title: 2012/558/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2012 on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section VIII — European Ombudsman

text:
               17.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 286/117

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 10 May 2012
   on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section VIII — European Ombudsman
   (2012/558/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010 (1),

               —

               having regard to the annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2010 (COM(2011) 473 – C7-0263/2011) (2),

               —

               having regard to the European Ombudsman’s annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2010,

               —

               having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2010, together with the institutions’ replies (3),

               —

               having regard to the statement of assurance (4) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2010 pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

               having regard to Article 314(10) and Articles 317, 318 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), and in particular Articles 50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0089/2012),

               1.

               Grants the European Ombudsman discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2010;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

            The President

         Martin SCHULZ

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ L 64, 12.3.2010.

      (2)  OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ C 326, 10.11.2011, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 134.

      (5)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.
    ---documentbreak---

               17.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 286/118

         RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 10 May 2012
   with observations forming an integral part of the decision on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010, Section VIII — European Ombudsman
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 2010 (1),

               —

               having regard to the annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2010 (COM(2011) 473 – C7-0263/2011) (2),

               —

               having regard to the European Ombudsman’s annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2010,

               —

               having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2010, together with the institutions’ replies (3),

               —

               having regard to the statement of assurance (4) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2010 pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

               having regard to Article 314(10) and Articles 317, 318 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), and in particular Articles 50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0089/2012),

               1.

               Stresses that in point 7.31 of its 2010 annual report the Court of Auditors stated that it ‘has no observation to make on the European Ombudsman’; points out, none the less, that the Court of Auditors had asked the European Ombudsman (the Ombudsman) to draft provisions on the procedures for recruitment of temporary staff; considers that the Court of Auditors should have notified it of the outcome;

               2.

               Notes that in 2010 the Ombudsman had commitment appropriations available amounting to a total of EUR 9 332 275 (as against EUR 9 000 000 in 2009) and that the utilisation rate for those appropriations was 89,65 %, which was below the average for the other institutions and two percentage points lower than the utilisation rate for the previous year (91,98 %); points out, however, that the lower utilisation rate is due mainly to a fluctuation in staff numbers and stresses that the Ombudsman has a purely administrative budget, 79 % of which is accounted for by expenditure relating to persons working with the institution, 15 % by buildings, furniture, equipment and miscellaneous operating expenditure, and 6 % by expenditure resulting from general functions carried out by the institution;

               3.

               Calls for better financial planning ensuring more efficient budget implementation;

               4.

               Welcomes the fact that the Ombudsman included key performance indicators in the 2010 action plan, together with a scoreboard, thus enabling performance to be measured using a benchmarking system; welcomes the progress made throughout the year;

               5.

               Calls, however, for the number and proportion of cases in which decisions on admissibility are taken within one month to be further increased; notes that the current proportion is 66 %;

               6.

               Calls also for the number and proportion of inquiries that are completed within less than 12 months to continue to increase; notes that the current proportion is 66 %;

               7.

               Welcomes the fact that a new procedure has been introduced for the recruitment of temporary staff and the calculation of individual entitlements;

               8.

               Welcomes the audit carried out by the Internal Audit Service in 2010, which took account of observations made in 2009 and concluded that, subject to implementation of the agreed measures, the management and control system is effective;

               9.

               Points out that Parliament adopted an own-initiative report on the annual report on the European Ombudsman’s activities in 2010 only recently, on 27 October 2011 (6), and therefore does not wish to add to the observations made therein;

               10.

               Calls for the annual report on the European Ombudsman’s activities in 2011 to contain a section on any action taken in response to Parliament’s discharge resolution, together with a comprehensive table of all the human resources available to the Ombudsman, broken down by category, grade and gender, participation in professional training and nationality.

      (1)  OJ L 64, 12.3.2010.

      (2)  OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ C 326, 10.11.2011, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 134.

      (5)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (6)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0467.


title: 2014/278/EU: Council Decision of 12 May 2014 on the conclusion of the Framework Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of Korea, on the other part, with the exception of matters related to readmission

text:
               16.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 145/1

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 12 May 2014
   on the conclusion of the Framework Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of Korea, on the other part, with the exception of matters related to readmission

      (2014/278/EU)

   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 91, 100, 191(4), 207 and 212, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Having regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               In accordance with the Council Decision of 2013/40/EU (2), the Framework Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of Korea, on the other part (the ‘Agreement’), was signed on 10 May 2010, subject to its conclusion at a later date.

               (2)

               Certain provisions of the Agreement concern readmission, and therefore fall within the scope of Title V of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. A separate Decision (3) relating to those provisions, which are contained in Article 33(2) of the Agreement, will be adopted in parallel to this Decision.

               (3)

               The Agreement should be approved on behalf of the Union,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The Framework Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of Korea, on the other part, with the exception of Article 33(2) thereof, is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (4).
   Article 2
   The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall chair the Joint Committee provided for in Article 44 of the Agreement. The Union or, as the case may be, the Union and the Member States, shall be represented in the Joint Committee depending on the subject matter.
   Article 3
   The President of the Council shall designate the person(s) empowered to proceed, on behalf of the Union, to the notification provided for in Article 49(1) of the Agreement (5).
   Article 4
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 12 May 2014.

            For the Council

            The President

         C. ASHTON

      (1)  Consent given on 16 April 2014 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

      (2)  Council Decision 2013/40/EU of 10 May 2010 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Framework Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of Korea, on the other part (OJ L 20, 23.1.2013, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Decision 2014/279/EU of 12 May 2014 on the conclusion of the Framework Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, on the one part, and the Republic of Korea, on the other part, as regards matters related to readmission (see page 3 of this Official Journal).

      (4)  The Agreement has been published in OJ L 20, 23.1.2013, p. 2, together with the decision on signature.

      (5)  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.


Avis juridique important

|

31980D0252

80/252/EEC: Commission Decision of 22 February 1980 accepting undertakings given by exporters in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland and Romania in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of standardized electric multi-phase motors having an output of more than 0*75 kW but not more than 75 kW, originating in those countries, and terminating the procedure in respect of them

Official Journal L 053 , 27/02/1980 P. 0021 - 0023

****( 1 ) OJ NO L 339 , 31 . 12 . 1979 , P . 1 .  ( 2 ) OJ NO C 103 , 25 . 4 . 1979 , P . 9 .  ( 1 ) NIMEXE CODES EX 85.01-33 , 34 , 36 ; COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF SUBHEADING EX 85.01 B I B ).        COMMISSION DECISION   OF 22 FEBRUARY 1980   ACCEPTING UNDERTAKINGS GIVEN BY EXPORTERS IN BULGARIA , CZECHOSLOVAKIA , THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC , HUNGARY , POLAND AND ROMANIA IN CONNECTION WITH THE ANTI-DUMPING PROCEEDING CONCERNING IMPORTS OF STANDARDIZED ELECTRIC MULTI-PHASE MOTORS HAVING AN OUTPUT OF MORE THAN 0.75 KW BUT NOT MORE THAN 75 KW , ORIGINATING IN THOSE COUNTRIES , AND TERMINATING THE PROCEDURE IN RESPECT OF THEM  ( 80/252/EEC )   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN   COMMUNITIES ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY ,   HAVING REGARD TO COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 3017/79 OF 20 DECEMBER 1979 ON PROTECTION AGAINST DUMPED OR SUBSIDIZED IMPORTS FROM COUNTRIES NOT MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY ( 1 ), AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 10 THEREOF ,   AFTER HEARING THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED BY THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SET UP UNDER THAT REGULATION ,   WHEREAS IN MARCH 1979 THE COMMISSION RECEIVED A COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR THE COMMON MARKET ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS OF ROTATING ELECTRICAL MACHINERY ( COMEL ) ON BEHALF OF THE GREAT MAJORITY OF COMMUNITY MANUFACTURERS OF LOW VOLTAGE ELECTRIC MOTORS ; WHEREAS THE COMPLAINT CONTAINED EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF DUMPING IN RESPECT OF LIKE PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN BULGARIA , CZECHOSLOVAKIA , THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC , HUNGARY , POLAND , ROMANIA OR THE USSR , AND OF SUBSTANTIAL INJURY RESULTING THEREFROM ;   WHEREAS THE SAID EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY INITIATING AN INVESTIGATION ;   WHEREAS THE COMMISSION ACCORDINGLY ANNOUNCED , BY A NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ( 2 ), THE INITIATION OF A PROCEEDING CONCERNING IMPORTS OF STANDARDIZED ELECTRIC MULTI-PHASE MOTORS HAVING AN OUTPUT OF MORE THAN 0.75 KW BUT NOT MORE THAN 75 KW ORIGINATING IN BULGARIA , CZECHOSLOVAKIA , THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC , HUNGARY , POLAND , ROMANIA OR THE USSR , AND COMMENCED AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MATTER AT COMMUNITY LEVEL ;   WHEREAS THE COMMISSION OFFICIALLY SO ADVISED THE EXPORTERS AND IMPORTERS KNOWN TO BE CONCERNED ;   WHEREAS THE COMMISSION HAS GIVEN THE PARTIES DIRECTLY CONCERNED THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE KNOWN THEIR VIEWS IN WRITING AND TO BE HEARD ORALLY , AND TO MEET SO THAT OPPOSING VIEWS MIGHT BE PRESENTED AND REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD ;   WHEREAS THE MAJORITY OF THE PARTIES CONCERNED HAVE TAKEN THIS OPPORTUNITY ;   WHEREAS IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE DUMPING MARGIN AND INJURY , THE COMMISSION CARRIED OUT INSPECTIONS AT THE PREMISES OF THE GREAT MAJORITY OF EXPORTERS '  AGENTS AND IMPORTERS , INCLUDING : IN BELGIUM , INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC PVBA ( KORTRIJK ) AND SYMKENS SPRL  ( LIEGE ); IN DENMARK , R . FRIMODT PEDERSON AS ( DAUGAARD ), ARNITLUND HANDELS APS ( VOJENS ), NORDELEKTRO AS ( KOEBENHAVN ) AND A . JOHNSON  AND  CO . AS ( CHARLOTTENLUND ); IN FRANCE , SERMES SA ( STRASBOURG ), SODIMEF SA ( STRASBOURG ), SORICE SA  ( IVRY-SUR-SEINE ) AND SOFBIM SA ( PARIS ); IN ITALY , MEZ ITALIANA SPA ( MILANO ), IMEX SPA ( MILANO ), ELPROM SPL  ( PARMA ), ELEKROPOLCANTONI  AND  CO . SPA ( MILANO ), VENETA MOTORI SNC ( PADOVA ) AND BAME DI BARTOLOMEI BRUNO ( PISTOIA ); IN THE NETHERLANDS , ROTOR CV ( EIBERGEN ) AND PEJA ELEKTROTECHNIEK BV  ( ARNHEM ); AND IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY , HORST SCHENK ( BRILON ) AND FRITZ OBERSTENFELD ( HAMBURG ); WHEREAS THE COMMISSION CONTACTED A NUMBER OF OTHER AGENTS AND IMPORTERS ; WHEREAS THE COMMISSION ALSO CARRIED OUT INSPECTIONS AT THE PREMISES OF THE MAIN COMPLAINANT COMMUNITY PRODUCERS , VIZ . IN BELGIUM , ACEC ( CHARLEROI ); IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY , AEG-TELEFUNKEN AG  ( OLDENBURG ), BAUKNECHT GMBH ( STUTTGART ), AND SIEMENS AG  ( ERLANGEN ); IN FRANCE , ALSTHOM-UNELEC ( PARIS ), COMPAGNIE ELECTRO-MECANIQUE SA ( PARIS ) AND LEROY-SOMER SA ( ANGOULEME ); AND IN ITALY , ANSALDO SPA ( GENOVA ) AND ERCOLE MARELLI SPA  ( MILANO );   WHEREAS , IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH WHETHER THE ABOVEMENTIONED IMPORTS WERE DUMPED , THE COMMISSION HAD TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT BULGARIA , CZECHOSLOVAKIA , THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC , HUNGARY , POLAND AND ROMANIA ARE NOT MARKET ECONOMY COUNTRIES ;   WHEREAS , FOR THAT REASON , THE COMMISSION HAD TO BASE ITS CALCULATIONS ON THE NORMAL VALUE IN A MARKET ECONOMY COUNTRY ; WHEREAS , IN THAT CONNECTION , THE COMPLAINT HAD CITED THE AUSTRIAN AND SPANISH DOMESTIC MARKETS ;   WHEREAS , ON THE BASIS OF CONTACTS WITH AUSTRIAN AND SPANISH PRODUCERS AND INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT ON THEIR PREMISES , AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARINGS BY THE EXPORTERS CONCERNED , INTER ALIA DISPUTING THE COMPARABILITY OF THE SPANISH MARKET , A COMPARISON WITH THE PRICE OF ELECTRIC MOTORS ON THE AUSTRIAN DOMESTIC MARKET WOULD APPEAR REASONABLE AT LEAST FOR THE PURPOSES OF A PRELIMINARY FINDING OF DUMPING , SINCE THE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES AND TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND ALSO THE TECHNOLOGY ARE SIMILAR , WHILE THE LARGE VOLUME OF IMPORTS , NOTABLY FROM THE COUNTRIES CITED IN THE COMPLAINT , WOULD APPEAR TO GUARANTEE A FAIR LEVEL OF PRICES ;   WHEREAS THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF DUMPING WAS ACCORDINGLY EFFECTED BY COMPARING THE AVERAGE AUSTRIAN EX-WORKS PRICES FOR SALES OVER THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 1978 TO SEPTEMBER 1979 WITH PRICES FOR IMPORTS INTO THE COMMUNITY FROM THE COUNTRIES IN QUESTION OVER THE SAME PERIOD ;   WHEREAS , TO TAKE DUE ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCES AFFECTING PRICE COMPARABILITY , THE MAXIMUM DISCOUNTS FOR BULK ORDERS AND CASH PAYMENT , AND SALES AND SERVICE COSTS BORNE BY THE AUSTRIAN MANUFACTURERS , WERE DEDUCTED FROM AUSTRIAN LIST PRICES ; WHEREAS ONLY FOB OR CIF EXPORT PRICES WERE AVAILABLE , BUT NO ADJUSTMENT WAS EFFECTED TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE TRANSPORT COSTS INCLUDED IN THOSE PRICES ; WHEREAS ALL THE ABOVE FACTORS HAD THE EFFECT OF REDUCING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AUSTRIAN EX-WORKS PRICES AND EXPORT PRICES ;   WHEREAS THE ABOVE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS SHOWS THE EXISTENCE OF DUMPING IN RESPECT OF THE IMPORTS CONSIDERED IN THE INVESTIGATION , THE DUMPING MARGIN BEING EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE NORMAL VALUE AS ESTABLISHED ABOVE EXCEEDS THE PRICE AT WHICH THE GOODS ARE EXPORTED TO THE COMMUNITY ; WHEREAS THE MARGIN VARIES DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF MOTOR , THE EXPORTING COUNTRY , AND THE IMPORTING MEMBER STATE ; WHEREAS , FOR EXAMPLE , THE SAID MARGIN IN EVERY CASE EXCEEDS 19.65 EUA FOR B 3 TYPE 1.1 KW 1 500 RPM MOTORS , WHICH ARE ONE OF THE COMMONEST TYPES ;   WHEREAS , WITH REGARD TO THE INJURY CAUSED TO THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY , THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION SHOWS THAT IMPORTS INTO THE COMMUNITY OF THE ELECTRIC MOTORS IN QUESTION ORIGINATING IN THE COUNTRIES COVERED BY THE INVESTIGATION ROSE FROM APPROXIMATELY 462 000 UNITS IN 1975 TO 856 000 UNITS IN 1978 , AND REACHED 469 000 UNITS FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 1979 ;   WHEREAS , IN THE ABSENCE OF SEPARATE PRODUCTION AND IMPORT FIGURES RELATING TO STANDARDIZED MOTORS ALONE , IT IS DIFFICULT TO GAUGE THE SIZE OF THE COMMUNITY MARKET FOR SUCH MOTORS WITH THE DESIRABLE PRECISION ; WHEREAS , NEVERTHELESS , THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE SUGGESTS THAT FOR 1978 IMPORTS OF STANDARDIZED ELECTRIC MULTI-PHASE MOTORS WITH AN OUTPUT OF MORE THAN 0.75 KW BUT NOT MORE THAN 75 KW ORIGINATING IN THE COUNTRIES COVERED BY THE INVESTIGATION TOOK A MARKET SHARE OF 28 % IN THE COMMUNITY , 44 % IN BELGIUM , 41 % IN DENMARK AND FRANCE , 46 % IN ITALY AND 12 % IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY ( EXCLUDING INTER-GERMAN TRADE );   WHEREAS THE RESALE PRICES IN THE COMMUNITY OF MOTORS ORIGINATING IN THE COUNTRIES IN QUESTION , WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE USSR , UNDERCUT THOSE OF LIKE MOTORS PRODUCED BY COMMUNITY MANUFACTURERS BY BETWEEN 10 AND 44 % ;   WHEREAS THE CONSEQUENT IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY , WHOSE VOLUME OF PRODUCTION HAS BEEN STAGNATING SINCE 1976 , TAKES THE FORM OF A DEPRESSION OF COMMUNITY PRICES , IN REAL TERMS , MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE IN MOST INSTANCES TO COVER PRODUCTION COSTS ;   WHEREAS MOST OF THE COMMUNITY FIRMS ARE CONSEQUENTLY MAKING CONSIDERABLE LOSSES ON THE STANDARDIZED MULTI-PHASE MOTORS COVERED BY THE PROCEDURE , AND THIS HAS PUT AT RISK THE PROFITABILITY OF THE ROTARY MACHINERY INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE , AND HAS ALREADY LED TO AN APPRECIABLE FALL IN THE NUMBERS DIRECTLY EMPLOYED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF ELECTRIC MOTORS , FROM 28 300 IN 1974 TO 23 600 IN 1978 ;   WHEREAS INJURIES CAUSED BY OTHER FACTORS WHICH COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY , SUCH AS THE VOLUME AND PRICES OF OTHER IMPORTS , OR STAGNATION OF DEMAND , HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AND HAVE NOT BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO THE IMPORTS UNDER CONSIDERATION ;   WHEREAS THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS SHOWS THE EXISTENCE OF DUMPING , AND THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF CONSEQUENT INJURY ;   WHEREAS AFTER BEING INFORMED OF THE MAIN FINDINGS OF THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AND COMMENTING ON THEM , THE EXPORTERS CONCERNED , VIZ . THE EXPORTING BODIES IN BULGARIA  ( ELECTROIMPEX  -  SOFIA ), CZECHOSLOVAKIA ( ZAVODY SILNOPROUDE ELEKTROTECHNIKY  -  PRAGUE ), THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC  ( ELEKTROTECHNIK-IMPORT-EXPORT  -  BERLIN ), HUNGARY  ( TRANSELEKTRO  -  BUDAPEST ), POLAND ( ELEKTRIM  -  WARSAW ) AND ROMANIA ( ELECTROEXPORTIMPORT  -  BUCHAREST ), HAVE OFFERED UNDERTAKINGS ;   WHEREAS THE EFFECT OF THE SAID UNDERTAKINGS WILL ESSENTIALLY BE TO INCREASE IMPORT PRICES INTO THE COMMUNITY ; WHEREAS THE SAID INCREASES TAKE ACCOUNT NOT ONLY OF THE DIFFERENCES NOTED IN THE COURSE OF LOCAL INVESTIGATIONS BETWEEN THE PRICES CHARGED BY THE VARIOUS EXPORTING COUNTRIES , BUT ALSO OF THE PARTICULAR SITUATION OF THE INDUSTRY IN THE DIFFERENT MEMBER STATES ;   WHEREAS THE COMMISSION HAS PROVISIONALLY DETERMINED THAT IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE UNDERTAKINGS WOULD NEUTRALIZE THE INJURIOUS EFFECTS OF THE IMPORTS IN QUESTION AND THAT IT IS NOT NOW NECESSARY TO TAKE PROTECTIVE ACTION IN RESPECT OF IMPORTS FROM COUNTRIES HAVING ENTERED INTO SUCH UNDERTAKINGS ;   WHEREAS THE COMMISSION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT THE UNDERTAKINGS ARE STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH , IN PARTICULAR BY CARRYING OUT PERIODICALLY THE NECESSARY CHECKS AND INSPECTIONS ;   WHEREAS THE DECISION TO ACCEPT THESE UNDERTAKINGS MAY BE RECONSIDERED SHOULD THE COMMISSION , ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION IN ITS POSSESSION , CONSIDER THIS NECESSARY ; WHEREAS , IN PARTICULAR , SHOULD THE SAID UNDERTAKINGS NOT BE PASSED ON TO THE COMMUNITY MARKET AND HENCE FAIL TO ELIMINATE THE INJURY BEING CAUSED TO COMMUNITY PRODUCERS , A SUGGESTION COULD BE MADE TO AMEND THE SAID UNDERTAKINGS , OR A DECISION TAKEN TO DENOUNCE THEM ;   WHEREAS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE UNDERTAKINGS OFFERED ARE ACCEPTABLE AND THE PROCEEDINGS MAY THEREFORE BE TERMINATED WITHOUT IMPOSITION OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ,   HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :   ARTICLE 1   THE COMMISSION HEREBY ACCEPTS THE UNDERTAKINGS GIVEN BY THE EXPORTING BODIES IN BULGARIA ( ELECTROIMPEX  -  SOFIA ), CZECHOSLOVAKIA ( ZAVODY SILNOPROUDE ELEKTROTECHNIKY  - PRAGUE ), THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC  ( ELEKTROTECHNIK-IMPORT-EXPORT  -  BERLIN ), HUNGARY  ( TRANSELEKTRO  -  BUDAPEST ), POLAND ( ELEKTRIM  -  WARSAW ) AND ROMANIA ( ELECTROEXPORTIMPORT  -  BUCHAREST ) IN CONNECTION WITH THE ANTI-DUMPING PROCEEDING CONCERNING IMPORTS OF STANDARDIZED ELECTRIC MULTI-PHASE MOTORS HAVING AN OUTPUT OF MORE THAN 0.75 KW BUT NOT MORE THAN 75 KW ( 1 ), ORIGINATING IN THOSE ABOVEMENTIONED COUNTRIES .   ARTICLE 2   THE ANTI-DUMPING PROCEDURE IS HEREBY TERMINATED IN RESPECT OF IMPORTS OF STANDARDIZED ELECTRIC MULTI-PHASE MOTORS HAVING AN OUTPUT OF MORE THAN 0.75 KW BUT NOT MORE THAN 75 KW , ORIGINATING IN BULGARIA , CZECHOSLOVAKIA , THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC , HUNGARY , POLAND OR ROMANIA .   DONE AT BRUSSELS , 22 FEBRUARY 1980 .   FOR THE COMMISSION   WILHELM HAFERKAMP   VICE-PRESIDENT


title: 2014/443/EU: Council Decision of 8 July 2014 on a position to be taken, on behalf of the European Union, within the Sub-committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures set up by the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, as regards the adoption of its Rules of Procedure

text:
               10.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 201/18

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 8 July 2014
   on a position to be taken, on behalf of the European Union, within the Sub-committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures set up by the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, as regards the adoption of its Rules of Procedure

      (2014/443/EU)

   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(9), thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 19 January 2009, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a multiparty trade agreement on behalf of the European Union and its Member States with the Member countries of the Andean Community.

               (2)

               These negotiations have been concluded and the Trade Agreement between the European Union its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part (‘the Agreement’) (1) was signed in Brussels on 26 June 2012.

               (3)

               Pursuant to its Article 330(3) of the Agreement, the Agreement has been provisionally applied with Peru since 1 March 2013 and with Colombia since 1 August 2013, subject to its conclusion at a later date.

               (4)

               Article 103 of the Agreement establishes a Sub-committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (‘SPS Sub-committee’), which shall ensure and monitor the implementation of Chapter 5 of the Agreement, relating to Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures, and consider any matter that could affect compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. The SPS Sub-committee shall adopt its working procedures at its first meeting.

               (5)

               The Union should determine the position to be taken with regard to the adoption of the Rules of Procedure of the SPS Sub-committee,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The position to be taken on behalf of the Union within the Sub-committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (‘SPS Sub-committee’), set up by the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, as regards the adoption of the Rules of Procedure of the SPS Sub-committee, shall be based on the draft decision of the EU-Colombia-Peru SPS Sub-committee annexed to this Decision.
   Minor technical corrections to the draft decision of the EU-Colombia-Peru SPS Sub-committee may be agreed to by the representatives of the Union in the SPS Sub-committee, without further decision of the Council.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 8 July 2014.

            For the Council

            The President

         P. C. PADOAN

      (1)  OJ L 354, 21.12.2012, p. 3.

      DRAFT
      DECISION No …/2014 OF THE EU-COLOMBIA-PERU SUB-COMMITTEE ON SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES
      of …
      on the adoption of the Rules of Procedure of the Sub-committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures referred to in Article 103 of the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part
      THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES,
      Having regard to the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part (‘the Agreement’) (1), signed in Brussels on 26 June 2012, and in particular Article 103 thereof,
      Whereas:

                  (1)

                  The Sub-committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (‘SPS Sub-committee’) shall adopt its Rules of Procedure at its first meeting.

                  (2)

                  The SPS Sub-committee shall ensure and monitor the implementation of Chapter 5 of the Agreement, referring to Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures, and consider any matter that could affect compliance with the provisions of that Chapter,

            HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

                  1.

                  The Rules of Procedure of the SPS Sub-committee are adopted as set out in the Annex to this Decision.

                  2.

                  This Decision shall enter into force on …

         Done at … on …

               For the Sub-committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

               Minister for …

               Commissioner for …

               Minister for …

         (1)  OJ L 354, 21.12.2012, p. 3.

         ANNEX
         RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES ESTABLISHED IN CHAPTER 5 OF THE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS MEMBER STATES, OF THE ONE PART AND COLOMBIA AND PERU, OF THE OTHER PART
         Article 1
         Composition and Chair
         1.   The Sub-committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (as ‘the SPS Sub-committee’) that is established in accordance with Article 103 of the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part (‘the Agreement’) (1) shall perform its duties as provided in Article 103 of the Agreement and take responsibility to ensure and monitor the implementation of Chapter 5 on Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures.
         2.   As provided for in Article 103(2) of the Agreement, the SPS Sub-committee shall be composed of the representatives designated by each Party with responsibilities for sanitary and phytosanitary matters.
         3.   The SPS-Sub-committee shall be chaired, on a rotational basis, for a period of one year by a senior official of the European Commission, on behalf of the Union and its Member States, by a senior official of the Colombian Government, or by a senior official of the Peruvian Government. The first chairing period shall begin on the date of the first Trade Committee meeting and end on 31 December of the same year. The SPS Sub-committee shall be chaired by the Party holding the chair in the Trade Committee.
         4.   The SPS Sub-committee may meet in sessions where only the EU Party and one signatory Andean Country participate, regarding matters which relate exclusively to their bilateral relationship. Such sessions will be co-chaired by both Parties. Other signatory Andean Countries may participate in such sessions, subject to prior agreement of the Parties concerned.
         5.   Reference to the Parties in the Rules of Procedure is in accordance with the definition provided for in Article 6 of the Agreement.
         Article 2
         Meetings
         1.   The SPS Sub-committee shall meet at least once a year and will hold special sessions upon request of any Party, as provided for in Article 103(2) of the Agreement. The meetings shall be held on a rotational basis, in Bogota, Brussels and Lima, unless the Parties agree otherwise.
         2.   The meeting of the SPS Sub-committee shall be convened by the Party holding the Chair at a date and venue agreed by the Parties.
         3.   The SPS Sub-committee may also meet by video and audio conference.
         Article 3
         Delegations
         Before each meeting, the Parties shall be informed of the intended composition of the delegations attending the meeting.
         Article 4
         Observers
         The SPS Sub-committee may decide to invite observers on an ad hoc basis.
         Article 5
         Correspondence
         1.   The documents of the SPS Sub-committee provided for in Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Rules of Procedure shall be forwarded to the chairs of the SPS Sub-committee and to the Secretariat of the Trade Committee.
         2.   For matters which relate exclusively to a bilateral relationship between the EU and one signatory Andean Country, the correspondence will be done between these two Parties, keeping the other signatory Andean Countries fully informed, as appropriate.
         Article 6
         Agenda for the Meetings
         1.   A provisional agenda for each meeting shall be drawn up by the Parties jointly. It shall be forwarded, together with the relevant documents, to all the Parties no later than 14 days before the beginning of the meeting.
         2.   The agenda shall be adopted by the SPS Sub-committee at the beginning of each meeting. Items other than those appearing on the provisional agenda may be placed on the agenda if the Parties so agree.
         3.   The Chairperson of the SPS Sub-committee may, upon agreement of the other Parties, invite experts to attend its meetings in order to provide information on specific subjects.
         Article 7
         Minutes
         1.   Draft minutes of each meeting shall be drawn up jointly by the Parties. The first draft will be prepared by the Party acting as Chair within 21 days from the end of the meeting.
         2.   The minutes shall, as a general rule, summarise each item on the agenda, specifying, where applicable:

                     (a)

                     the documents submitted to the SPS Sub-committee;

                     (b)

                     any statement that a member of the SPS Sub-committee has asked to be entered; and

                     (c)

                     the decisions proposed, recommendations made, statements agreed upon and conclusions adopted on specific items.

               3.   The minutes shall also include a list of participants in the SPS Sub-committee meeting.
         4.   The minutes shall be approved in writing by the Parties within two months of the date of the meeting. Once approved, copies shall be signed by the Chairperson and his/her counterparts of the other Parties. Each of the Parties shall receive one original copy of these authentic documents. A copy of the signed minutes shall be forwarded to the Secretariat of the Trade Committee.
         Article 8
         Action Plan
         1.   The SPS Sub-committee shall adopt an action plan reflecting the actions agreed upon the Parties during the meeting.
         2.   The implementation by the Parties of the action plan will be reviewed by the SPS Sub-committee in its next meeting.
         Article 9
         Languages
         1.   The official languages of the SPS Sub-committee shall be the official languages of the Parties.
         2.   Unless otherwise decided, the SPS Sub-committee shall normally base its deliberations on documentation and proposals prepared in the languages referred to in paragraph 1.
         Article 10
         Publicity and Confidentiality
         1.   Unless otherwise decided, the meetings of the SPS Sub-committee shall not be public.
         2.   When a Party submits information considered as confidential under its laws and regulations to the SPS Sub-committee, specialised committees, working groups or any other bodies, the Parties shall treat that information as confidential, according to the rules described in Article 290(2) of the Agreement.
         Article 11
         Expenses
         1.   Each Party shall bear any expenses it incurs as a result of participating in the meetings of the SPS Sub-committee, both with regard to staff, travel and subsistence expenses and with regard to postal and telecommunications expenses.
         2.   Expenses in connection with the organisation of meetings and reproduction of documents shall be borne by the Party hosting the meeting.
         3.   Expenses in connection with the interpretation at meetings and translation of documents into or from Spanish and English shall be borne by the Party hosting the meeting. Interpretation and translation into or from the other languages shall be borne by the requesting Party.
         Article 12
         Amendment of Rules of Procedure
         The Rules of Procedure, as well as any subsequent amendment, are to be adopted by the SPS Sub-committee in accordance with Article 103(2) of the Agreement.

            (1)  OJ L 354, 21.12.2012, p. 3.


Avis juridique important

|

32001D0174

2001/174/EC: Council Decision of 26 February 2001 appointing a United Kingdom member of the Economic and Social Committee

Official Journal L 063 , 03/03/2001 P. 0057 - 0057

Council Decisionof 26 February 2001appointing a United Kingdom member of the Economic and Social Committee(2001/174/EC, Euratom)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 258 thereof,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 166 thereof,Having regard to the Council Decision of 15 September 1998 appointing the members of the Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 1998 to 20 September 2002(1),Whereas a member's seat on that Committee has fallen vacant following the resignation of Mr Tom JENKINS, of which the Council was informed on 17 December 1999;Having regard to the nominations submitted by the Government of the United Kingdom,Having obtained the opinion of the Commission of the European Communities,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Sole ArticleMr David FEICKERT is hereby appointed a member of the Economic and Social Committee in place of Mr Tom JENKINS for the remainder of the latter's term of office, which runs until 20 September 2002.Done at Brussels, 26 February 2001.For the CouncilThe PresidentM. Winberg(1) OJ L 257, 19.9.1998, p. 37.


title: EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 98/10/COL of 24 March 2010 amending, for the 81st time, the procedural and substantive rules in the field of State aid by introducing a new chapter on the criteria for an in-depth assessment of regional aid to large investment projects

text:
               2.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 206/13

         EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION
   No 98/10/COL
   of 24 March 2010
   amending, for the 81st time, the procedural and substantive rules in the field of State aid by introducing a new chapter on the criteria for an in-depth assessment of regional aid to large investment projects
   THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY (1),
   Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2), in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26 thereof,
   Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (3), in particular to Article 24 and Article 5(2)(b) thereof,
   Whereas under Article 24 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the Authority shall give effect to the provisions of the EEA Agreement concerning State aid,
   Under Article 5(2)(b) of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the Authority shall issue notices or guidelines on matters dealt with in the EEA Agreement, if that Agreement or the Surveillance and Court Agreement expressly so provides or if the Authority considers it necessary,
   The Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid were adopted on 19 January 1994 by the Authority (4),
   On 24 June 2009, the Commission of the European Communities adopted a Communication on the criteria for an in-depth assessment of regional aid to large investment project (5),
   This Communication is also of relevance for the European Economic Area,
   Uniform application of the EEA State aid rules is to be ensured throughout the European Economic Area,
   According to point II under the heading ‘GENERAL’ at the end of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement, the Authority, after consultation with the Commission, is to adopt acts corresponding to those adopted by the European Commission,
   The Authority has consulted the European Commission and the EFTA States by way of letter on the subject dated 12 March 2010 (Events Nos 549 988, 549 990 and 549 991).
   HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The State aid Guidelines shall be amended by introducing a new chapter on the criteria for an in-depth assessment of regional aid to large investment projects. The new chapter is contained in the Annex to this Decision.
   Article 2
   Only the English version is authentic.

      Done at Brussels, 24 March 2010.

            For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

         Per SANDERUD

            President

         Kurt JÄGER

            College Member

      (1)  Hereinafter referred to as the Authority.

      (2)  Hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement.

      (3)  Hereinafter referred to as the Surveillance and Court Agreement.

      (4)  Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the Authority on 19 January 1994, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as OJ) L 231, 3.9.1994, p. 1, and EEA Supplement No 32, 3.9.1994, p. 1, as amended. Hereinafter referred to as the State aid Guidelines. The updated version of the State aid Guidelines is published on the Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/state-aid-guidelines/

      (5)  OJ C 223, 16.9.2009, p. 3.

      ANNEX

         CHAPTER ON THE CRITERIA FOR AN IN-DEPTH ASSESSMENT OF REGIONAL AID TO LARGE INVESTMENT PROJECTS
          (1)

      1.   Introduction

      1.1.   General rules for regional aid measures

                  (1)

                  The Chapter on national regional aid for 2007-13 in the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Guidelines (hereinafter the ‘Regional Aid Guidelines’) clarifies the general approach of the Authority regarding regional State aid (2). In accordance with the conditions laid down in the Regional Aid Guidelines, and notwithstanding the negative effects that regional State aid may have on trade and competition, the EFTA Surveillance Authority (hereinafter the ‘Authority’) may consider State aid compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement if it is granted to promote the economic development of certain disadvantaged regions within the EEA.

                  (2)

                  In general, the Regional Aid Guidelines take account of the relative seriousness of the problems affecting the development of the regions concerned by introducing specific regional aid ceilings. These maximum aid intensities are graduated between 10 % and 50 % of eligible costs, based primarily on the GDP per capita of the regions concerned, but also allowing EFTA States some flexibility to take account of local conditions. The regional aid maps for each EFTA State are published on the Authority’s website (3). These graduated aid intensities reflect, in essence, the balancing exercise which the Authority must perform between, on the one hand, the positive effects that regional investment aid can have, in particular in terms of promoting cohesion through attracting investment to disadvantaged areas, and, on the other hand, limiting the potential negative effects that can occur when granting such aid to individual undertakings, for example the negative impact for other economic operators and for regions whose relative competitive advantage is correspondingly diminished.

                  (3)

                  A large investment project is an initial investment with an eligible expenditure above EUR 50 million (4). Large investment projects are less affected by the handicaps that characterise disadvantaged areas than investment projects of a lesser scale. There is an increased risk that trade will be affected by large investment projects and thus a risk of a stronger distortion effect vis-à-vis competitors in other regions. Large investments also run the risk of the amount of aid exceeding the minimum necessary to compensate for the regional disadvantages, and there is the risk that State aid for these projects would lead to perverse effects such as inefficient location choices, higher distortion of competition and, since aid is a costly transfer from taxpayers in favour of aid recipients, net welfare losses, i.e. the cost of the aid exceeds the benefits to consumers and producers.

                  (4)

                  The Regional Aid Guidelines foresee specific rules for regional aid to large investment projects (5). The Regional Aid Guidelines provide for the automatic, progressive scaling-down of regional aid ceilings for these large investment projects to limit distortions of competition to a level which can generally be assumed to be compensated by their benefits in terms of development of the regions concerned (6).

                  (5)

                  Moreover, EFTA States have to notify individually any aid for investment projects if the aid proposed is more than the maximum allowable amount of aid that an investment with eligible expenditure of EUR 100 million can receive under the applicable rules (notification threshold) (7). For these notified cases, the Authority verifies in particular the aid intensities, the compatibility with the general criteria of the Regional Aid Guidelines and whether the notified investment represents a major increase of production capacities, while at the same time addressing an underperforming or even declining market, or benefits firms with high market shares.

            1.2.   Regional aid measures subject to an in-depth assessment

                  (6)

                  Despite the automatic scaling-down, certain large amounts of regional aid for large investment projects could still have significant effects on trade, and may lead to substantive distortions of competition. For this reason, it was formerly Authority policy not to authorise aid for large investment projects above the following thresholds (8):

                              —

                              the aid beneficiary accounts for more than 25 % of the sales of the product(s) concerned on the market(s) concerned, or

                              —

                              the production capacity created by the project exceeds 5 % of the market, while the growth rate of the market concerned is below the EEA GDP growth rate.

                  (7)

                  However, under the current Regional Aid Guidelines, the Authority has opted for a more individualised approach, which allows the cohesion and other benefits that can be derived from such projects to be taken into consideration, in as concrete a fashion as possible. Any such benefits must, however, be weighed against the likely negative effects on trade and competition, which should also be identified in as concrete a manner as possible. Therefore, paragraph 57 of the Regional Aid Guidelines foresees that the Authority will conduct a formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement for cases above the notification threshold and meeting one or both of the conditions set out in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 57 of the Regional Aid Guidelines (the in-depth assessment thresholds which are the same as the thresholds described in paragraph 6 of this chapter). In these cases, the objective of the formal investigation is to carry out a detailed verification ‘that the aid is necessary to provide an incentive effect for the investment and that the benefits of the aid measure outweigh the resulting distortion of competition and effect on trade between Contracting Parties’ (9).

                  (8)

                  In footnote 55 of the Regional Aid Guidelines, the Authority announced that it ‘may in due course draw up further guidance on the criteria it will take into account during this assessment’. Below, the Authority presents guidance as to the kind of information it may require and the methodology it will follow for measures subject to a detailed assessment. In line with the European Commission’s State Aid Action Plan (10), the Authority will carry out an overall evaluation of the aid based on a balance of its positive and negative effects in order to determine whether, as a whole, the aid measure can be approved.

                  (9)

                  The detailed assessment should be proportionate to the potential distortions which may be created by the aid. This means that the scope of the analysis will depend on the nature of the case. Therefore, the nature and the level of the evidence required will also depend on the features of each individual case. Also, while respecting the provisions governing the conduct of the formal investigation as set out in Articles 6 and 7 of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, on the Functions and Powers of the EFTA Surveillance Authority in the field of State aid, the Authority may, inter alia, ask the EFTA State to provide independent studies to confirm the information contained in the notification, or seek input from other economic operators active in the relevant markets or from experts in regional development. Moreover, comments by interested parties are welcomed during formal investigations. The Authority will identify the key issues on which it is seeking input in the opening of the procedure.

                  (10)

                  The present chapter is intended to ensure the transparency and predictability of the Authority decision-making process and equal treatment of EFTA States. The Authority reserves the possibility to amend and review this guidance in the light of case experience.

            2.   Positive effects of the aid

      2.1.   Objective of the aid

                  (11)

                  Regional aid has an objective of common interest which reflects equity considerations, namely furthering economic cohesion by helping to reduce the gap between the development levels of the various regions of the EEA. Paragraph 2 of the Regional Aid Guidelines sets out that: ‘By addressing the handicaps of the disadvantaged regions, national regional aid promotes the economic, social and territorial cohesion of EFTA States and the EEA as a whole’. Paragraph 3 of the Regional Aid Guidelines adds that: ‘National regional investment aid is designed to assist the development of the most disadvantaged regions by supporting investment and job creation. It promotes the expansion and diversification of the economic activities of enterprises located in the less-favoured regions, in particular by encouraging firms to set up new establishments there’.

                  (12)

                  For those large investment projects that meet the in-depth assessment thresholds, the EFTA State will be requested to demonstrate that the aid will address the equity objective in question. The EFTA State will therefore need to substantiate the contribution of the investment project to the development of the region concerned.

                  (13)

                  While the primary objective of regional aid is to foster equity concerns as economic cohesion, regional aid may also address issues of market failure. Regional handicaps may be linked to market failures such as imperfect information, co-ordination problems, and difficulties for the beneficiary to appropriate investments in public goods or externalities from investments. Where, apart from equity objectives, regional aid also addresses efficiency concerns, the overall positive effect of the aid will be considered greater.

                  (14)

                  The following non-exhaustive list of indicative criteria can be used to demonstrate the regional contribution of the aid, in so far as it leads to attracting additional investment and activity in the region. These positive effects of the aid can be both direct (e.g. direct jobs created) and indirect (e.g. local innovation).

                              —

                              The number of direct jobs created by the investment is an important indicator of the contribution to regional development. The quality of the jobs created and the required skill level should also be considered.

                              —

                              An even higher number of new jobs might be created in the local (sub)supplier network, helping to better integrate the investment in the region concerned and ensuring more widespread spillover effects. The number of indirect jobs created will therefore also be taken into account.

                              —

                              A commitment by the beneficiary to enter into widespread training activities to improve the skills (general and specific) of its workforce will be considered as a factor that contributes to regional development. Emphasis will also be put on training that improves the knowledge and employability of workers outside the firm. General or specific training for which training aid is approved will not be counted as a positive effect of the regional aid to avoid double counting.

                              —

                              External economies of scale or other benefits from a regional development viewpoint may arise as a result of proximity (clustering effect). Clustering of firms in the same industry allows individual plants to specialise more which leads to increased efficiency. Physical proximity facilitates the exchange of information, ideas and knowledge between firms. A concentration of economic activities attracts many job seekers, which assures a large pool of workers with different skills available to firms. Access to legal and commercial services is ensured which enhances productivity. In general, a concentration of economic activities may again attract other investments which in turn increase the positive spillover effects (virtuous circle).

                              —

                              Investments embody technical knowledge and can be the source of a significant transfer of technology (knowledge spillovers). Investments taking place in technology intensive industries are more likely to involve technology transfer to the recipient region. The level and the specificity of the knowledge dissemination are also important in this regard.

                              —

                              The projects’ contribution to the region’s ability to create new technology through local innovation can also be considered. Co-operation of the new production facility with local higher education institutions can be considered positively in this respect.

                              —

                              The duration of the investment and possible future follow-on investments are an indication of a durable engagement of a company in the region.

                  (15)

                  The EFTA States are, in particular, invited to rely on evaluations of past State aid schemes or measures, impact assessments made by the granting authorities, expert opinions and other possible studies related to the investment project under assessment. The business plan of the aid beneficiary could provide information on the number of jobs created, salaries paid (increase in household wealth as spill-over effect), volume of sales from local producers, turnover generated by the investment and benefiting the region possibly through additional tax revenues.

                  (16)

                  If relevant, the relationship between the planned investment project and the national strategic reference framework, as well as the relationship between the project and the operational programmes co-financed by the structural funds, also has to be considered.

            2.2.   Appropriateness of the aid instrument

                  (17)

                  State aid in the form of investment subsidies is not the only policy instrument available to EFTA States to support investment and job creation in disadvantaged regions. EFTA States can use general measures such as infrastructure development, enhancing the quality of education and training, or improvements in the general business environment.

                  (18)

                  Measures for which the EFTA State considered other policy options, and for which the advantages of using a selective instrument such as State aid for a specific company are established, are considered to constitute an appropriate instrument. The Authority will in particular take account of any impact assessment of the proposed measure the EFTA State may have made.

            2.3.   Incentive effect

                  (19)

                  Analysing the incentive effect of the aid measure is one of the most important elements in the in-depth assessment of regional aid to large investment projects. The Authority will assess whether the proposed aid is necessary to produce ‘a real incentive effect to undertake investments which would not otherwise be made in the assisted areas’ (11). This assessment will take place at two levels: first, at a general, procedural level, and, second, at a more detailed, economic level.

                  (20)

                  In paragraph 30, the Regional Aid Guidelines contain general criteria to provide a formal assessment of the incentive effect of regional aid. These criteria apply to all regional aid, not only regional aid for large investment projects.

                  (21)

                  In the case of regional aid to large investment projects covered by this chapter, the Authority will verify in detail ‘that the aid is necessary to provide an incentive effect for the investment’ (12). The objective of this detailed assessment is to determine whether the aid actually contributes to changing the behaviour of the beneficiary, so that it undertakes (additional) investment in the assisted region concerned. There are many valid reasons for a company to locate in a certain region, even without any aid being granted.

                  (22)

                  Having regard to the equity objective deriving from cohesion policy and as far as the aid contributes to achieving this objective, an incentive effect can be proven in two possible scenarios:

                              (i)

                              The aid gives an incentive to adopt a positive investment decision because an investment that would otherwise not be profitable for the company at any location can take place in the assisted region (13).

                              (ii)

                              The aid gives an incentive to opt to locate a planned investment in the relevant region rather than elsewhere because it compensates for the net handicaps and costs linked to a location in the assisted region.

                  (23)

                  The EFTA State should demonstrate to the Authority the existence of an incentive effect of the aid. It will need to provide clear evidence that the aid effectively has an impact on the investment choice or the location choice. It will have to specify which scenario applies. In order to permit a comprehensive assessment, the EFTA State will have to provide not only information concerning the aided project but also a comprehensive description of the counterfactual scenario, in which no aid would be granted by the EFTA State to the beneficiary.

                  (24)

                  In scenario 1, the EFTA State could provide proof of the incentive effect of the aid by providing company documents that show that the investment would not be profitable without the aid and that no other location than the assisted region concerned could be envisaged.

                  (25)

                  In scenario 2, the EFTA State could provide proof of the incentive effect of the aid by providing company documents that show a comparison has been made between the costs and benefits of locating in the assisted region concerned with an alternative region. Such comparative scenarios will have to be considered to be realistic by the Authority.

                  (26)

                  The EFTA States are, in particular, invited to rely on risk assessments (including the assessment of location-specific risks), financial reports, internal business plans, expert opinions and other studies related to the investment project under assessment. Documents containing information on demand forecasts, cost forecasts, financial forecasts, documents that are submitted to an investment committee and that elaborate on various investment scenarios, or documents provided to the financial markets could help to verify the incentive effect.

                  (27)

                  In this context, and in particular in scenario 1, the level of profitability can be evaluated by reference to methodologies which are standard practice in the particular industry concerned, and which may include: methods to evaluate the net present value of the project (NPV), the internal rate of return (IRR) or the return on capital employed (ROCE).

                  (28)

                  If the aid does not change the behaviour of the beneficiary by stimulating (additional) investment in the assisted region concerned, there is a lack of incentive effect to achieve the regional objective. If the aid has no incentive effect to achieve the regional objective, such aid can be considered as free money for the company. Therefore, in an in-depth assessment of regional aid to large investment projects, aid will not be approved in cases where it appears that the same investment would take place in the region even without the aid.

            2.4.   Proportionality of the aid

                  (29)

                  For the regional aid to be proportional, the amount and intensity of the aid must be limited to the minimum needed for the investment to take place in the assisted region.

                  (30)

                  The Regional Aid Guidelines generally ensure that regional aid is proportional to the seriousness of the problems affecting the assisted regions by applying regional aid ceilings in general and an automatic, progressive scaling-down of these regional aid ceilings for large investment projects (see paragraphs 1 and 3).

                  (31)

                  For regional aid cases that require an in-depth assessment, a more detailed verification of this general principle of proportionality contained in the Regional Aid Guidelines is necessary.

                  (32)

                  In scenario 1, for an investment incentive, the aid will generally be considered proportionate if, because of the aid, the return on investment is in line with the normal rate of return applied by the company in other investment projects, with the cost of capital of the company as a whole or with returns commonly observed in the industry concerned.

                  (33)

                  In scenario 2, for a location incentive, the aid will generally be considered proportionate if it equals the difference between the net costs for the beneficiary company to invest in the assisted region and the net costs to invest in the alternative region(s). All such costs and benefits need to be taken into account, including for example administrative costs, transport costs, training costs not covered by training aid and also wage differences.

                  (34)

                  Ultimately, these net costs which are considered to be related to the regional handicaps result in a lower profitability of the investment. For that reason, calculations used for the analysis of the incentive effect, can also be used to evaluate whether the aid is proportionate.

                  (35)

                  The EFTA State needs to demonstrate the proportionality on the basis of appropriate documentation such as that mentioned in paragraph 26.

                  (36)

                  In no case can the aid intensity be higher than the regional aid ceilings corrected by the scaling-down mechanism, as indicated in the Regional Aid Guidelines.

            3.   Negative effects of the aid

                  (37)

                  To assess market shares and potential overcapacity in a market in structural decline, the Authority needs to define the relevant product market and geographic market. Thus, usually (14), the relevant markets will already have been defined for regional aid measures subject to an in-depth assessment.

                  (38)

                  Two main indicators of potential negative effects arising from the aid are already identified in paragraph 57 of the Regional Aid Guidelines, namely high market shares and potential overcapacity in a market in structural decline. They are linked to two theories of harm in a competition context, respectively the creation of market power and the creation or maintenance of inefficient market structures. A prima facie measurement of these two indicators will already have taken place before the opening of the investigation procedure. In order to provide all the elements for the final balancing exercise, the assessment of the two indicators will be refined in the in-depth assessment. A third indicator of potential negative effects arising from the aid that will be assessed in depth is the influence of the aid on trade. Although these three indicators are considered as the main negative effects potentially arising from regional aid to a large investment project, the Authority does not exclude that other indicators might also be relevant in specific cases.

                  (39)

                  The Authority will place particular emphasis on the negative effects linked with the notion of market power and overcapacity in cases where the aid gives an incentive to change the investment decision, so that without the aid no investment would take place (scenario 1 of the incentive effect).

                  (40)

                  If, however, the counterfactual analysis suggests that without the aid the investment would have gone ahead in any case, albeit possibly in another location (scenario 2), and if the aid is proportional, possible indications of distortions such as a high market share and an increase in capacity in an underperforming market would in principle be the same regardless of the aid.

            3.1.   Crowding-out of private investment

      3.1.1.   Market power

                  (41)

                  When establishing its optimum investment level, in markets with a limited number of market players (a situation typical for large investment projects) each firm takes into account the investment carried out by its competitors. If aid induces a particular company to invest more, competitors may react by reducing their own expenditure in that area. In that case aid leads to a crowding-out of private investment. If, as a result, such competitors are weakened or even have to exit, the aid distorts competition. In this regard, as discussed in paragraph 38, the Regional Aid Guidelines distinguishes between cases where the aid beneficiary has market power and cases where the aid leads to a significant capacity expansion in a declining market.

                  (42)

                  In general, any aid to one beneficiary in a concentrated market is more likely to distort competition, since the decision of each firm is likely to affect its competitors more directly. This is especially the case if a dominant market player is subsidised. As a result, if, due to the aid, the beneficiary can maintain or increase its market power (15), regional aid for large investment projects may have a deterrent effect on competitors’ investment decisions and thereby generate distortions of competition. This would be to the detriment of consumers. Therefore, the Authority wants to limit State aid to companies with market power.

                  (43)

                  For all regional aid cases that trigger the notification threshold (paragraph 53 of the Regional Aid Guidelines), the Authority needs to assess (paragraph 57(a) of the Regional Aid Guidelines) the share of the aid beneficiary (or the group to which it belongs) of the sales of the product or products concerned on the relevant product market(s) and geographic market(s). However, market shares can only give a preliminary indication of possible problems. Therefore, in an in-depth assessment, the Authority will also take account of other factors, where relevant, including for example the market structure by looking at the concentration in the market (16), possible barriers to entry (17), buyer power (18) and barriers to exit.

                  (44)

                  The Authority will take account of the market shares and other related factors before and after the investment (normally the year before the investment starts and the year after full production is reached). When assessing negative effects in detail, the Authority will take into account that, while some investment projects are carried out over a relatively short time-scale of one or two years, most large investment projects have a much longer duration. Therefore, in most cases, long-term analyses of the evolution of markets are necessary. However, the Authority will acknowledge the fact that those long-term analyses are more speculative, particularly in the case of volatile markets or markets undergoing rapid technological change. Therefore, the more long-term and thus the more speculative the analysis is, the less weight will be attached to the possible negative effect of market power or the possibility of exclusionary behaviour.

            3.1.2.   Creating or maintaining inefficient market structures

                  (45)

                  It is a sign of effective competition if inefficient firms are forced to exit a market. In the long term, this process fosters technological progress and an efficient use of scarce resources in the economy. However, a substantial capacity expansion induced by State aid in an underperforming market might unduly distort competition as the overcapacity could lead to a squeeze on profit margins and a reduction of competitors’ capacity or even their exit from the market. This might lead to a situation where competitors that would otherwise be able to stay on are forced out of the market as a consequence of State aid. It may also prevent low cost firms from entering and it may weaken incentives for competitors to innovate. This results in inefficient market structures which are also harmful to consumers in the long run.

                  (46)

                  In order to evaluate whether the aid may serve to create or maintain inefficient market structures, as pointed out above, the Authority will take into account the additional production capacity created by the project and whether the market is underperforming (19). According to the Regional Aid Guidelines, additional capacity will only be considered problematic if it is created in an underperforming market and if the additional capacity is more than five per cent of the market concerned.

                  (47)

                  Since capacity created in a market in absolute decline will normally be more distortive than capacity created in a market in relative decline, the Authority will distinguish between cases for which, from a long-term perspective, the relevant market is structurally in decline (i.e. shows a negative growth rate), and cases for which the relevant market is in relative decline (i.e. shows a positive growth rate, but does not exceed a benchmark growth rate (see paragraph 48)). Where the capacity created by the project takes place in a market which is structurally in absolute decline, the Authority will consider it to be a negative element in the balancing test that is unlikely to be compensated by any positive elements. The long-term benefit for the region concerned is also more doubtful in such a case.

                  (48)

                  Underperformance of the market will normally be measured compared to the EEA GDP over the last five years before the start of the project (benchmark rate). Data on past performance are more readily available and less speculative then future projections. Nevertheless, in the in-depth assessment, the Authority may also take into account expected future trends since the increase in capacity will exert its effect in the years following the investment. Indicators could be the foreseeable future growth of the market concerned and the resulting expected capacity utilisation rates, as well as the likely impact of the capacity increase on competitors through its effects on prices and profit margins.

                  (49)

                  Experience also shows that, in some cases, considering the growth of the product concerned in the EEA may not be the appropriate benchmark to assess the effects of aid, in particular if the market is considered to be worldwide and there is only limited production or consumption of the products concerned within the EEA. In such cases, the Authority will take a broader view of the effect of the aid on market structures, having regard, in particular, to its potential to crowd out EEA producers.

            3.2.   Negative effects on trade

                  (50)

                  As explained in paragraph 2 of the Regional Aid Guidelines, the geographical specificity of regional aid distinguishes it from other forms of horizontal aid. It is a particular characteristic of regional aid that it is intended to influence the choice made by investors about where to locate investment projects. When regional aid is off-setting the additional costs stemming from the regional handicaps and supports additional investment in assisted areas, it is contributing not only to the development of the region, but also to cohesion and ultimately benefits the whole EEA (20). With regard to the potential negative location effects of regional aid, these are already recognised and restricted to a degree by Regional Aid Guidelines and the regional aid maps, which define exhaustively the areas eligible to grant regional aid, taking account of the equity and cohesion policy objectives, and the eligible aid intensities. Aid may not be granted to attract investments outside of these areas. When appraising large investment projects subject to this guidance, the Authority should have all necessary information to consider whether State aid would result in a substantial loss of jobs in existing locations within the EEA.

                  (51)

                  More concretely, when investments adding production capacity in a market are made possible because of State aid, there is a risk that production or investment in other regions of the EEA may be negatively affected. This is particularly likely if the capacity increase exceeds market growth, which will generally be the case for large investment projects meeting the second criteria of paragraph 57 of the Regional Aid Guidelines. The negative effects on trade, corresponding to the lost economic activity in the regions affected by the aid, may be felt through lost jobs in the market concerned, at the level of subcontractors (21) and as a result of lost positive externalities (e.g. clustering effect, knowledge spillovers, education and training, etc.).

            4.   Balancing the effects of the aid

                  (52)

                  Having established that the aid is necessary as an incentive to carry out the investment in the region concerned, the Authority will balance the positive effects of the regional investment aid to a large investment project with its negative effects. Careful consideration will be given to the overall effects of the aid on cohesion within the EEA. The Authority will not use the criteria set out in this communication mechanically but will make an overall assessment of their relative importance. In this balancing exercise, no single element is determinant, nor can any set of elements be regarded as sufficient on its own to ensure compatibility.

                  (53)

                  In particular, the Authority considers that attracting an investment to a poorer region (as defined by the higher regional aid ceiling) is more beneficial for cohesion within the EEA than if the same investment is located in a more advantaged region. Thus, under scenario 2, where evidence has to be given of an alternative location, an assessment that without aid the investment would have been located to a poorer region (more regional handicaps — higher maximum regional aid intensity) or to a region that is considered to have the same regional handicaps as the target region (same maximum regional aid intensity) will constitute a negative element in the overall balancing test that is unlikely to be compensated by any positive elements because it runs counter to the very rationale of regional aid. On the other hand, the positive effects of regional aid which merely compensate for the difference in net costs relative to a more developed alternative investment location (and thus fulfils the proportionality test above, in addition to the ‘positive effect’ requirements as to objective, appropriateness and incentive effect), will normally be considered, under the balancing test, to outweigh any negative effects in the alternative location for new investment.

                  (54)

                  However, where there is credible evidence that the State aid would result in a substantial loss of jobs in existing locations within the territory covered by the EEA Agreement, which would otherwise have been likely to be preserved in the medium term, the social and economic effects on that existing location will have to be taken into account in the balancing exercise.

                  (55)

                  The Authority may, following the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 6 of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, close the procedure with a decision pursuant to Article 7 of that Protocol.

                  (56)

                  The Authority may decide either to approve, condition or prohibit the aid (22). If it adopts a conditional decision pursuant to Article 7(4) of that Protocol, it may attach conditions to limit the potential distortion of competition and ensure proportionality. In particular, it may reduce the notified amount of aid or aid intensity to a level considered to be proportional and thus compatible with the common market.

         (1)  This chapter corresponds to Communication from the European Commission concerning the criteria for an in-depth assessment of regional aid to large investment projects, OJ C 223, 16.9.2009, p. 3.

         (2)  The Chapter on national regional aid for 2007-13 corresponds to Communication from the Commission — Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-13, OJ C 54, 4.3.2006, p. 13.

         (3)  http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

         (4)  As defined in paragraph 49 and footnotes 46 and 47 of the Regional Aid Guidelines.

         (5)  Cf. Section 4.3 of the Regional Aid Guidelines.

         (6)  Cf. paragraph 56 of the Regional Aid Guidelines.

         (7)  Cf. paragraph 53 of the Regional Aid Guidelines.

         (8)  Cf. point 26A.3(4) of Chapter 26A of the Authority’s Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects which corresponded to the European Commission’s Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects (OJ C 70, 19.3.2002, p. 8, as amended in OJ C 263, 1.11.2003, p. 3).

         (9)  Cf. paragraph 57 of the Regional Aid Guidelines.

         (10)  Cf. paragraphs 11 and 20 of the State Aid Action Plan (COM(2005) 107 final).

         (11)  Cf. paragraph 30 of the Regional Aid Guidelines.

         (12)  Cf. paragraph 57 of the Regional Aid Guidelines.

         (13)  Such investments may create conditions allowing further investments that are able to survive without additional aid.

         (14)  Where doubts remain as to the appropriate definition of the relevant markets, the Authority will identify these in the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3.

         (15)  Market power is the power to influence market prices, output, the variety or quality of goods and services, or other parameters of competition on the market for a significant period of time.

         (16)  For this purpose, the Authority may consider the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). This index provides a basic analysis of the market structure. In a market with few market players where several of them have a relatively high market share, a high market share of the beneficiary might be less of a concern for competition.

         (17)  These entry barriers include legal barriers (in particular intellectual property rights), economies of scale and scope, access barriers to networks and infrastructure. Where the aid concerns a market where the aid beneficiary is an incumbent, possible barriers to entry may exacerbate the potential market power wielded by the aid beneficiary and thus the possible negative effects of that market power.

         (18)  Where there are strong buyers in the market, it is less likely that an aid beneficiary can increase prices vis-à-vis these strong buyers.

         (19)  In this context, a market is meant to be ‘underperforming’ if its average annual growth rate in the reference period does not exceed the growth rate of EEA’s GDP.

         (20)  In particular, additional activity or increased standard of living in the assisted area may increase demand for products and services originating from other parts of the EEA.

         (21)  Especially if they operate in local markets in the region.

         (22)  When the aid is granted on the basis of an existing regional aid scheme, it is however to be noted that the EFTA State retains the possibility to grant such aid up to the level which corresponds to the maximum allowable amount that an investment with eligible expenditure of EUR 100 million can receive under the applicable rules.


Avis juridique important

|

32003D0720

2003/720/EC: Council Decision of 2 October 2003 appointing a member of the Committee of the Regions

Official Journal L 260 , 11/10/2003 P. 0020 - 0020

Council Decisionof 2 October 2003appointing a member of the Committee of the Regions(2003/720/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Spanish Government,Whereas:(1) On 22 January 2002 the Council adopted a Decision appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions(1).(2) The seat of a member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the expiry of the term of office of Mr Román RODRÍGUEZ RODRÍGUEZ, of which the Council was notified on 19 September 2003,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Sole ArticleMr Adán MARTÍN MENIS, Presidente - Gobierno de Canarias is hereby appointed a member of the Committee of the Regions in place of Mr Román RODRÍGUEZ RODRÍGUEZ for the remainder of his term of office, which ends on 25 January 2006.Done at Brussels, 2 October 2003.For the CouncilThe PresidentG. Pisanu(1) OJ L 24, 26.1.2002, p. 38.


title: Decision (EU) 2017/1749 of the European Parliament of 27 April 2017 on the closure of the accounts of the SESAR Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2015

text:
               29.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 252/371

         DECISION (EU) 2017/1749 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 27 April 2017
   on the closure of the accounts of the SESAR Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2015
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the SESAR Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2015,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the SESAR Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2015, together with the Joint Undertaking's reply (1),

               —

               having regard to the statement of assurance (2) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2015, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

               having regard to the Council's recommendation of 21 February 2017 on discharge to be given to the Joint Undertaking in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2015 (05875/2017 — C8-0086/2017),

               —

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

               —

               having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (3), and in particular Article 208 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 219/2007 of 27 February 2007 on the establishment of a Joint Undertaking to develop the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR) (4), and in particular Article 4b thereof,

               —

               having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1271/2013 of 30 September 2013 on the framework financial regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 208 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5),

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A8-0096/2017),

               1.

               Approves the closure of the accounts of the SESAR Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2015;

               2.

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

            The President

         Antonio TAJANI

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ C 473, 16.12.2016, p. 66.

      (2)  OJ C 473, 16.12.2016, p. 68.

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

      (4)  OJ L 64, 2.3.2007, p. 1.

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


Avis juridique important

|

31975Y1216(02)

Decision No 102 of 29 May 1975 concerning the reduction to be applied to lumps-sum payments for the year 1972, when implementing Articles 74 and 75 of Regulation No 4 and Articles 94 and 95 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

Official Journal C 288 , 16/12/1975 P. 0002 - 0003 Spanish special edition: Chapter 05 Volume 2 P. 0063  Portuguese special edition Chapter 05 Volume 2 P. 0063

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS DECISION No 102 of 29 May 1975  concerning the reduction to be applied to lump-sum payments for the year 1972, when implementing Articles 74 and 75 of Regulation No 4 and Articles 94 and 95 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72    THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS,  Having regard to Article 81 (a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 under which it is made responsible for dealing with all administrative questions arising from Council Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72;  Having regard to Article 23 (3) of Regulation No 3, Articles 74 and 75 of Regulation No 4 and Articles 94 (2) and 95 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72;  Whereas Regulations No 3 and No 4 were superseded by Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 with effect from 1 October 1972 for the six original Member States;  Whereas Articles 74 and 75 of Regulation No 4 have consequently been superseded by Articles 94 and 95 respectively of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72;  Whereas Article 23 (3) of Regulation No 3 provides that the competent institution is required to reimburse three-quarters of the expenditure relating, in particular, to benefits in kind provided to members of the family referred to in Article 20 (1) of Regulation No 3 and whereas Article 94 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 provides for a reduction of 20 % on lump-sum payments;  Whereas the competent institution is required to reimburse in full the expenditure relating to benefits in kind provided to pensioners and members of their families referred to in Article 22 (2) of Regulation No 3;  Whereas Article 95 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 provides for a reduction of 20 % on lump-sum payments;  Whereas Decision No 92 superseded Decisions No 69 and No 70 with effect from 1 January 1973 and Decisions No 69 and No 70 were still applicable for the period from 1 October 1972 to 31 December 1972;  Whereas, in the interests of efficiency and administrative convenience, there are grounds for adopting a uniform percentage reduction for 1972, to be applied in implementing the abovementioned Articles,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:       1.  For the purposes of implementing Article 74 of Regulation No 4 and Article 94 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 the uniform reduction shall be 23 775 % for the whole of 1972.  2.  For the purposes of implementing Article 75 of Regulation No 4 and Article 95 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 the uniform reduction shall be 5 % for the whole of 1972.  3.  This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall be applicable in respect of benefits provided during the period from 1 January to 31 December 1972.   The Chairman  of the Administrative Commission  F. HYNES