           3 756,45

                           3 852,32

                           3 954,17

                           4 056,02

                           4 163,86

                           4 268,74

                           4 382,55

                           4 493,39

                           10

                           3 013,56

                           3 094,46

                           3 172,32

                           3 256,19

                           3 337,09

                           3 426,95

                           3 516,81

                           3 609,68

                           3 699,54

                           3 798,41

                           3 894,26

                           11

                           2 920,71

                           2 998,59

                           3 073,46

                           3 154,36

                           3 235,23

                           3 322,10

                           3 405,98

                           3 495,85

                           3 585,72

                           3 681,59

                           3 774,42

                           12

                           2 318,60

                           2 381,48

                           2 441,38

                           2 504,31

                           2 567,22

                           2 636,11

                           2 705,02

                           2 776,91

                           2 845,80

                           2 920,71

                           2 995,59

                           13

                           1 992,06

                           2 045,98

                           2 096,91

                           2 153,84

                           2 207,76

                           2 267,66

                           2 324,58

                           2 387,47

                           2 447,41

                           2 513,31

                           2 576,20»

               (b)

               in Article 59(3), the amount ‘EUR 986,57’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 988,54’;

               (c)

               in Article 59(3), the amount ‘EUR 1 973,14’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 1 977,09’;

               (d)

               in Article 60(1), the amount ‘EUR 263,09’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 263,62’;

               (e)

               in Article 2(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 275,04’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 275,59’;

               (f)

               in Article 3(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 11 958,42’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 11 982,34’;

               (g)

               in Article 3(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 2 690,65’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 2 696,03’;

               (h)

               in Article 3(2) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 16 143,87’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 16 176,16’;

               (i)

               in Article 4(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 1 195,85’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 1 198,24’;

               (j)

               in Article 4(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 896,90’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 898,69’;

               (k)

               in Article 4(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 597,91’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 599,11’;

               (l)

               in Article 4(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 478,33’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 479,29’;

               (m)

               in Article 5(3) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 1 687,57’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 1 690,95’;

               (n)

               in Article 5(3) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 2 250,11’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 2 254,61’;

               (o)

               in Article 5(3) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 2 812,62’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 2 818,25’.

         Article 2
   This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall take effect on the day following its adoption.

      Done at Luxembourg, 12 October 2005.

            For the Council

            The President

         C. CLARKE

      (1)  OJ C 26, 30.1.1999, p. 23. Act as last amended by Act of 29 April 2004 (OJ C 114, 30.4.2004, p. 7).

      (2)  OJ C 51, 1.3.2005, p. 15.

      (3)  Opinion delivered on 7 July 2005 (not yet published in the Official Journal).


title: Council Decision of 2 September 2013 adopting the Council’s position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014

text:
               5.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/12

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 2 September 2013
   adopting the Council’s position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014
   2013/C 256/05
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314(3) thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community and in particular Article 106a thereof,
   Whereas:

               —

               on 28 June 2013, the Commission submitted a proposal containing the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014 (1),

               —

               the Council examined the Commission proposal with a view to defining a position consistent, on the revenue side, with Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (2), and on the expenditure side, with the contents of the agreement in principle reached on 27 June 2013 on the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Sole Article
   The Council’s position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014 was adopted by the Council on 2 September 2013.
   The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council's website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

      Done at Brussels, 2 September 2013.

            For the Council

            The President

         L. LINKEVIČIUS

      (1)  COM(2013) 450 final.

      (2)  OJ L 163, 23.6.2007, p. 17.


Avis juridique important

|

31986D0490

86/490/EEC: Commission Decision of 30 September 1986 accepting an undertaking given in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of electronic typewriters originating in Japan manufactured by Tokyo Juki Industrial Co. Ltd/JDK Corporation, and terminating the investigation

Official Journal L 283 , 04/10/1986 P. 0025

*****COMMISSION  DECISION  of 30 September 1986  accepting an undertaking given in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of electronic typewriters originating in Japan manufactured by Tokyo Juki Industrial Co Ltd/JDK Corporation, and terminating the investigation  (86/490/EEC)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 of 23 July 1984 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,  After consultations within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the above Regulation,  Whereas:  A. Procedure  (1) By Regulation (EEC) No 1698/85 (2) the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain imports of electronic typewriters originating in Japan, including those manufactured by Tokyo Juki Industrial Co Ltd/JDK Corporation (Tokyo Juki).  (2) Subsequently it was decided, insofar as Tokyo Juki was concerned, to review Regulation (EEC) No 1698/85 and annul the anti-dumping duty in view of, on the one hand, the completely changed circumstances in that company's particular situation and, on the other hand, the fact that Regulation (EEC) No 1698/85 does not fully state with regard to Tokyo Juki the reasons why anti-dumping measures were taken.  (3) The Commission therefore announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (3), the initiation of a review proceeding concerning imports into the Community of electronic typewriters originating in Japan, and manufactured by Tokyo Juki, and commenced an investigation. The Council thereupon adopted Regulation (EEC) No 113/86 (4), amending Regulation (EEC) No 1698/85 accordingly.  (4) The Commission officially advised the exporter and importer known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting country, and the complainants, of the review proceeding and gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing.  (5) The exporter concerned made its views known in writing, requested and was granted a hearing.  (6) No submissions were made by Community purchasers of electronic typewriters.  (7) The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed to be necessary for the purposes of a preliminary determination and carried out investigations at the premises of the following:  EEC producer:  - TA Triumph-Adler AG, Nuernberg, Federal Republic of Germany;  EEC importers:  - Juki (Europe) GmbH, Hamburg, Federal Republic of Germany,  - MVB Marketing en Verkoop Van Bedrijfsmachines BV, Rosmalen, The Netherlands.  (8) The Commission requested and received written submissions from the Community producers concerned, and some importers, and verified the information therein to the extent considered necessary.  (9) The period 1 January to 31 December 1985 has been fixed for the investigation of dumping.  B. Dumping margin  (10) Tokyo Juki did not submit detailed information on the basis of which the dumping margin could be calculated. Tokyo Juki however agreed to the Commission proceeding with provisional duties on the basis that 'the actual margins of dumping are at least as high as the amount of any duties'.  C. Injury  (11) Injury to the Community industry, resulting from dumped imports of electronic typewriters originating in Japan, was definitively established in Regulation (EEC) No 1698/85. No fresh evidence, showing that the Community industry is no longer in need of protection, has been submitted. On the contrary, since the change in Tokyo Juki's circumstances, its imports into the Community have increased significantly.  (12) With regard more specifically to sales in the Community of electronic typewriters exported by Tokyo Juki, it was found that, during the period of the investigation, such sales followed a similar pattern to sales by the other Japanese exporters that were previously investigated, and against whose dumped exports the Community adopted definitive measures. It was therefore concluded that, in general, the same methodology as described in detail in points 33 to 36 of Regulation (EEC) No 1698/85 should be used in order to determine the level of duty to be applied to imports into the Community of electronic typewriters manufactured by Tokyo Juki. A provisional determination revealed a difference between Tokyo Juki's 1985 sales prices in the Community and the target prices of the Community industry for 1985 of 25 %, expressed as a percentage of cif value.  D. Community interest  (13) Regulation (EEC) No 1698/85 sets out in detail the reasons why it is in the Community's interest to take action in favour of the Community industry against dumped imports of electronic typewriters originating in Japan. No reason could be seen why a different conclusion in the respect should be drawn. The Commission has come to the conclusion that action should be taken.  E. Undertaking  (14) The exporter concerned was informed of the main findings of the investigation. An undertaking was subsequently offered by Tokyo Juki, concerning its sales of electronic typewriters in the Community, which the Commission is satisfied would remove the effects of any injury caused to the Community industry.  In these circumstances the undertaking offered is considered acceptable and the investigation may, therefore, be terminated wihtout imposition of anti-dumping duties.  No objection to this course was raised in the Advisory Committee.  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  The undertaking given by Tokyo Juki Industrial Company Ltd/JDK Corporation in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of electronic typewriters, whether or not incorporating calculating mechanisms, falling within Common Customs Tariff subheadings ex 84.51 A or ex 84.52 B, corresponding to NIMEXE codes 84.51 ex 12, ex 14, ex 19, ex 20 or 84.52 ex 95, originating in Japan, is hereby accepted.  Article 2  The investigation in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding referred to in Article 1 is hereby terminated.  Done at Brussels, 30 September 1986.  For the Commission  Willy DE CLERCQ  Member of the Commission  (1) OJ No L 201, 30. 7. 1984, p. 1.  (2) OJ No L 163, 22. 6. 1985, p. 1.  (3) OJ No C 338, 31. 12. 1985, p. 6.  (4) OJ No L 17, 23. 1. 1986, p. 2.


title: 2007/440/EC: Commission Decision of 25 June 2007 repealing Decision 2005/704/EC accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People's Republic of China

text:
               26.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 164/32

      COMMISSION DECISION

   of 25 June 2007
   repealing Decision 2005/704/EC accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People's Republic of China
   (2007/440/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof,
   After consulting the Advisory Committee,
   Whereas:
   A.   EXISTING MEASURES

               (1)

               In October 2005, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 (2), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the product concerned’).

               (2)

               The Commission, by Decision 2005/704/EC (3), accepted a price undertaking offered by Yingkou Qinghua Refractories Co. Ltd, (‘the Company’).

         B.   BREACHES OF THE UNDERTAKING
   1.   The undertaking
   (a)   Obligations of the company with regard to the undertaking

               (3)

               In the framework of the undertaking, the Company agreed, inter alia, not to sell the product concerned to the European Community below certain minimum prices (MIPs) laid down in the undertaking.

               (4)

               The terms of the undertaking also oblige the Company to provide the Commission with regular and detailed information in the form of a quarterly report of its sales of the product concerned to the European Community.

               (5)

               For the purpose of ensuring compliance with the undertaking, the Company also undertook to allow on-the-spot verification visits at its premises in order to verify the accuracy and veracity of data submitted in the said quarterly reports and to provide all information considered necessary by the Commission.

         (b)   Other provisions of the undertaking

               (6)

               In addition, and as stipulated in the undertaking, the acceptance of the undertaking by the European Commission is based on trust and any action which would harm the relationship of trust established with the European Commission shall justify the immediate withdrawal of the undertaking.

               (7)

               Furthermore, and as stipulated in the undertaking, any changes in circumstances occurring during the period of implementation of the undertaking from those circumstances prevailing at the time of acceptance of the undertaking which were relevant to the decision to accept the undertaking may give rise to the withdrawal of the undertaking by the European Commission.

         2.   Verification visit to the Company

               (8)

               In this regard, a verification visit was carried out at the premises of the Company in the People's Republic of China.

               (9)

               Two days before the verification visit, the Company submitted revised versions of the undertaking reports for the second and third quarter of 2006. The revisions submitted concerned — inter alia — a prolongation of the terms of payment for five transactions. These adjustments for the time allowed for payment have led to prices below the MIP.

               (10)

               Furthermore, the verification visit established a change in the pattern of trade to the European Community after imposition of anti-dumping measures. During the investigation period of the investigation that led to the imposition of the existing measures, the Company sold to the Community exclusively the product concerned. After imposition of measures the Company started to sell also other products to its clients in the Community.

               (11)

               Such a change in the pattern of trade affects the undertaking insofar as it constitutes a serious risk of cross-compensation, i.e. the product not covered by the undertaking may be sold at artificially low prices in order to compensate the MIP for the product covered by the undertaking.

               (12)

               In order to further assess whether such compensation actually took place, the Company was requested to provide copies of invoices of the product not covered by the undertaking, issued to other clients inside and outside the European Community.

               (13)

               The Company argued that an analysis of prices of other products is not meaningful to identify cross-compensation since the qualities and associated prices of these products may vary from client to client. In order to address those concerns, the Company was asked to provide a price list broken down by different qualities and clients but refused to do so and alleged that it concerned confidential information for products not covered by measures.

               (14)

               Finally, the Company provided copies of five invoices for products not covered by the undertaking, issued in 2005 and 2006. One invoice was issued to a customer buying at the same time the product covered by the undertaking, another invoice concerned a customer inside the Community that did not buy the product concerned from the Company. The remaining invoices were issued to customers outside the Community.

               (15)

               Taking into account the various qualities purchased by these five customers, it was found that the price charged to the customer in the Community, who bought also the product covered by the undertaking, was significantly lower than the price charged for similar qualities to the other client in the Community who did not buy the product covered by the undertaking. A similar price difference applied to the other clients outside the Community. This pricing policy is therefore considered as a clear indication that cross-compensation actually took place.

         3.   Reasons to withdraw acceptance of the undertaking

               (16)

               The obligation of the Company to respect the MIP for all sales of the product covered by the undertaking was not met, as described in recital 9 above.

               (17)

               Furthermore, a change in the pattern of trade since the imposition of measures has led to a significant risk of cross-compensation which no longer allows the Commission to effectively monitor the undertaking and therefore renders the undertaking impractical.

               (18)

               It appears that this change in the pattern of trade allowed the Company to compensate customers in the Community for sales subject to the MIP by artificially low prices for the product not covered by the undertaking.

               (19)

               This change in the pattern of trade is considered as a relevant change in circumstances compared to those prevailing at the time of acceptance of the undertaking and should lead, taking into account the findings set out above in recitals 10 to 12, to the withdrawal of the undertaking.

               (20)

               In addition, by withholding the price lists for products not covered by the undertaking, the Company failed to comply with the obligation to provide relevant information in accordance with Article 8(7) of the basic Regulation and the provisions of the undertaking.

               (21)

               Furthermore, the unwillingness of the Company to provide these price lists harmed the relationship of trust which formed the basis for the acceptance of the undertaking.

         4.   Written submissions
   (a)   Proportionality

               (22)

               With regard to the price violation, the Company admitted that a price violation occurred. The Company argued, however, that the sales prices of all other transactions were strictly in compliance with the MIP. Moreover, it was submitted that the final price was not significantly lower than the MIP. The Company claimed that, on this basis, the withdrawal of the undertaking would be disproportionate to the breaches that occurred.

               (23)

               In response to these arguments, regarding the issue of proportionality, it should be pointed out that in accordance with the undertaking, the Company undertook to ensure that the Net Sales Price of all sales covered by the undertaking shall be at or above the MIPs set out in the undertaking.

               (24)

               Moreover, the basic Regulation contains no direct or indirect requirement that a breach of an undertaking must relate to a minimum percentage of sales or must relate to a minimum percentage of the MIP.

               (25)

               This approach has also been confirmed by the jurisprudence of the Court of First Instance which has ruled that any breach of an undertaking is sufficient to justify the withdrawal of acceptance of an undertaking (4).

               (26)

               Accordingly, the arguments presented by the Company with regard to proportionality do not alter the Commission's view that a breach of the undertaking occurred and that the withdrawal of the undertaking would be proportionate to that breach.

         (b)   Change in the pattern of trade

               (27)

               With regard to the change in the pattern of trade, the Company submitted that it did not deliberately change its pattern of trade in order to compensate customers in the Community for sales subject to the MIP by artificially low prices for the product not covered by the undertaking.

               (28)

               It was argued that the price increase caused by the imposition of anti-dumping measures and the consequential decline in sales to the EU of the product concerned has led the Company to develop new products outside the scope of measures in order to maintain trade with the Community.

               (29)

               In response to these arguments, it should be underlined that the change in the pattern of trade as such constitutes a serious risk of cross-compensation, regardless for what reason it occurred. It is standing practice of the Commission not to accept price undertakings if the risk of cross-compensation is high. Consequently, if such a change in the pattern of trade occurs during the period of application of an undertaking, the change in itself is sufficient enough for the Commission to withdraw the undertaking, because it renders a proper monitoring of the undertaking impractical, regardless of whether or not a cross-compensation actually took place.

               (30)

               Accordingly, the arguments presented by the Company in this respect do not alter the Commission's view that the change in the pattern of trade had led to a significant risk of cross-compensation.

         (c)   Compensation scheme

               (31)

               The Company further submitted that it is a reasonable strategy and common business practice to offer favourable prices when trying to penetrate a market with a new product and that therefore it cannot be concluded that compensation actually took place, in particular since the volume of sales of the new product were nowhere near enough to fully compensate the loss in sales of the product covered by the undertaking.

               (32)

               In response to this submission, it has to be stressed that a favourable price was only offered to a client buying both the product covered by the undertaking and other products. It was not offered to another client in the EU which does not buy the product covered by the undertaking. Therefore, the very high price charged to the other client in the EU for a similar quality undermines this argumentation and strengthens the argument that cross-compensation actually took place.

               (33)

               Furthermore, as concerns the issue of materiality and proportionality, it should be stressed that there is no requirement on the Commission to demonstrate that a drop in sales of the product concerned has been offset by an equivalent rise in sales of new products when assessing whether cross-compensation has taken place.

         (d)   Information to be provided

               (34)

               Additionally, the Company contested having denied providing a price list for products not covered by the undertaking but argued that it does not have a universal price list since different prices apply to different customers in different regions.

               (35)

               In reply to this submission, it has to be recalled that the Company has been asked to provide those price lists that are available in order to overcome that problem, but was unwilling to do so since it was alleged that it concerned confidential information for products not covered by measures.

               (36)

               Accordingly, the arguments presented by the Company in this respect do not alter the Commission's view that the Company failed to comply with the obligation to permit verification of pertinent data in accordance with Article 8(7) of the basic Regulation.

         C.   REPEAL OF DECISION 2005/704/EC

               (37)

               In view of the above, the acceptance of the undertaking should be withdrawn and Decision 2005/704/EC should be repealed. Accordingly, the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 on imports of the product concerned from the Company should apply,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   Decision 2005/704/EC is hereby repealed.
   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, 25 June 2007.

            For the Commission

         Peter MANDELSON

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17.)

      (2)  OJ L 267, 12.10.2005, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 267, 12.10.2005, p. 27.

      (4)  In this context, see case T-51/96 Miwon v Council (ECR 2000, p. II-1841) paragraph 52; case T-340/99 Arne Mathisen AS v Council (ECR 2002, p. II-2905) paragraph 80.


title: Council Decision 2012/170/CFSP of 23 March 2012 amending Decision 2010/573/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 87/92

         COUNCIL DECISION 2012/170/CFSP
   of 23 March 2012
   amending Decision 2010/573/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 27 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/573/CFSP (1).

               (2)

               In order to encourage progress in reaching a political settlement of the Transnistrian conflict and restoring the free movement of persons across the administrative boundary of the Transnistrian region, the restrictive measures applying with respect to Annex I to Decision 2010/573/CFSP should be further suspended until 30 September 2012. At the end of that period, the Council should review those restrictive measures in the light of developments in the two areas mentioned above.

               (3)

               In order to encourage progress in addressing the remaining problems of the Latin-script schools, the restrictive measures applying with respect to Annex II to Decision 2010/573/CFSP should be further suspended until 30 September 2012. At the end of that period, the Council should review those restrictive measures with a view to ensuring the fulfilment of the conditions for an effective and sustainable return to the normal functioning of the Latin-script schools in the Transnistrian region, namely by the removal of restrictions on their registration by the Transnistrian de facto administration, the provision of decent functioning conditions for all of them, and the sustainability of such functioning conditions over time.

               (4)

               The information relating to certain persons included in the lists in Annexes I and II to Decision 2010/573/CFSP should be updated.

               (5)

               Decision 2010/573/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   In Article 4 of Decision 2010/573/CFSP, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

      "3.   The restrictive measures provided for in this Decision shall be suspended until 30 September 2012. At the end of that period, the Council shall review those restrictive measures.".

   Article 2
   1.   Annex I to Decision 2010/573/CFSP shall be amended as set out in Annex I to this Decision.
   2.   Annex II to Decision 2010/573/CFSP shall be amended as set out in Annex II to this Decision.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 23 March 2012.

            For the Council

            The President

         C. ASHTON

      (1)  OJ L 253, 28.9.2010, p. 54.

      ANNEX I
      The entries for the persons named below shall be replaced by the entries set out below:

                  1.

                  SMIRNOV, Igor Nikolayevich, former "President", born on 23 October 1941 in Khabarovsk, Russian Federation, Russian passport No 50No0337530.

                  2.

                  SMIRNOV, Vladimir Igorevich, son of No 1 and former "Chairman of the State Customs Committee", born on 3 April 1961 in Kupiansk, Kharkovskaya oblast or Novaya Kakhovka, Khersonskaya oblast, Ukraine, Russian passport No 50No00337016.

                  3.

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

                  4.

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

                  5.

                  KOROLYOV, Alexandr Ivanovich, former "Vice-President", born on 24 October 1958 in Wroclaw, Poland, Russian passport.

                  6.

                  KRASNOSELSKY, Vadim Nikolayevich, former "Minister of Internal Affairs", born on 14 April 1970 in Dauriya, Zabaykalskyi rayon, Chitinskaya oblast, Russian Federation.

                  7.

                  ATAMANIUK, Vladimir, former "Deputy Minister of Defence".

      ANNEX II
      The entries for the persons named below shall be replaced by the entries set out below:

                  1.

                  MAZUR, Igor Leonidovich, former "Head of State Administration in Dubossary Rayon", born on 29 January 1967 in Dubossary, Republic of Moldova.

                  2.

                  PLATONOV, Yuri Mikhailovich, known as Yury PLATONOV, former "Head of State Administration in Rybnitsa Rayon and Rybnitsa City", born on 16 January 1948 in Klimkovo, Poddorsky rayon, Novgorodskaya oblast, Russian passport No 51No0527002, issued by the Russian Embassy in Chisinau on 4 May 2001.

                  3.

                  KOGUT, Vecheslav Vasyilevich, former "Head of State Administration in Bender", born on 16 February 1950 in Taraclia, Chadir-Lunga rayon, Republic of Moldova.

                  4.

                  KOSTIRKO, Viktor Ivanovich, former "Head of State Administration in Tiraspol", born on 24 May 1948, Komsomolsk na Amure, Habarovsky kray, Russian Federation.


Avis juridique important

|

41992D0319

92/319/ECSC: Decision of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council of 15 June 1992 temporarily suspending the customs duty applying to the import into the Canary Islands of a product covered by the ECSC Treaty

Official Journal L 173 , 27/06/1992 P. 0039 - 0040

DECISION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES, MEETING WITHIN THE COUNCIL of 15 June 1992 temporarily suspending the customs duty applying to the import into the Canary Islands of a product covered by the ECSC Treaty  (92/319/ECSC)THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, MEETING WITHIN THE COUNCIL,  In agreement with the Commission(1) ,  Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2) ,  HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  1.  From 1 July 1992 to 31 December 1995 the ECSC unified tariff duties applying to the following product shall be fully suspended in respect of imports into the Canary Islands:  Order No CN code Description 17 0501 7213 Bars and rods, hot-rolled, in irregularly wound coils, of iron and non-alloy steel (ECSC) 2.  The suspension referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply solely to products intended for the Canary Islands' domestic market.  3.  The relevant Spanish authorities shall adopt the provisions necessary to ensure compliance with the measures provided for in paragraph 2 pursuant to the relevant Community provision on end-use and in particular the levying of Common Customs Tariff  duties where the products concerned are dispatched to the other parts of the customs territory of the Community.  They shall inform the Commission of these measures at the earliest opportunity.  Article 2  1.  In the case of the product referred to in Article 1, the relevant Spanish authorities shall inform the Commission, no later than the fifteenth of each month, beginning on 15 September 1992, of the volume of imports exempted from duty  during the preceding month.  2.  The information sent on 15 September 1992 must cover all imports since 1 July 1992.  Article 3  In the framework of the interim period provided for in Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 1911/91, the Commission, after consulting the Spanish authorities, shall in 1995 examine the effect of all the measures adopted in favour of the economy  of the Canary Islands. On the basis of the outcome of this examination, it shall submit to the Council the requisite proposals for the period extending beyond 31 December 1995.  Article 4  The Member States shall, in close cooperation with the Commission, take all necessary measures to ensure that this Decision is applied.  Article 5  The Member States shall take the measures necessary for the implementation of this Decision.  Article 6  This Decision shall enter into force on 1 July 1992.  Done at Luxembourg, 15 June 1992.  The PresidentJoao PINHEIRO    (1) OJ No C 100, 22. 4. 1992, p. 21.  (2) Opinion delivered on 9 June 1992 (not yet published in the Official Journal).


title: Council Decision 2008/918/CFSP of 8 December 2008 on the launch of a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta)

text:
               9.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 330/19

      COUNCIL DECISION 2008/918/CFSP
   of 8 December 2008
   on the launch of a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 17(2) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1) (ATALANTA), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               In its Resolution 1814 (2008) on the situation in Somalia, adopted on 15 May 2008, the UN Security Council called on States and regional organisations, in close coordination with one another, to take action to protect shipping involved in the transport and delivery of humanitarian aid to Somalia and UN-authorised activities.

               (2)

               In its Resolution 1816 (2008) on the situation in Somalia, adopted on 2 June 2008, the UN Security Council expressed its concern at the threat that acts of piracy and armed robbery against vessels pose to the delivery of humanitarian aid to Somalia, the safety of commercial maritime routes and international navigation. The UN Security Council encouraged, in particular, States interested in the use of commercial maritime routes off the coast of Somalia to increase and coordinate their efforts to deter acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea in cooperation with the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia (TFG).

               (3)

               In its Resolution 1838 (2008) concerning the situation in Somalia, adopted on 7 October 2008, the UN Security Council commended the ongoing planning process towards a possible European Union naval operation, as well as other international or national initiatives taken with a view to implementing Resolutions 1814 (2008) and 1816 (2008), and urged all States that have the capacity to do so to cooperate with the TFG in the fight against piracy and armed robbery at sea, in conformity with the provisions of Resolution 1816 (2008). It also urged all States and regional organisations, in conformity with the provisions of Resolution 1814 (2008), to continue to take action to protect the World Food Programme maritime convoys, which is vital to bring humanitarian assistance to the Somali population.

               (4)

               The Somali Transitional Federal Government informed the United Nations Secretary-General by letter dated 14 November 2008 of the offer made to it, in conformity with paragraph 7 of Resolution 1816 (2008).

               (5)

               The European Union may be brought to rely on subsequent UNSC resolutions regarding the situation in Somalia.

               (6)

               In accordance with Article 6 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the European Union which have defence implications and therefore does not participate in the financing of the operation,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The Operation Plan and the Rules of Engagement concerning the EU military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast, hereinafter referred to as ‘Operation Atalanta’, are approved.
   Article 2
   Operation Atalanta shall be launched on 8 December 2008.
   Article 3
   The Commander of Operation Atalanta is hereby authorised with immediate effect to release the activation order (ACTORD) in order to execute the deployment of the forces and start execution of the mission.
   Article 4
   This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.
   Article 5
   This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 8 December 2008.

            For the Council

            The President

         B. KOUCHNER

      (1)  OJ L 301, 12.11.2008, p. 33.


title: Council Decision 2014/507/CFSP of 30 July 2014 amending Decision 2014/386/CFSP concerning restrictions on goods originating in Crimea or Sevastopol, in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol

text:
               30.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 226/20

         COUNCIL DECISION 2014/507/CFSP
   of 30 July 2014
   amending Decision 2014/386/CFSP concerning restrictions on goods originating in Crimea or Sevastopol, in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 23 June 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/386/CFSP (1).

               (2)

               In view of the continued illegal annexation of Crimea, the Council considers that additional measures should be taken restricting trade with and investment in Crimea and Sevastopol.

               (3)

               Further action by the Union is needed in order to implement certain measures.

               (4)

               Decision 2014/386/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Decision 2014/386/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:

               (1)

               The title is replaced by the following:
               ‘Council Decision 2014/386/CFSP of 23 June 2014 concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol’.

               (2)

               The following Articles are inserted:
               ‘Article 4a
               1.   The sale, supply or transfer of key equipment and technology for the creation, acquisition or development of infrastructure projects in the following sectors in Crimea and Sevastopol, by nationals of Member States, or from the territories of Member States, or using vessels or aircraft under the jurisdiction of Member States, shall be prohibited whether or not originating in their territories:

                           (a)

                           transport;

                           (b)

                           telecommunications;

                           (c)

                           energy.

                     The Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant items to be covered by this paragraph.
               2.   It shall be prohibited to provide the following to enterprises in Crimea and Sevastopol that are engaged in the creation, acquisition or development of infrastructure in the sectors referred to in paragraph 1 in Crimea and Sevastopol:

                           (a)

                           technical assistance or training and other services related to key equipment and technology as determined in accordance with paragraph 1;

                           (b)

                           financing or financial assistance for any sale, supply, transfer or export of key equipment and technology as determined in accordance with paragraph 1 or for the provision of related technical assistance or training.

                     3.   It shall be prohibited to participate, knowingly or intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.
               Article 4b
               1.   The sale, supply or transfer of key equipment and technology for the exploitation of the following natural resources in Crimea and Sevastopol, by nationals of Member States, or from the territories of Member States, or using vessels or aircraft under the jurisdiction of Member States, shall be prohibited whether or not originating in their territories:

                           (a)

                           oil;

                           (b)

                           gas;

                           (c)

                           minerals.

                     The Union shall take the necessary measures in order to determine the relevant items to be covered by this paragraph.
               2.   It shall be prohibited to provide the following to enterprises that are engaged in exploitation, in Crimea and Sevastopol, of the natural resources referred to in paragraph 1:

                           (a)

                           technical assistance or training and other services related to key equipment and technology as determined in accordance with paragraph 1;

                           (b)

                           financing or financial assistance for any sale, supply, transfer or export of key equipment and technology as determined in accordance with paragraph 1 or for the provision of related technical assistance or training.

                     3.   It shall be prohibited to participate, knowingly or intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent the prohibitions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.
               Article 4c
               The prohibitions set out in Articles 4a and 4b shall be without prejudice to the execution, until 28 October 2014, of contracts concluded before 30 July 2014 or ancillary contracts, necessary for the execution of such contracts, to be concluded and executed no later than 28 October 2014.
               Article 4d
               The following shall be prohibited:

                           (a)

                           the granting of any financial loan or credit specifically relating to the creation, acquisition or development of infrastructure in the sectors referred to in Article 4a;

                           (b)

                           the acquisition or extension of a participation in enterprises established in Crimea and Sevastopol that are engaged in the creation, acquisition or development of infrastructure in the sectors referred to in Article 4a, including the acquisition in full of such enterprises and the acquisition of shares and securities of a participating nature;

                           (c)

                           the creation of any joint venture relating to the creation, acquisition or development of infrastructure in the sectors referred to in Article 4a.

                     Article 4e
               The following shall be prohibited:

                           (a)

                           the granting of any financial loan or credit specifically relating to the exploitation of the natural resources referred to in Article 4b in Crimea and Sevastopol;

                           (b)

                           the acquisition or extension of a participation in enterprises established in Crimea and Sevastopol that are engaged in the exploitation of the natural resources referred to in Article 4b in Crimea and Sevastopol, including the acquisition in full of such enterprises and the acquisition of shares and securities of a participating nature;

                           (c)

                           the creation of any joint venture relating to the exploitation of the natural resources referred to in Article 4b in Crimea and Sevastopol.

                     Article 4f
               The prohibitions in Articles 4d and 4e:

                           (a)

                           shall be without prejudice to the execution of an obligation arising from contracts or agreements concluded before 30 July 2014;

                           (b)

                           shall not prevent the extension of a participation, if such extension is an obligation under an agreement concluded before 30 July 2014.

                     Article 4g
               The prohibitions in Articles 4b and 4e shall be without prejudice to transactions related to maintenance in order to ensure safety of existing infrastructure.’.

               (3)

               The following sentence is added to Article 5:
               ‘Articles 4a to 4g shall be reviewed no later than 31 December 2014.’.

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

      Done at Brussels, 30 July 2014.

            For the Council

            The President

         S. GOZI

      (1)  Council Decision 2014/386/CFSP of 23 June 2014 concerning restrictions on goods originating in Crimea or Sevastopol, in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol (OJ L 183, 24.6.2014, p.70).


title: 2009/898/EC: Council Decision of 30 November 2009 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and Barbados on the short-stay visa waiver

text:
               8.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 321/40

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 30 November 2009
   on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and Barbados on the short-stay visa waiver
   (2009/898/EC)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular point 2(b)(i) of Article 62, in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
   Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament (1),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Commission has negotiated on behalf of the European Community an Agreement with Barbados on the short-stay visa waiver (hereinafter ‘the Agreement’).

               (2)

               The Agreement was signed on behalf of the Community on 28 May 2009 and has been provisionally applied since that date, subject to its conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2009/479/EC (2).

               (3)

               The Agreement should be approved.

               (4)

               The Agreement establishes a Joint Committee for the management of the Agreement, which should adopt its rules of procedure. It is appropriate to provide for a simplified procedure for the establishment of the Community position on the adoption of those rules of procedure.

               (5)

               In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and without prejudice to Article 4 of the said Protocol, these Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and are not bound by it or subject to its application,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The Agreement between the European Community and Barbados on the short-stay visa waiver (3) is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.
   Article 2
   The President of the Council shall give the notification provided for in Article 8(1) of the Agreement (4).
   Article 3
   The Community shall be represented by the Commission, assisted by experts from Member States, in the Joint Committee of experts established by Article 6 of the Agreement.
   Article 4
   The position of the Community within the Joint Committee of experts with regard to the adoption of its rules of procedure as required under Article 6(4) of the Agreement shall be taken by the Commission after consultation with a special committee designated by the Council.
   Article 5
   This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 30 November 2009.

            For the Council

            The President

         B. ASK

      (1)  Opinion of 20 October 2009 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

      (2)  OJ L 169, 30.6.2009, p. 9.

      (3)  For the text of the Agreement see OJ L 169, 30.6.2009, p. 10.

      (4)  The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the General Secretariat of the Council.