title: Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2078 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.41617 — 2015/C (ex SA.33584 (2013/C) (ex 2011/NN)) implemented by the Netherlands in favour of the professional football club NEC in Nijmegen (notified under document C(2016) 4048) (Text with EEA relevance )

text:
                  26.11.2016

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 320/40

            COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2016/2078
      of 4 July 2016
      on the State aid SA.41617 — 2015/C (ex SA.33584 (2013/C) (ex 2011/NN)) implemented by the Netherlands in favour of the professional football club NEC in Nijmegen

            (notified under document C(2016) 4048)

      (Only the Dutch text is authentic)
      (Text with EEA relevance)
      THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
      Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,
      Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,
      Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty (1) and having regard to their comments,
      Whereas:
      1.   PROCEDURE

                  (1)

                  In 2010, the Commission was informed by citizens that the Netherlands had implemented an aid measure for the professional football club NEC in Nijmegen. The complaints were registered under numbers SA.31616 and SA.31767. In 2010 and in 2011, the Commission also received complaints concerning measures in favour of other professional football clubs in the Netherlands, namely MVV in Maastricht, Willem II in Tilburg, FC Den Bosch in 's-Hertogenbosch and PSV in Eindhoven. By letter dated 2 September 2011, the Netherlands provided the Commission with further information on the measure concerning NEC.

                  (2)

                  By letter dated 6 March 2013, the Commission informed the Netherlands that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty in respect of the measures in favour of Willem II, NEC, MVV, PSV and FC Den Bosch.

                  (3)

                  The Commission decision to initiate the procedure (hereinafter: ‘the opening decision’) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union
                      (2). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measures in question.

                  (4)

                  The Netherlands submitted observations within the framework of the procedure concerning the measure in favour of NEC by letter dated 6 June 2013, which included the comments from the municipality of Nijmegen (hereinafter: ‘the municipality’) as an interested party. A meeting with the Netherlands took place on 27 February 2015, in which the municipality also participated. Further information from the Netherlands was received on 10 April 2015, on 11 May 2015, on 13 May 2015 and on 16 July 2015. The Commission received no comments from other interested parties.

                  (5)

                  Following the opening decision, and in agreement with the Netherlands, the investigations for the different clubs were pursued separately. The investigation regarding NEC was registered under case number SA.41617.

            2.   DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE

      2.1.   The measure and its beneficiary

                  (6)

                  The national football federation Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbal Bond (hereinafter: ‘KNVB’) is the umbrella organisation for professional and amateur football competition. Professional football in the Netherlands is organised in a two-tier system. In the 2014/2015 season it consisted of 38 clubs, of which 18 played in the top league (eredivisie) and 20 in the lower league (eerste divisie).

                  (7)

                  Nijmegen Eendracht Combinatie (hereinafter: ‘NEC’) was founded in 1900 and plays its home matches in Nijmegen. The legal structure of NEC is as follows: the companies Nijmegen Eendracht Combinatie B.V., Exploitatie-Maatschappij De Goffert B.V. and N.E.C. horeca B.V. are owned by the foundation Stichting Administratiekantoor N.E.C.. The company Exploitatie-Maatschappij De Goffert B.V. is the beneficiary of the measure. According to the information submitted by the Netherlands, NEC is a medium-sized enterprise with 62,3 FTE employees in the year 2015 (69,5 FTE in 2010). In the period concerned by this investigation NEC played in the top league. It last played in a European tournament (UEFA cup) in the season 2008/2009.

                  (8)

                  Since 2003, NEC is the main — but not the only — user of the multifunctional stadium Goffert stadion, located in the large Goffert park in Nijmegen. Next to the stadium in the Goffert park, a multifunctional sports complex De Eendracht was built in 2003 by the municipality with support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The De Eendracht complex is let to NEC and it is also used by others for training purposes.

                  (9)

                  The relations between the municipality and NEC concerning De Eendracht are laid down in two contracts concluded in 2003: an intention agreement to develop the area where De Eendracht is located in the context of the municipality's broader sports policy vision as well as a lease contract for De Eendracht.

                  (10)

                  In 2008 and 2009, NEC wrote to the municipal authorities with regard to a clause in the contracts, according to which it was entitled to acquire De Eendracht from the municipality. Described as a ‘purchase option’, NEC wrote that it had been the intention for NEC to acquire the ‘opstalrecht’ or right of superficies (3) to the complex. In its first letter NEC proposed to waive its purchase option in exchange for compensation of the sum of EUR 2,3 million, which it calculated on the basis of the estimated book value and the real value of the complex according to outside expertise. In NEC's view, the difference between both values corresponds to the benefit it would receive if it exercised its purchase option. In a second letter NEC informed the municipality that it wished to exercise its purchase option.

                  (11)

                  In 2010, the municipality received legal opinions from two law firms on this issue: one in January 2010, the other in September 2010. The first opinion noted a clause in the lease contract according to which the contract covered the period until De Eendracht would be acquired by the tenant (NEC) and noted that it had been the intention of the municipality and NEC that the complex would be acquired by NEC once there would be no objections to this from the ERDF. It concluded that NEC held a firm (hard) right to claim the purchase. The second opinion was requested at the insistence of the municipal council concerning the alleged solidity of NEC's claim. This opinion concluded that there was only an obligation for the municipality to negotiate with NEC, given that the clause in question does not stipulate a price or pricing mechanism.

                  (12)

                  The municipality agreed to buy the claim for EUR 2,2 million in September 2010. The Netherlands did not notify, pursuant to Article 108(3) of the Treaty, their intention to reimburse NEC for waiving its purchase option. It is in relation to this transaction that the formal investigation procedure was opened and as such it is the subject of the current decision.

            2.2.   Grounds for initiating the procedure

                  (13)

                  In the opening decision, the Commission took the position that aid measures to professional football clubs are likely to distort competition and to affect trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty. The Commission moreover arrived at the preliminary conclusion that the municipality had provided a selective advantage to NEC with the use of State resources and had, hence, provided aid to the football club.

                  (14)

                  Firstly, with regard to the existence of a purchase option, the Commission concluded that by basing itself exclusively on the first legal opinion and disregarding the more elaborate second opinion, the Netherlands did not demonstrate that NEC had a purchase option at a price that had not been laid down in the contract and that had not been negotiated either.

                  (15)

                  Secondly, with regard to the market conformity of the price paid in exchange for waiving the alleged purchase option, the Commission reiterated that the guidance provided by the Commission Communication concerning aid elements in land sales by public authorities (4) (hereinafter: ‘the land sales Communication’), which had been invoked by the Netherlands, only ‘concerns sales of publicly owned land and buildings. It does not concern the public acquisition of land and buildings or the letting or leasing of land and buildings by public authorities. Such transactions may also include State aid elements.’ Furthermore, the Commission stated that operators in a market economy would arguably also look at the likelihood of a tenant exercising his purchase option, presuming it exists. They would, inter alia, look at the financial means at his disposal.

                  (16)

                  Thirdly, the Commission noted that NEC had been in financial difficulties at the time the aid was awarded, serious enough to endanger its future as a professional football club. The KNVB, when verifying NEC's business plan for 2010/2011, had asked NEC for an external guarantee for EUR 1 967 000 in July 2010, in the absence of which NEC would risk losing its license. This guarantee (which, according to the information available to the Commission, was provided by a private, commercial company and therefore not with State resources) was needed in addition to the EUR 2,2 million covered by the present Decision. NEC itself indicated in June 2010 that its financial position was worrying, with a negative equity, a negative operational result in 2009/2010 and a bad liquidity position. NEC had stopped paying rent in September 2009.

                  (17)

                  In order to assess the compatibility of the aid with the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring of firms in difficulty (5) (hereinafter: ‘the Guidelines’), the Commission requested information on the compliance with all requirements set out in the Guidelines.

                  (18)

                  The Commission was notably unable to verify whether the conditions set out in points 34-37 of the Guidelines concerning the nature and fulfilment of a restructuring plan had been respected. The Commission was also unable to verify whether adequate compensatory measures within the meaning of points 38-42 had been taken. It furthermore needed to be demonstrated that the aid had been limited to the minimum necessary, that the beneficiary itself had paid an adequate own contribution to its restructuring, that the Netherlands would provide monitoring reports and that the ‘one time last time’ principle would be respected.

            3.   COMMENTS FROM THE NETHERLANDS

                  (19)

                  The Netherlands disagrees that the measure constitutes State aid.

                  (20)

                  In this regard, the Netherlands firstly stresses the important context of the transaction. According to the Netherlands, the opening decision contained a few factual errors in this regard. Contrary to what was stated in the opening decision, the Goffert stadium had a multifunctional nature even before 2003. The municipality considers the use of De Eendracht (and the Goffert stadium) for non-sports purposes to be an important contextual factor.

                  (21)

                  In particular, the Netherlands stresses the interest the municipality had in the development of the top sport and innovation park (hereinafter: ‘TIP’) (6), which would integrate the existing Goffert stadium and De Eendracht. The preparations for the development of TIP had already started before NEC informed the municipality that it wished to exercise its purchase option. The De Eendracht complex played an important role in the plans with regard to TIP, which were led by the municipality. The Netherlands underlines that preparations for TIP continued until well after the transaction that took place in September 2010. Only in March 2012 did the municipal council decide to halt the TIP preparations. According to the Netherlands, the Commission should explicitly take into account the essential importance for the municipality at the time to retain full ownership over De Eendracht (including both the underlying land and the building on it) in order to enable the development of TIP.

                  (22)

                  In this regard the Netherlands refers to the report on the expected economic effects of TIP, published by European and Regional Affairs Consultants in April 2009. According to this report, TIP was expected to have a positive impact on the municipality's economy, including an increase in employment and spending, but also various indirect positive economic effects in the areas of knowledge development, innovation, education and overall levels of activity. The report ‘TIP Nijmegen Impact and Opportunities’, prepared by the municipality and Buck Consultants, specifically points towards the exemplary function of De Eendracht in the development of TIP.

                  (23)

                  Secondly, the Netherlands underlines the solidity of NEC's claim. It has clarified the background that led to the establishment of the purchase option. The municipality has highlighted that this is linked to NEC waiving the right of superficies on the then-existing amateur complex, in order to enable the municipality to replace this complex through the realisation of the new complex De Eendracht. In 2000 the right of superficies of the existing amateur complex had been in the hands of NEC, whereas the municipality owned the land beneath it. As the complex no longer complied with the KNVB requirements to continue football activities at that location, the municipality — in consultation with NEC — decided in 2002 to realise a new multifunctional accommodation, De Eendracht. De Eendracht was realised with public money, partly funded with support from the ERDF. To be able to apply for support from the ERDF, the complex had to be realised by the municipality and the building could not be sold for a period of five years. NEC therefore relinquished its right of superficies on the complex, but acquired a purchase option to (the right of superficies of) the new complex De Eendracht. According to the Netherlands, it was the intention that NEC would be able to take over the De Eendracht complex once the ERDF requirements no longer prohibited this, even if the acquisition price was not determined at the time.

                  (24)

                  The Netherlands therefore refutes that the municipality has followed only one of the legal opinions (see recital 14). Instead, it emphasises that there has never been a conflict between the municipality and NEC about the claim, which was considered solid by both parties. The Netherlands refers here to Article 6:217 of the Dutch Civil Code, according to which a simple consensus between parties suffices to establish an agreement.

                  (25)

                  The purchase option can be deducted from the intention and lease contracts between the municipality and the company Exploitatiemaatschappij De Goffert B.V. (see recital 9). The fact that the clauses on the purchase option do not stipulate a price or price mechanism is not relevant according to the Netherlands. In the context of purchase agreements whereby the parties did not determine any price, Article 7:4 of the Dutch Civil Code provides that the buyer has to pay a ‘reasonable price’.

                  (26)

                  In sum, the municipality claims that the decision not to follow the second legal opinion was based on solid and motivated grounds as it considered the arguments put forward in the second legal opinion to be unsound. This was reinforced as the writer of the first legal opinion reacted to the second opinion to maintain his advice. The municipality points out that the second opinion was clearly politically motivated as it was requested by the opposition parties in the municipal council. That the second opinion was more elaborate (recital 14) cannot lead to any conclusions about the validity of the arguments contained in it.

                  (27)

                  The municipality moreover notes in this regard that the agreement between NEC and the municipality is subject to national private law and as such any evaluation of the validity of NEC's claim is to be done by a Dutch judge.

                  (28)

                  Thirdly, concerning the determination of the value of the purchase option, the Netherlands has also provided further clarifications. The Netherlands points out that existence of an advantage (and hence State aid) cannot be supposed simply because the price is determined on the basis of negotiations. In the case of NEC, the price of the purchase option was determined on the basis of an independent valuation and is therefore market conform according to the Dutch authorities. Indeed, the Netherlands argues that the transaction was not selective and that it did not provide NEC with an advantage.

                  (29)

                  The Netherlands refers to the fact that a measure is not selective if it is based on a general national measure. In particular, the transaction is based on the Civil Code, which has a general scope and is applicable to all undertakings. The value of the transaction was based on the provisions of the Civil Code, which provide for the payment of a ‘reasonable price’. According to the Netherlands, this was the case as an independent valuation was made in April 2009. They conclude that the transaction was non-selective.

                  (30)

                  Even if the transaction was considered selective, NEC would not have received an advantage, as the municipality was acting as a market investor and paying a market price. The Netherlands emphasises the decisional practice of the Commission of using the land sales Communication by analogy when cases relate to the valuation of other assets and property rights. As the transaction in this case is based on a valuation as set out in the land sales Communication, it can be considered market conform. Even if the land sales Communication was not applicable, the transaction would remain market conform as a private market investor would also have determined the value of the purchase option on the basis of an independent valuation.

                  (31)

                  The municipality emphasised that there is a close connection between the value of the transaction and the value of the De Eendracht complex. The independent valuation report (dated 7 April 2009) centres on two values. On the one hand, it determined the sales price that a seller could receive from selling the right of superficies (for a period of 30 years) in relation to the complex on the basis of the existing lease agreement between the municipality and NEC […] (*1). On the other hand, it determined the sales price that a seller could receive from selling the right of superficies in relation to the complex on the basis of existing sub-lease agreements between NEC and its sublessees, taking into account market rent evolutions. Indeed the complex was the subject of lease contracts between both NEC and the municipality and NEC and third parties (NEC acting as the operator of the complex), see also recital 8. This second value was set at EUR […].

                  (32)

                  The two valuations are in other words based on the assumption that the complex would be sold in a rented state. The Netherlands argues that under Dutch legislation, a sales transaction does not alter the rental situation. The new owner of a property replaces the previous owner as the letting party. Therefore it is common to establish the sales value of a rented property on the basis of rental income.

                  (33)

                  The independent valuations show that the municipality could sell the De Eendracht complex in a rented state to a third party for a price of maximum EUR […]. According to the Netherlands, this equals the maximum price that could be asked from NEC for the complex. Once NEC would acquire the right of superficies in relation to the De Eendracht complex, it could sell that right for a price of maximum EUR […]. According to the Netherlands, this means that NEC was foregoing a potential advantage of maximum […] EUR 2 064 000. During the negotiations with NEC, the final value of the purchase option was determined as […] EUR 2 223 000. […]. The Commission notes that the valuation did not explicitly take into account the concrete situation, i.e. where NEC would acquire the complex itself.

                  (34)

                  The Netherlands has provided further background information on the rent figures used in the valuation report to explain the important difference between both valuations. In particular, The Netherlands points out that a number of factors had a downward impact on the lease price as it was established for NEC:

                              (a)

                              Exploitatiemaatschappij De Goffert B.V. not only leased the complex, but also acted as the operating company to sublet parts of the complex to third parties. De Eendracht had a clear experimental character and the municipality used the realisation of this new complex to strengthen the link of the complex with societal activities, the economic environment and the surrounding neighbourhoods. It was not certain whether these socioeconomic projects would be successful in practice and it was not excluded that third parties would drop out. This increased the risk for Exploitatiemaatschappij De Goffert B.V.

                              (b)

                              Exploitatiemaatschappij De Goffert B.V. also took care of the maintenance and replacement of the fields, which were previously maintained by the municipality.

                              (c)

                              NEC was the only possible partner that could realise the socioeconomic objectives of the municipality.

                              (d)

                              NEC had originally held a right of superficies to the complex, but waived this for free (see recital 23).

                        On this basis The Netherlands considers the lease price paid by NEC, which forms the basis for the first value calculated in the taxation, to be market conform.

                  (35)

                  Moreover, The Netherlands has noted that the lease contract between NEC and the municipality has to be considered a lease agreement for a fixed term that could not be terminated by the municipality before its end date, which coincides with the transfer of the right of superficies to NEC. This explains why the taxation calculates the first value on the basis of a static rent, whereas the second value takes into account market rent evolutions.

                  (36)

                  The Netherlands emphasises that the sum of EUR 2,2 million due to NEC for the purchase option was not paid out, but rather used in part to cover outstanding claims on NEC and in part as an advance payment of the rent (guaranteed rent). At the same time, the lease agreement was prolonged until the end of February 2043 and the rent was increased […]. Assuming that the original rent was market conform, The Netherlands claim that this increase puts the new rent above market levels. Alternatively, the new rent should be considered market conform according to The Netherlands.

                  (37)

                  Fourthly, the Netherlands argues that the municipality took the financial situation of NEC at the time of transaction into account. At the time of the transaction, the municipality had received information that made it presume that — despite its financial problems — it was possible that NEC would be able to exercise its purchase option. In particular, in one of its letters (see recital 10), NEC had explicitly informed the municipality of the interest a commercial party had in acquiring De Eendracht, possibly via NEC. Therefore any financial problems NEC was facing would not necessarily prohibit its purchase of De Eendracht. In addition, on 3 September 2010 the municipality was informed that NEC had received financing from a commercial party: a company […] had pre-purchased a part of the (season) tickets for the seasons 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014. This is the transaction referred to by the Commission in the opening decision, but — contrary to what was stated in the opening decision — the financing did not take the form of a guarantee and the price paid was much higher than the EUR 1,9 million mentioned in the opening decision (i.e. circa EUR 4 million) (see recital 16). This indication of confidence in NEC's financial situation by a commercial investor was further reason for the municipality at the time to accept as a possibility the exercise by NEC of its purchase option on De Eendracht.

                  (38)

                  In conclusion, according to the Netherlands the municipality acted as a market investor, taking into account the (perceived) financial situation of NEC at the time.

                  (39)

                  Alternatively, the Netherlands argues that even if the measure were to constitute aid, it would be compatible with the internal market. According to the Netherlands, the conditions of the Guidelines are fulfilled and the measure could as such be considered compatible under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty. It provided factual information to support this.

                  (40)

                  With regard to the financial situation of NEC at the moment of the transaction, the Netherlands put forward further evidence demonstrating that NEC was a firm in difficulties. The municipality had requested a report on the financial position and future perspectives of the club, which was submitted by the accounting firm BDO (7) shortly after the transaction (on 29 October 2010). It refers to negative company results […], negative equity […] and a negative development of working capital […]. The report shows that the company results of NEC had been negative and diminishing over a period of three years. While NEC managed to keep its net results positive over that same period (due to income from transfer rights and the selling of players), the report clearly demonstrates declining income levels, whereas NEC's cost patterns remained largely unchanged. Moreover, the own equity had been negative over the past three years and the solvency of NEC had decreased in that same period.

                  (41)

                  With regard to the restructuring plan, NEC set up a plan of improvement (‘Plan van Aanpak’) (8) to overcome its financial problems. This plan was submitted to the KNVB in August 2010. It includes a description of the circumstances of the financial situation, benchmark comparisons with similar football clubs and planned measures to achieve Category 2 status (i.e. indicating that the financial health of the club is ‘sufficient’, see also recital 75).

                  (42)

                  With regard to compensatory measures, the Netherlands notes that, if there is aid, it is limited in size and as such the negative effects on competition are relatively small. Nevertheless several compensatory measures were included in the KNVB restructuring plan.

                  (43)

                  Moreover, any support was limited to the minimum necessary. In this regard an important own contribution to the restructuring was made via the measure referred to in recitals 16 and 37, whereas a change in the repayment conditions of a loan led to a diminishing of fixed repayment costs with EUR 250 000 per year.

                  (44)

                  With regard to monitoring, the Netherlands has committed to submit the required reports to the Commission.

                  (45)

                  Lastly, the Netherlands confirms that no other aid measures to NEC have been or will be implemented.

            4.   ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE

      4.1.   Presence of State aid according to Article 107(1) of the Treaty

                  (46)

                  According to Article 107(1) of the Treaty, State aid is aid awarded by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever, which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods in so far as it affects trade between Member States. The conditions laid down in Article 107(1) of the Treaty are cumulative and therefore for a measure to be qualified as State aid all the conditions must be fulfilled.

                  (47)

                  The acquisition by the municipality of the alleged right of NEC to buy De Eendracht for EUR 2,2 million was financed with State resources, given that the money for the transaction in question was furnished by the municipality. This is not disputed by the Netherlands.

                  (48)

                  With regard to the potential impact on the internal market, the Commission points out that NEC has been a participant in European football tournaments. Furthermore, professional football clubs deploy economic activities in several markets other than participating in football competitions, such as the transfer market for professional players, publicity, sponsorship, merchandising or media coverage. Aid to a professional football club strengthens its position on each of those international markets. Therefore, if State resources are used to provide a selective advantage to a professional football club, regardless of the league in which it plays, such aid is likely to have the potential of distorting competition and to affect trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty (9).

                  (49)

                  The selectivity of the measure, which was specifically approved by the municipal council, cannot be doubted either. The Netherlands has argued that the measure was based on general national legislation (see recital 29) and was therefore not selective. However, the Commission considers that, even if the agreement between NEC and the municipality can be considered an agreement subject to general Dutch law, the specifics of the agreement are not based on general principles only, but also on the specific provisions of the contract(s) between NEC and the municipality. Hence it is clear that the measure targets a specific undertaking, NEC, and is therefore selective.

                  (50)

                  The Netherlands is of the opinion that no advantage accrued to NEC and that instead the transaction took place at market conditions. They notably point out that NEC had a solid purchase option for De Eendracht and that the price for buying that right was established according to an independent valuation.

                  (51)

                  With regard to the solidity of the claim, the Netherlands has submitted additional clarifications on the reasons why the first legal opinion was followed instead of the second. Moreover, the Netherlands underlined that the development of TIP was probably not possible if De Eendracht was sold to NEC. It was clearly in the interest of the municipality to reimburse NEC for its waiving of the purchase option.

                  (52)

                  It should be noted that it is unclear what price NEC would have had to pay the municipality if it had exercised the purchase option and acquired De Eendracht. The Netherlands have argued that where no price is agreed, under the Dutch Civil Code the buyer has to pay a reasonable price. To the extent that such a reasonable price approximates or equals the market value of the right of superficies pertaining to De Eendracht, the purchase option would appear to have only a limited economic value. In that situation, the compensation of EUR 2,2 million appears to be unreasonably high and would constitute an advantage to NEC.

                  (53)

                  Regardless of the question whether NEC in fact had a solid purchase option and other arguments pertaining to the interpretation of Dutch civil law, the Commission considers that the core question to assess is whether the transaction took place on market terms and the municipality acted as a private operator.

                  (54)

                  In this regard, it is necessary that the Commission assesses whether a private investor would have entered into the transaction under assessment on the same terms. The attitude of the hypothetical private investor is that of a prudent investor whose goal of profit maximisation is tempered with caution about the level of risk acceptable for a given rate of return. The MEIP would not be respected if the price for the purchase option was set at a higher level than the market price. The Commission considers that a number of elements in the valuation process show that it does not pass the MEIP test.

                  (55)

                  Firstly, it is not clear why the value of the purchase option would equal the difference between, on the one hand, the sales value of the complex on the basis of the lease agreement between the municipality and NEC and, on the other hand, the sales value on the basis of the lease agreements between NEC and its sub-letters, taking into account also the market rent evolutions. The Commission notes that the municipality requested the independent valuation of these two sales values, not the valuation of the purchase option as such. No further context or arguments are given as to why the difference between these values equals the value of the purchase option.

                  (56)

                  Secondly, the use of the two values to determine the worth of the purchase option seems to work on the assumption of a sale to any third party for one of the values, but not for the other. The first value […] is indeed established on the basis of a sale by the municipality to any third party of the rights of superficies in a rented state, i.e. with the lease contract to NEC as a given ‘constraint’ for any buyer. In contrast, as the Netherlands argue that the lease agreement could not be terminated before the transfer of the right of superficies to NEC, only NEC would have been able to continue to operate the complex towards third parties. Therefore the second value […] (the possible sales value in rented state on the basis of the sublease contracts) could only be realised by NEC and not by any third party. This ‘mixed’ approach reinforces the notion that the determination of the price of the purchase option on this basis would not have made sense for a market operator.

                  (57)

                  Thirdly and linked to this, if one takes as a starting point that the purchase option was to be waived by not any third party, but by NEC, the resulting price to be paid in exchange for NEC waiving its purchase option does not seem to correctly assess the ‘foregone benefits’ for NEC of waiving the option. According to the Netherlands, NEC was foregoing a potential advantage of EUR 2 million by waiving its purchase option (recital 33). However, the Commission notes that NEC could be expected to remain the operator of the complex even after waiving its purchase option. Therefore it would continue to receive the same rental revenues that formed the basis for the second value used in determining the price of the transaction […]. The Commission considers that the actual advantage foregone by NEC by waiving its purchase option would instead equal the rents to the municipality that it would no longer have had to pay if it had acquired the complex.

                  (58)

                  In any case, fourthly, the municipality paid more than the amount it determined on the basis of the valuation report ([…] see recital 33). The Commission considers that at the very least the difference between both values constitutes aid. According to the Dutch authorities, the difference finds its origin in negotiations with NEC and, in any case, the full sum of EUR 2,2 million is being reimbursed. Indeed, the Netherlands has explained that the prolongation of the lease period and increase of the yearly rent ensures the budgetary neutral nature of the transaction for the municipality (recital 36).

                  (59)

                  With regard to this reimbursement, fifthly, the Commission notes that the use by NEC of the EUR 2,2 million sum to cover outstanding claims and rents that it was due the municipality cannot be considered a reimbursement. With regard to the increase of the rent paid on a yearly basis (recital 36), this can only be considered a reimbursement of aid if the increase fully represents above-market rent. The Netherlands did not provide evidence supporting the claim that the higher rent as of January 2011 can be considered a rent above market levels. In this respect, the Commission observes that the rent paid by NEC to the municipality for the entire complex is lower than the rent that NEC currently receives for sub-letting certain parts of the complex while the valuation report suggests that NEC could obtain even higher rents in the future.

                  (60)

                  The Commission notes moreover that, even if the original rent level were market conform taking into account the context at the time (recital 34), at least some of the factors that had a downward impact on the then-established lease price seem no longer of relevance at the time of setting the new rent level. In particular, the risks associated with operating the complex can be assumed to have changed now that it has been running successfully for more than 5 years. The waiving of the option to acquire the right of superficies no longer played a role either as the transaction in question settled the question of ownership for the future. Therefore it could be expected that, in January 2011, market rent levels would be higher than in 2003, when the lease contract between the municipality and NEC was concluded. If this is the case, then the increased rent cannot be fully considered to correspond to a reimbursement of aid.

                  (61)

                  It should also be noted that the repayment takes place over a period of 33 years and that future payments have not been discounted.

                  (62)

                  Most importantly, The Netherlands did not provide any evidence that the municipality made a thorough assessment and calculation of market rent levels before establishing the increased rent rate. Instead, the budgetary neutral nature of the transaction was the starting point in order to calculate the new rent levels.

                  (63)

                  Sixthly, the benefits achieved by the municipality through this transaction and their proportionality to the direct cost of EUR 2,2 million are not clear. It appears that the municipality has paid much more than what it could ever have gained from selling the complex (in a rented state), simply to safeguard the ownership it already held. The municipality has argued that the economic stakes of developing TIP were very high given the expected effects of TIP on the economy of the municipality. The expected added value of remaining the owner of the complex might explain in part the willingness of the municipality to pay a higher price. However, the municipality has not explicitly made a cost-benefit assessment of the transaction that takes into account this long-term value of the TIP project. The Commission considers that a market operator would have made a more elaborate assessment of the expected return on investment of the acquisition of the purchase option.

                  (64)

                  Lastly, the Commission remains of the opinion that, on the basis of the information available at the time, the municipality did not sufficiently take into account the financial difficulties NEC was facing at the time and their influence on its capacity to buy the right of superficies to De Eendracht. Even if third parties had demonstrated an interest in partnering with NEC, the overall financial picture could not be ignored and could be expected to influence the negotiation position of NEC to the benefit of the municipality.

                  (65)

                  For all those reasons, the Commission considers that the municipality did not act like a market economy operator but rather granted aid to NEC by reimbursing NEC for waiving its purchase option for the sum of EUR 2,2 million. The exact aid amount cannot be determined on the basis of the information provided by the Netherlands. However, as long as the maximum amount of EUR 2,2 million can be considered necessary to fulfil the restructuring plan, the exact aid amount is irrelevant for the compatibility assessment.

            4.2.   Assessment under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty

                  (66)

                  The Commission must assess whether the aid measure in favour of NEC can be considered to be compatible with the internal market. As regards the derogations provided for in Article 107(3) of the Treaty, the Commission notes that none of the Dutch regions falls under the derogation provided for in Article 107(3)(a) of the Treaty. The aid measure in question does not promote an important project of common European interest, nor does it serve to remedy any serious disturbance in the Dutch economy within the meaning of Article 107(3)(b). The aid measure can also not be said to promote culture or heritage conservation within the meaning of Article 107(3)(d) of the Treaty.

            4.2.1.   Applicable guidelines

                  (67)

                  As regards the derogation in Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty in favour of aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, the Netherlands has argued that this derogation could be applied if the Commission, contrary to the opinion of the Netherlands, should find that the measure in question constitutes State aid.

                  (68)

                  In its assessment of the notion of ‘development of economic activities’ in the sports sector, the Commission takes due account of Article 165(1) and the last indent of Article 165(2) of the Treaty, which provide that the Union shall contribute to the promotion of European sporting issues, while taking account of the specific nature of sport, its structures based on voluntary activity and its social and educational function.

                  (69)

                  For its assessment of aid measures under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, the Commission has issued a number of Regulations, Frameworks, Guidelines and Communications concerning aid forms and horizontal or sector purposes for which aid is awarded.

                  (70)

                  The Commission believes that it is appropriate to assess whether the criteria laid down in the Guidelines (10) might apply. In this regard the Commission notes that the Guidelines do not exclude professional football. This economic activity is, hence, covered by the Guidelines.

                  (71)

                  In July 2014, the Commission published new Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (11). They are, however, not applicable to this non-notified aid granted in 2010. According to point 137 of the new guidelines, this would only be the case for any rescue or restructuring aid granted without prior authorisation if some or all of the aid is granted after the publication of those guidelines in the Official Journal of the European Union. According to point 138 of the 2014 guidelines, in all other cases the Commission will conduct the examination on the basis of the guidelines which applied at the time the aid was granted, and therefore, in the present case, those applicable before 2014.

            4.2.2.   NEC as company in difficulty

                  (72)

                  According to point 10(c) of the Guidelines, whatever the type of company concerned, it is considered to be in difficulty if it fulfils the criteria under its domestic law for being the subject of collective insolvency proceedings. Point 11 of the Guidelines indicates that, in the absence of these circumstances, a firm may still be considered to be in difficulties where the usual signs are present, such as increasing losses, mounting debt, declining cash flow and so on. A firm in difficulty is eligible only where, demonstrably, it cannot recover through its own resources or with the funds it obtains from its owners/shareholders or from market sources.

                  (73)

                  The Netherlands had initially argued that NEC was not a firm in difficulty in 2008/2009. However, the facts outlined in recital 16 rather indicate that NEC was facing financial difficulties, serious enough to endanger its future as a professional football club. NEC therefore clearly was a company in difficulty according to the Commission. In their reaction to the opening decision, the Netherlands acknowledged that NEC was a company in difficulty and had been at the time of the transaction. It submitted further evidence in this regard (see recital 40), which notably showed that NEC 's company results had been negative and diminishing over time. Therefore, the compatibility of the State aid to NEC must be assessed under the Guidelines.

            4.2.3.   Restoration of long term viability

                  (74)

                  In section 3.2, the Guidelines require that the granting of the aid must be conditional on the implementation of a restructuring plan (see points 34-37 of the Guidelines), which must restore the long-term viability of the firm within a reasonable time-scale. The Commission notes that such conditions were set within the context of the plan drawn up by NEC for the KNVB in August 2010.

                  (75)

                  In this regard the Commission recalls that each Dutch professional football club receives a licence from the KNVB, under which it has to comply with various obligations. One of the obligations under the current system applicable relates to the financial health of the club. Three times per season, a club is subject to a financial rating on the basis of financial reports depicting, inter alia, its current financial situation, as well as the budget for the next season. On the basis of these reports, clubs are scaled in three categories (1: insufficient, 2: sufficient, 3: good). Clubs in category 1 may be obliged to present a plan for improvement in order to reach category 2 or 3 within a period of three years. If the club fails to comply with the plan, sanctions may be imposed by the KNVB, including an official warning, a reduction of competition points and — as the ultimate sanction — withdrawal of the licence. It should also be noted in this context that a professional football club in the Netherlands, which is declared bankrupt, loses its licence. If a successor club is founded, it would not be admitted to the professional football leagues directly, but it would have to start in the second-highest amateur league.

                  (76)

                  NEC was scaled in category 1 on the basis of the financial data of the 2009/2010 season. Its restructuring plan set out measures to obtain the category 2 status after three seasons (by 2012/2013).

                  (77)

                  The restructuring plan identified the problematic relation between turnover and costs as the main cause of NEC's financial problems. High personnel costs were in particular to blame, whereas reductions in media income also contributed to the negative results. The focus of the restructuring plan lay on cost reductions and savings were mainly sought in the area of players' costs. Measures included a reduction of personnel (including a reduction of the number of registered players), a salary freeze and cuts in the salaries for new players as well as a reduction in bonuses. Within three years, the ratio of personnel costs compared to turnover was to be brought under […] % (compared to […] % in March 2010). Cuts in several other expenses were foreseen, such as the costs of the youth training (football academy). Any investments in immaterial or material fixed assets of more than EUR […] had to be agreed by the KNVB licence commission, which actually meant that NEC could not do any transfers.

                  (78)

                  The Commission finds that the restructuring plan tackles the causes of the financial difficulties of NEC, especially the cost of personnel and players in the form of wages and transfer payments. A professional football club cannot be expected to diversify into other markets in the sense of the Guidelines; it can, however be expected to make savings on its core activity and this NEC has done. The restructuring plan does not rely on external factors which NEC can pursue but not entirely control, such as finding additional sponsors or an increase in the number of spectators.

                  (79)

                  In the budget for the season 2010/2011, NEC foresaw to improve its company results […] by reducing its costs […]. The end results were even better than foreseen: whereas the income declined (lower match revenue due to a bad cup season; lower media revenue; reallocation of barter revenues), the costs diminished […] as well (decline in personnel costs, savings in the football academy, reduction of commercial costs). In December 2011, the KNVB awarded NEC the category 2 status.

                  (80)

                  The Commission concludes that the restructuring plan of August 2010 sufficiently addressed the causes of NEC's financial difficulties in view of making the club viable again in the long term.

            4.2.4.   Avoidance of undue distortions of competition

                  (81)

                  Points 38-42 of the Guidelines require that compensatory measures be taken by the beneficiary in order to minimise the distortive effect of the aid and its adverse effects on trading conditions. In the decision opening the procedure the Commission noted the peculiar nature of professional football in this regard, and suggested a number of measures that could in professional football be interpreted as compensatory measures within the meaning of the Guidelines, such as the limitation of its registered players within the limits allowed by the national association, the acceptance of a cap on wages below the usual standards in the sector, a ban on paying transfer costs for new players for a certain period, or an increase in activities to the benefit of society.

                  (82)

                  As explained in recital 77, NEC has indeed reduced the number of employees and the number of registered players, as well as the wages paid to them. The cost of wages was to be brought under 60 % of the turnover level. No transfer payments for new players could be made during the restructuring period. The Commission concludes that the compensatory measures required by the Guidelines were taken, which had the effect of weakening NEC's competitive position in professional football.

            4.2.5.   Aid limited to a minimum

                  (83)

                  Points 43-45 of the Guidelines state that the amount and intensity of the aid must be limited to the strict minimum. Aid beneficiaries are expected to make a significant contribution to the restructuring plan from their own resources.

                  (84)

                  The Commission notes that the restructuring plan is to a considerable extent based on financing by external private entities in addition to the internal savings made. The […] transaction (recital 37) provided NEC with circa EUR 4 million in external financing. In addition, the conditions of repayment on a loan by […] were changed in 2010. Instead of a yearly repayment obligation […], repayments were from then on based on transfer income, which had a positive effect on NEC's liquidity (See recital 43). External and own contributions in other words equal more than EUR 4,25 million and thus the aid, which amounts to maximum EUR 2,2 million, in any case does not amount to more than circa 35 % of the overall restructuring effort. This meets the requirement in point 44 of the Guidelines that for a medium-sized company like NEC at least 40 % of the cost of the restructuring should be met by the own contribution of the beneficiary, including external financing demonstrating a belief in the viability of the beneficiary.

            4.2.6.   Monitoring and annual report

                  (85)

                  Point 49 of the Guidelines requires that the Member State communicates on the proper implementation of the restructuring plan through regular detailed reports. Point 51 sets out less stringent conditions for small and medium-sized enterprises, where the transmission of yearly copies of the balance sheet and profit-and-loss accounts is normally considered sufficient. The Netherlands has committed to submit these reports.

            4.2.7.   One time, last time

                  (86)

                  Points 72-77 of the Guidelines refer to the ‘one time, last time’ principle, according to which restructuring aid should be granted only once in a period of 10 years.

                  (87)

                  The Netherlands committed to respect the ‘one time last time’ requirement in the Guidelines. They have confirmed that they did not award any rescue or restructuring aid to NEC during a period of 10 years preceding the transaction. Market conformity will also be the basis for any current or future negotiations with NEC.

            5.   CONCLUSION

                  (88)

                  The Commission finds that the Netherlands has unlawfully implemented the aid measure in favour of NEC in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty. However, the aid can be considered compatible with the internal market as restructuring aid within the meaning of the Guidelines, as all conditions for such aid set out in the Guidelines are met.

            HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
      Article 1
      The State aid which the Netherlands has implemented in favour of the football club NEC in Nijmegen is compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
      Article 2
      This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

         Done at Brussels, 4 July 2016.

               For the Commission

            Margrethe VESTAGER

               Member of the Commission

         (1)  Commission Decision in Case SA.33584 (2013/C) (ex 2011/NN) — Netherlands aid to certain professional Dutch football clubs in 2008-11 — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C 116, 23.4.2013, p. 19).

         (2)  Cf. footnote 1.

         (3)  According to Article 5:101 of Dutch Civil Law, a ‘right of superficies’ (Latin: ius superficiarium) is a real property right which enables its proprietor — the ‘superficiary’ — to have or acquire for himself buildings, constructions or plants (vegetation) in, on or above an immovable thing owned by someone else.

         (4)  OJ C 209, 10.7.1997, p. 3.

         (5)  Communication from the Commission — Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (OJ C 244, 1.10.2004, p. 2). The application of those guidelines was prolonged by the Commission communication concerning the prolongation of the application of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty of 1 October 2004 (OJ C 296, 2.10.2012, p. 3).

         (6)  The municipality intended to develop a large part of the Goffert park into a ‘Topsport- en Innovatie Park’ (‘TIP’), with a multidisciplinary approach covering sports, education, health and science. This project has since been abolished. The future financing of the TIP was not covered by the opening Decision.

         (*1)  Confidential information.

         (7)  ‘Onderzoek naar financiële situatie en financieel toekomstperspectief N.E.C. Nijmegen’, report of 29 October 2010 by BDO, Nijmegen.

         (8)  Plan van aanpak NEC, August 2010.

         (9)  Commission Decisions regarding Germany of 20 March 2013 on Multifunktionsarena der Stadt Erfurt (Case SA.35135 (2012/N)), point 12, and Multifunktionsarena der Stadt Jena (Case SA.35440 (2012/N)), summary notices in OJ C 140, 18.5.2013, p. 1, and of 2 October 2013 on Fußballstadion Chemnitz (Case SA.36105 (2013/N)), summary notice in OJ C 50, 21.2.2014, p. 1, points 12-14; Commission Decisions regarding Spain of 18 December 2013 on possible State aid to four Spanish professional football clubs (Case SA.29769 (2013/C)), point 28, Real Madrid CF (Case SA.33754 (2013/C)), point 20, and alleged aid in favour of three Valencia football clubs (Case SA.36387 (2013/C)), point 16, published in OJ C 69, 7.3.2014, p. 99.

         (10)  See footnote 5.

         (11)  Communication from the Commission — Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (OJ C 249, 31.7.2014, p. 1).


Avis juridique important

|

31978D0807

78/807/Euratom, EEC: Council Decision of 19 September 1978 appointing the members of the Economic and Social Committee for the period from 19 September 1978 to 18 September 1982

Official Journal L 273 , 29/09/1978 P. 0027 - 0037

****      COUNCIL DECISION   OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1978   APPOINTING THE MEMBERS OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 19 SEPTEMBER 1978 TO 18 SEPTEMBER 1982  ( 78/807/EURATOM , EEC )   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN   COMMUNITIES ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY , AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLES 193 TO 195 THEREOF ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY , AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLES 165 TO 167 THEREOF ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE CONVENTION ON CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS COMMON TO THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 5 THEREOF ,   WHEREAS ON 17 SEPTEMBER 1974 THE COUNCIL APPOINTED THE MEMBERS OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 17 SEPTEMBER 1974 TO 16 SEPTEMBER 1978 ;   HAVING REGARD TO THE LISTS OF CANDIDATES SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL BY THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES ,   WHEREAS THE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE SHOULD ENSURE THE ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION OF THE VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ACTIVITY , IN PARTICULAR PRODUCERS , FARMERS , CARRIERS , WORKERS , DEALERS , CRAFTSMEN , PROFESSIONAL OCCUPATIONS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC ;   HAVING OBTAINED THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,   HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :   SOLE ARTICLE   THE PERSONS LISTED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER IN THE ANNEX TO THIS DECISION ARE HEREBY APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 19 SEPTEMBER 1978 TO 18 SEPTEMBER 1982 .   DONE AT BRUSSELS , 19 SEPTEMBER 1978 .   FOR THE COUNCIL   THE PRESIDENT   H.-D . GENSCHER****    BILAG  -  ANHANG  -  ANNEX  -  ANNEXE  -  ALLEGATO  -  BIJLAGE   ALFABETISK LISTE OVER MEDLEMMERNE   AF DET NYUDNAEVNTE OEKONOMISKE OG SOCIALE UDVALG   ALPHABETISCHES VERZEICHNIS DER MITGLIEDER   DES NEUEN WIRTSCHAFTS- UND SOZIALAUSSCHUSSES   ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS   OF THE NEW ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE   LISTE ALPHABETIQUE DES MEMBRES   DU NOUVEAU COMITE ECONOMIQUE ET SOCIAL   ELENCO ALFABETICO DEI MEMBRI   DEL NUOVO COMITATO ECONOMICO E SOCIALE   ALFABETISCHE LIJST VAN DE LEDEN   VAN HET NIEUWE ECONOMISCH EN SOCIAAL COMITE   DIREKTOER , CAND . POLIT . JOHS . AMMUNDSEN   DANSK ARBEJDSGIVERFORENINGDANMARK     DOTT . ROMOLO ARENA   ASSOCIAZIONE SINDACALE INTERSINDITALIA      DOTTORESSA FABRIZIA BADUEL GLORIOSO   CISLITALIA      DOTT . EDUARDO BAGLIANO   CONFEDERAZIONE GENERALE INDUSTRIA ITALIANAITALIA      MR DAVID BASNETT   GENERAL SECRETARY , NATIONAL UNION OF GENERAL AND MUNICIPAL WORKERSUNITED KINGDOM M . LEON BERNAERT   PRESIDENT DE LA COMMISSION SOCIALE DE LA FEDERATION DES ENTREPRISES DE BELGIQUEBELGIQUE-BELGIE  M . MATHIAS BERNS   SECRETAIRE GENERAL DE LA CENTRALE PAYSANNE LUXEMBOURGEOISELUXEMBOURG   DR . REINHARD BLASIG   HAUPTGESCHAEFTSFUEHRER DER LANDESVEREINIGUNG BADENWUERTTEMBERGISCHER   ARBEITGEBERVERBAENDE E.V.DEUTSCHLAND   SIG . ALDO BONACCINI   CGILITALIA      M . RENE BONETY   EXPERT DU SERVICE ECONOMIQUE DE LA CFDTFRANCE      M . JEAN BORNARD   SECRETAIRE GENERAL DE LA CFTCFRANCE      MR . C . A . BOS   LECTOR VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT TE AMSTERDAMNEDERLAND     M . PIERRE BOULNOIS   VICE-PRESIDENT DU CNJA , RESPONSABLE DE LA COMMISSION INTERNATIONALEFRANCE      KONTORCHEF , CAND . POLIT . FINN BREITENSTEIN   INDUSTRIRAADETDANMARK     MR . R . W . BUCKTON   GENERAL SECRETARY , ASSOCIATED SOCIETY OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND FIREMENUNITED KINGDOM DRS . P . BUKMAN   ALGEMEEN SEKRETARIS NEDERLANDSE CHRISTELIJKE BOEREN- EN TUINDERSBONDNEDERLAND     M . ROGER BURNEL   PRESIDENT DE L ' UNION NATIONALE DES ASSOCIATIONS FAMILIALESFRANCE      MR R . C . BUTLER   NATIONAL FARMERS UNIONUNITED KINGDOM M . GERARD DE CAFFARELLI   MEMBRE DU CONSEIL D ' ADMINISTRATION DE LA FNSEAFRANCE DOTT . FILIPPO CAGETTI   CONFCOMMERCIOITALIA      DR . HELMUTH CAMMANN   HAUPTGESCHAEFTSFUEHRER DES BUNDESVERBANDES DEUTSCHER BANKENDEUTSCHLAND   DR . J . PH . M . VAN CAMPEN   OUD-DIREKTEUR HANDELSVERENIGING VIHAMIJ ; VOORZITTER BESTUUR UNIVERSITAIR   ZIEKENHUIS VAN NIJMEGENNEDERLAND     DOTT . UMBERTO EMO CAPODILISTA   CONFEDERAZIONE ITALIANA CONSORZI AGRARI ITALIA      MR J . F . CARROLL   ASSISTANT GENERAL PRESIDENT IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS '  UNIONIRELAND      ING . UMBERTO CECONI   ASAPITALIA      M . YVES CHABROL   PRESIDENT D ' HONNEUR DE LA FEDERATION DES SYNDICATS PHARMACEUTIQUES DE FRANCEFRANCE      M . YVAN CHARPENTIE   PRESIDENT DE LA CGCFRANCE      MRS MARY CLARKE   LECTURER , BELFAST UNIVERSITYUNITED KINGDOM M . JEAN-CLAUDE CLAVEL   DIRECTEUR ADJOINT DES AFFAIRES ECONOMIQUES DE L ' APCAFRANCE     M . JACQUES DU CLOSEL   DELEGUE GENERAL DE LA FEDERATION NATIONALE DES ENTREPRISES A COMMERCES MULTIPLESFRANCE      M . JEAN COUTURE   CONSEILLER DU PRESIDENT DE LA SOCIETE GENERALEFRANCE HERR DIETMAR CREMER   REFERENT IN DER ABTEILUNG WIRTSCHAFTSPOLITIK BEIM BUNDESVORSTAND   DES DEUTSCHEN GEWERKSCHAFTSBUNDESDEUTSCHLAND   M . GEORGES CROESE   MEMBRE DE LA COMMISSION EXECUTIVE DE LA CGTFRANCE      MR HENRY J . CURLIS   IRISH REPRESENTATIVE , NATIONAL UNION OF GENERAL AND MUNICIPAL WORKERSIRELAND      MR G . PRYS DAVIES   SOLICITOR , FORMER CHAIRMAN , WELSH HOSPITALS BOARDUNITED KINGDOM DE HEER CLEMENT DE BIEVRE   DIRECTEUR VAN DE ECONOMISCHE AFDELING VAN HET VERBOND   VAN BELGISCHE ONDERNEMINGENBELGIQUE-BELGIE  M . JACQUES DE BRUYN   CONSEILLER GENERAL DE L ' ASSOCIATION BELGE DES BANQUESBELGIQUE-BELGIE  DE HEER GEORGES DEBUNNE   ALGEMEEN SECRETARIS VAN HET ALGEMEEN BELGISCH VAKVERBONDBELGIQUE-BELGIE  MR B . R . V . Z . DE FERRANTI   DEPUTY CHAIRMAN , FERRANTI LTDUNITED KINGDOM M . MICHEL DE GRAVE   ATTACHE AU SERVICE D ' ETUDES DE LA CONFEDERATION DES SYNDICATS CHRETIENS DE BELGIQUEBELGIQUE-BELGIE  M . ALFRED DELOURME   SECRETAIRE GENERAL ADJOINT DE LA FEDERATION GENERALE DU TRAVAIL DE BELGIQUEBELGIQUE-BELGIE  DE HEER VICTOR DE RIDDER   VOORZITTER VAN DE HOGE RAAD VOOR DE STATISTIEK . GEWOON HOOGLERAAR AAN   DE RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT TE GENTBELGIQUE-BELGIE  DE HEER ANDRE DE TAVERNIER   HOOFD VAN DE ECONOMISCHE EN SOCIOLOGISCHE STUDIEDIENST   VAN DE BELGISCHE BOERENBONDBELGIQUE-BELGIE  PROF . DR . KLAUS BENEDICT VON DER DECKEN   KERNFORSCHUNGSANLAGE JUELICHDEUTSCHLAND   SIG . MARIO DIDO   CGILITALIA      MR R . L . DOBLE   SOLICITOR ; FORMER CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND TOWN CLERK   TO THE LONDON BOROUGH OF GREENWICHUNITED KINGDOM SIG . FRANCESCO DRAGO   VIA CONSTANTINO MAES 68 , ROMAITALIA      FRAU URSULA ENGELEN-KEFER   REFERENTIN IN DER ABTEILUNG SOZIALPOLITIK BEIM BUNDESVORSTAND   DES DEUTSCHEN GEWERKSCHAFTSBUNDESDEUTSCHLAND   DRS . T . ETTY   BELEIDSMEDEWERKER INTERNATIONALE ZAKEN FNV NEDERLAND     M . CLAUDE EVAIN   DELEGUE DU PRESIDENT DU CNPF POUR LES RELATIONS INTERNATIONALESFRANCE      SIG . BRUNO FASSINA   CISLITALIA      HERR HERMANN FREDERSDORF   STELLVERTRETENDER BUNDESVORSITZENDER DES DEUTSCHEN BEAMTENBUNDESDEUTSCHLAND   HERR KARL-HEINZ FRIEDRICHS   ABTEILUNGSLEITER BEIM VORSTAND DER INDUSTRIEGEWERKSCHAFT METALLDEUTSCHLAND   MR J . GALLACHER   COOPERATIVE UNION AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ALLIANCEUNITED KINGDOM DOTT . MANLIO GERMOZZI   CONFARTIGIANATOITALIA      M . LEO GINGEMBRE   PRESIDENT DE LA CGPMEFRANCE      M . MARCEL GLESENER   SECRETAIRE GENERAL DE LA CONFEDERATION LUXEMBOURGEOISE DES SYNDICATS CHRETIENSLUXEMBOURG   DRS . L . GORIS   MEDEWERKER BIJ DE RAAD VOOR HET MIDDEN- EN KLEINBEDRIJFNEDERLAND     MR J . GORMLEY , O.B.E .   PRESIDENT , NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERSUNITED KINGDOM NAESTFORMAND , CAND . POLIT . KAREN GREDAL   FORBRUGERRAADETDANMARK     DRS . J . M . V . VAN GREUNSVEN   SECRETARIS NEDERLANDS KATHOLIEK VAKVERBONDNEDERLAND     M . FRANCOIS GUILLAUME   SECRETAIRE GENERAL DE LA FNSEAFRANCE      MR S . G . HALL   MANAGING DIRECTOR , KILCO CHEMICALS LTD ; CHAIRMAN , FISHERY HARBOUR   AUTHORITY AND MEMBER OF FISHERIES CONSERVANCY BOARD , N . IRELANDUNITED KINGDOM M . PAUL HATRY   ADMINISTRATEUR-DELEGUE DE LA FEDERATION PETROLIERE BELGEBELGIQUE-BELGIE  M . CARLO HEMMER   DIRECTEUR HONORAIRE DE LA CHAMBRE DE COMMERCELUXEMBOURG DR . WERNER HENNIG   RECHTSANWALT   MIN . DIR . A.D . IN DER HAUPTVERWALTUNG DER DEUTSCHEN BUNDESBAHNDEUTSCHLAND   FRAU DR . MED . HEDDA HEUSER   PRAESIDENTIN DES DEUTSCHEN AERZTINNENBUNDESDEUTSCHLAND   DRS . G.H.E . HILKENS   ECONOMISCH STAFMEDEWERKER NEDERLANDSE GEZINSRAAD   EN BESTUURSLID CONSUMENTEN CONTACT ORGAANNEDERLAND     DR . WOLFGANG HIPP   STELLVERTRETENDER HAUPTGESCHAEFTSFUEHRER A.D .   DES DEUTSCHEN INDUSTRIE- UND HANDELSTAGESDEUTSCHLAND   HERR KARL-HEINZ HOFFMANN   STELLVERTRETENDER VORSITZENDER DER GEWERKSCHAFT OFFENTLICHE DIENSTE ,   TRANSPORT UND VERKEHRDEUTSCHLAND   DE HEER JOZEF HOUTHUYS   VOORZITTER VAN HET ALGEMEEN CHRISTELIJK VAKVERBOND VAN BELGIEBELGIQUE-BELGIE  MR . J . A . HUBREGTSE   SECRETARIS AGRARISCH EN VOEDINGSBEDRIJFSBOND NVVNEDERLAND   AFDELINGSCHEF ERIK HOVGAARD JAKOBSEN   LANDBRUGSRAADETDANMARK     DIPL . KFM . JOHANNES M . JASCHICK   GESCHAEFTSFUEHRENDES PRAESIDIALMITGLIED DER ARBEITSGEMEINSCHAFT   DER VERBRAUCHER ( AGV)DEUTSCHLAND   MR T . JENKINS   INTERNATIONAL DEPARMENT , TRADES UNION CONGRESSUNITED KINGDOM MR . SJOUKE JONKER   ONDERDIRECTEUR NATIONALE NEDERLANDEN ;   VOORZITTER CONTACTORGAAN NEDERLANDS VERVOEROVERLEGNEDERLAND     MR . WILLEM JONKER   OUD-DIRECTEUR VERVOERSONDERNEMINGNEDERLAND     MR JOHN KENNA   DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORT AND FOREIGN TRADE , CONFEDERATION OF IRISH INDUSTRYIRELAND      DOTT . ENRICO KIRSCHEN   UILITALIA      DR . HEINRICH KOLBENSCHLAG   GENERALSEKRETAER A.D . DES ZENTRALVERBANDES DES DEUTSCHEN HANDWERKSDEUTSCHLAND   MR PATRICK LANE   PRESIDENT , IRISH FARMERS ASSOCIATIONIRELAND      M . ANDRE LAUR   VICE-PRESIDENT DE LA MUTUALITE AGRICOLE DE L ' AVEYRONFRANCE     M . ANTOINE LAVAL   SECRETAIRE CONFEDERAL DE LA CGT - FOFRANCE      MR F . S . LAW   PART-TIME MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL FREIGHT CORPORATIONUNITED KINGDOM MR ANTHONY LEDDY   PRESIDENT , IRISH CREAMERY MILK SUPPLIERS ' ASSOCIATIONIRELAND      MR HERBERT LOEBL , O.B.E .   CHAIRMAN , GLASS CERAMICS LTDUNITED KINGDOM MR P . J . LOUGHREY   CONSULTANT , BATCHELORS FOODS LTDIRELAND      MR J . MACGOUGAN   GENERAL SECRETARY , NATIONAL UNION OF TAILORS AND GARMENT WORKERSUNITED KINGDOM SIG . VITTORINO MARAVIGLIA   CISLITALIA      DE HEER ALFONS MARGOT   ALGEMEEN SECRETARIS VAN HET NATIONAAL CHRISTELIJK MIDDENSTANDVERBOND ;   ONDER-VOORZITTER VAN DE HOGE RAAD VOOR DE MIDDENSTANDBELGIQUE-BELGIE  M . JEAN MARVIER   PRESIDENT DE LA BRANCHE ARTISANALE DE LA CSNCRA ;   VICE-PRESIDENT DE LA CONFEDERATION NATIONALE DE L ' ARTISANAT ET DES METIERSFRANCE      DOTT . ALBERTO MASPRONE   CONFEDERAZIONE GENERALE INDUSTRIA ITALIANAITALIA      M . CHARLES MASSABIEAUX   COLLABORATEUR DU DEPARTEMENT INTERNATIONAL DU BUREAU CONFEDERAL CGTFRANCE      MR W . G . N . MILLER , O.B.E .   DIRECTOR , SAVE AND PROSPER GROUP LTDUNITED KINGDOM MR ERNEST MILLS   MEMBER , BRITISH GAS CORPORATIONUNITED KINGDOM MR J . MILNE   GENERAL SECRETARY , SCOTTISH TRADES UNION CONGRESSUNITED KINGDOM DOTT . PIETRO MORSELLI   CONFEDERAZIONE COOPERATIVE ITALIANE ITALIA      HERR GERD MUHR   STELLVERTRETENDER VORSITZENDER DES DEUTSCHEN GEWERKSCHAFTSBUNDESDEUTSCHLAND   MR PATRICK MURPHY   FEDERATION OF RURAL WORKERSIRELAND      THE RT . HON . L . MURRAY , P.C ., O.B.E .   GENERAL SECRETARY , TRADES UNION CONGRESSUNITED KINGDOM PROF . DR . LOTHAR NEUMANN   MITGLIED DES PRAESIDIUMS DER ARBEITSGEMEINSCHAFT DER VERBRAUCHER ( AGV)DEUTSCHLAND   OEKONOMISK MEDARBEJDER PREBEN NIELSEN   LANDSORGANISATIONEN I DANMARKDANMARK     OMSORGSKONSULENT , FRU MARICHEN NIELSEN   CARIT ETLARSVEJ 50 , DK-8230 AABYHOEJ  -  AARHUSDANMARK     DR . HERBERT NIERHAUS   VORSTANDSMITGLIED DER DEUTSCHEN ANGESTELLTENGEWERKSCHAFTDEUTSCHLAND   ON . RENATO OGNIBENE   CONFEDERAZIONE ITALIANA COLTIVATORIITALIA      DOTT . GUIDO PAGGI   CONFAGRICOLTURAITALIA      MRS MARIE PATTERSON   NATIONAL OFFICER , TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNIONUNITED KINGDOM MR A . J . PEARSON   DIRECTOR , SMITH  EN  PEARSON LTDIRELAND      HERR ALOIS PFEIFFER   MITGLIED DES GESCHAEFTSFUEHRENDEN VORSTANDES DES DEUTSCHEN GEWERKSCHAFTSBUNDESDEUTSCHLAND   DOTT . VINCENZO PIGA   VIA DELLA BALDUINA 73 , ROMAITALIA      M . JEAN DE PRECIGOUT   PRESIDENT DU COMITE STATUTAIRE DU CNPF ;   PRESIDENT D ' HONNEUR DE L ' UNION DES INDUSTRIES TEXTILESFRANCE      MR . B . PRONK   STAFMEDEWERKER INTERNATIONALE ZAKEN CNV NEDERLAND     PROF . GIULIO QUERINI   VIA FIRENZE 48 , ROMAITALIA      DOTT . GIOVANNI RAINERO   CONFEDERAZIONE NAZIONALE COLDIRETTIITALIA      M . ROGER RAMAEKERS   PRESIDENT DU CONSEIL DE LA CONSOMMATION ;   SECRETAIRE GENERAL DE LA FEDERATION BELGE DES COOPERATIVESBELGIQUE-BELGIE  CAND . POLIT . POUL NYRUP RASMUSSEN   OEKONOMISK RAADGIVER , LANDSORGANISATIONEN I DANMARKDANMARK   M . EDMOND RENAUD   PRESIDENT D ' HONNEUR DE LA FEDERATION NATIONALE DES TRANSPORTS ROUTIERS ( FNTR)FRANCE      DRS . P.J.G.M . VAN RENS WETENSCHAPPELIJK MEDEWERKER ,   NEDERLANDS KATHOLIEK VAKVERBONDNEDERLAND     MISS EIRLYS ROBERTS , O.B.E .   FORMERLY DEPUTY DIRECTOR , CONSUMERS ASSOCIATIONUNITED KINGDOM M . RAYMOND ROLLINGER   DIRECTEUR DE LA CHAMBRE DES METIERSLUXEMBOURG   DOTT . ALDO ROMOLI   CONFEDERAZIONE GENERALE INDUSTRIA ITALIANAITALIA      MR T . ROSEINGRAVE   NATIONAL DIRECTOR , MUINTIR NA TIREIRELAND      M . JEAN ROUZIER   SECRETAIRE CONFEDERAL DE LA CGT-FOFRANCE      DOTT . UMBERTO SCALIA   CGILITALIA      M . JEANNOT SCHNEIDER   VICE-PRESIDENT DE LA CONFEDERATION GENERALE DU TRAVAILLUXEMBOURG   DR . RUDOLF SCHNIEDERS   GENERALSEKRETAER DES DEUTSCHEN BAUERNVERBANDESDEUTSCHLAND HERR FRITZ SEYDAACK   BUNDESVERBAND DES DEUTSCHEN GROSS- UND AUSSENHANDELS E.V.DEUTSCHLAND   DR . A . E . SLOMAN   VICE-CHANCELLOR , UNIVERSITY OF ESSEXUNITED KINGDOM FORRETNINGSFOERER , MEDLEM AF FTFS FORRETNINGSUDVALG , KNUD MOLS SOERENSEN   DANSK STYRMANDSFORENINGDANMARK     M . ANDRE SOULAT   SECRETAIRE CONFEDERAL DE LA CFDTFRANCE      DR . HANS-WERNER STARATZKE   GESCHAEFTSFUEHRENDES PRAESIDIALMITGLIED DES GESAMTVERBANDES DER TEXTILINDUSTRIEDEUTSCHLAND   KONSULEN , CAND . POLIT . K . STORM HANSEN   GROSSERER SOCIETETETDANMARK     FRAU KAETE STROBEL   BUNDESMINISTER A.D.DEUTSCHLAND   M . ROGER THEISEN   ANCIEN PRESIDENT DE LA FEDERATION DES EMPLOYES PRIVESLUXEMBOURG   SIG . RAFFAELE VANNI   UILITALIA      M . GABRIEL VENTEJOL   PRESIDENT DU CONSEIL ECONOMIQUE ET SOCIALFRANCE      M . ROLAND WAGNER   PRESIDENT DE LA CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE DE STRASBOURGFRANCE   FRAU MARIA WEBER   STELLVERTRETENDE VORSITZENDE DES DEUTSCHEN GEWERKSCHAFTSBUNDESDEUTSCHLAND   DR . HANS JUERGEN WICK   GENERALSEKRETAER DES DEUTSCHEN RAIFFEISENVERBANDES E.V.DEUTSCHLAND   MR D . WILLIAMS , C.V.O .   FORMERLY DEPUTY SECRETARY , MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENTUNITED KINGDOM MR M . J . F . WYLLIE , M.B.E .   DIRECTOR , ANGLO-AMERICAN ASPHALT LTDUNITED KINGDOM MR MAURICE ZINKIN   UNILEVER LTDUNITED KINGDOM AVV . GIANCARLO ZOLLI   VIA FRA '  BARTOLOMEO 48 , FIRENZEITALIA      DR . HEINZ ZUENKLER   GESCHAEFTSFUEHRER DER REEDEREI UND SPEDITION  " BRAUNKOHLE " DEUTSCHLAND


DECISION NO. 60 OF 26 MAY 1966 CONCERNING INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCEPT OF " MEMBER OF THE FAMILY " FOR THE PURPOSE OF BENEFITS IN KIND OF MATERNITY ILLNESS INSURANCE IN THE EVENT OF TEMPORARY PRESENCE ON THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THE STATE RESPONSIBLE UNDER PARAGRAPHS 1, 3 AND 7 OF ARTICLE 19 OF REGULATION NO. 3


Avis juridique important

|

32002D0374

2002/374/EC: Council Decision of 22 April 2002 on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters concerning the provisional application of the Protocol defining, for the period 18 January 2002 to 17 January 2005, the fishing possibilities and the financial contribution provided for by the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Seychelles on fishing off Seychelles

Official Journal L 134 , 22/05/2002 P. 0037 - 0038

Council Decisionof 22 April 2002on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters concerning the provisional application of the Protocol defining, for the period 18 January 2002 to 17 January 2005, the fishing possibilities and the financial contribution provided for by the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Seychelles on fishing off Seychelles(2002/374/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 300(2) thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the CommissionWhereas:(1) Under the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Seychelles on fishing off Seychelles(1), signed in Brussels on 28 October 1987, the Contracting Parties have held negotiations with a view to determining amendments to be made to the abovementioned Agreement at the end of the period of application of the Protocol in force which is attached to the said Agreement.(2) As a result of those negotiations, a new Protocol defining, for the period from 18 January 2002 to 17 January 2005, the fishing possibilities and the financial contribution provided for by the abovementioned Agreement was initialled on 28 September 2001.(3) Under this Protocol, Community fishermen are to enjoy fishing possibilities in the waters falling within the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Republic of Seychelles for the period 18 January 2002 to 17 January 2005.(4) In order to avoid interruption of fishing activities by Community vessels, both parties have initialled an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters providing for the provisional application of the said Protocol from 18 January 2002.(5) The method for allocating the fishing possibilities among the Member States should be defined on the basis of the traditional allocation of fishing possibilities under the Fisheries Agreement,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters concerning the provisional application of the Protocol defining, for the period 18 January 2002 to 17 January 2005, the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Seychelles on fishing off Seychelles is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.The texts of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters and of the Protocol are attached to this Decision.Article 2The fishing opportunities fixed in the Protocol shall be allocated among the Member States as follows:>TABLE>If licence applications from these Member States do not cover all the fishing opportunities fixed by the Protocol, the Commission may take into consideration licence applications from any other Member State.Article 3The Member States whose vessels are fishing under this Protocol shall notify the Commission of the quantities of each stock taken in Seychelles waters in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 500/2001(2).Article 4The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters in order to bind the Community.Done at Luxembourg, 22 April 2002.For the CouncilThe PresidentM. Arias Cañete(1) OJ L 119, 7.5.1987, p. 26.(2) OJ L 73, 15.3.2001, p. 8.


Avis juridique important

|

31979D0510

79/510/EEC: Council Decision of 24 May 1979 on financial aid from the Community for the eradication of African swine fever in Malta

Official Journal L 133 , 31/05/1979 P. 0029 - 0031 Greek special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 25 P. 0105

COUNCIL DECISION  of 24 May 1979  on financial aid from the Community for the eradication of African swine fever in Malta  (79/510/EEC)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 43 thereof,  Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),  Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),  Whereas the Community should take all appropriate measures to protect itself against the appearance of African swine fever on its territory;  Whereas to this end the Community has undertaken and continues to undertake action designed to contain outbreaks of this type of disease far from its frontiers by helping countries affected to reinforce their preventive measures;  Whereas certain measures have been undertaken by the Maltese authorities, in particular the slaughter of all pigs remaining on their territory and the destruction of all meat from that slaughter;  Whereas, however, in the opinion of the Maltese authorities themselves, the measures hitherto used must be reinforced in order to attain the basic objective of eradicating the disease throughout the country by slaughtering all pigs there and of preventing reinfection by restocking pig farms using modern husbandry techniques;  Whereas the Maltese authorities have asked the Community to contribute to the cost of an effective crash programme for the eradiction of African swine fever and for restocking pig farms;  Whereas a favourable response should be given to this request and aid granted in view of the undertaking given by the Maltese authorities to protect the Community against African swine fever, to eliminate the disease completely and to prevent its recurrence by means of a crash programme to be completed within three years;  Whereas this eradication programme must include certain measures which guarantee the effectiveness of the action taken ; whereas these measures must be capable of adaptation to developments in the situation by means of a procedure in which the Member States and the Commission will be closely associated;  Whereas it is necessary to keep Member States informed on the progress of the programme;  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:    Article 1 The Community shall make a financial contribution to the eradication of African swine fever in Malta.   Article 2 The contribution shall be paid on condition that the Maltese authorities establish a crash programme for the eradication of African swine fever and the restocking of pig farms.  This plan, which must be completed within a maximum period of three years, must satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 3, and be approved in accordance with Article 4.   Article 3 The programme specified in Article 2 must provide for:    1. Rigorous eradication measures including the following:      (a) the slaughter of all pigs on the territory of Malta;           (b) the destruction or consumption of all pigmeat on Maltese territory and of all pigmeat-based products with the exception of preserves in sterilized tins;           (c) the cleaning, disinfection, disinsectization and deratization of farms and all places likely to have been contaminated by pigs, pigmeat or pigmeat-based products;  (1)OJ No C 61, 6.3.1979, p. 5. (2)OJ No C 127, 21.5.1979, p. 88.            (d) the destruction or adequate heat treatment of all scraps and swill from cooking and industrial processes using pigmeat;           (e) the searching out and systematic destruction of all scraps from international means of transport.                  2. Preventive measures including the following:      (a) the veterinary control of imports of pigmeat or pigmeat-based products likely to be infected because of conditions in the places whence they have come;           (b) the prohibition of any introduction on to Maltese territory of live pigs, whatever their origin and destination, during a period of at least six months after the measures specified in point 1 have been completed in full;           (c) by way of derogation from (b), the introduction of breeding pigs on to the island of Comino may be authorized under the conditions specified in point 3 two months after the completion of the measures specified in point 1.                  3. Measures for supervising restocking, including the following:      (a) the prohibition of the use for animal feeding of scraps and swill from cooking or industrial processes of pigmeat, except after adequate heat treatment in installations specially designed for the purpose.  The use of such products for feeding pigs shall be restricted, in any case, to rearing establishments, limited in number and specially authorized for this purpose by the competent veterinary authorities, which exclusively rear pigs for fattening;           (b) the construction or renovation of piggeries in accordance with specifications indicated by the competent authorities;           (c) a gradual restocking of all Maltese territory using as a basis the breeding pigs introduced beforehand exclusively on Comino and by means of multiplier breeding establishments producing piglets intended for fattening situated on the island of Gozo and on certain specified parts of the island of Malta where the use of scraps and swill, whether or not treated, is prohibited;           (d) the separation and total isolation of rearing establishments according to specialization (breeding pigs, multipliers and fattening pigs).  Multiplier establishments which in addition fatten all or part of exclusively their own production may be authorized by the competent veterinary authorities in those parts of Maltese territory where the use of scraps and swill, whether or not treated, is prohibited;           (e) health-protection supervision of all movements of pigs, whatever their origin and destination;           (f) health-protection supervision of all rearing establishments as they become operational.                  4. An increase in the personnel strengths and their funds of the official services responsible for implementation of the programme.          Article 4 After examination of the programme proposed by the Maltese authorities and any amendments to be made thereto, the Commission shall decide, in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 5, whether or not to approve it.   Article 5 1. Where the procedure laid down in this Article is to be used, matters shall without delay be referred by the chairman, either on his own initiative or at the request of a Member State, to the Standing Veterinary Committee (hereinafter called the "Committee") set up by the Council Decision of 15 October 1968.  2. Within the Committee the votes of Member States shall be weighted as provided in Article 148 (2) of the Treaty. The chairman shall not vote.  3. The representative of the Commission shall submit a draft of the measures to be adopted. The Committee shall deliver its opinion on such measures within a time limit set by the chairman according to the urgency of the matters concerned. Opinions shall be delivered by a majority of 41 votes.  4. The Commission shall adopt the measures and shall apply them immediately where they are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee. Where they are not in accordance with the opinion of the Committee or if no opinion is delivered, the Commission shall without delay propose to the Council the measures to be adopted. The Council shall adopt the measures by a qualified majority.  If, within three months from the date on which the proposal was submitted to it, the Council has not adopted any measures, the Commission shall adopt the proposed measures and apply them immediately, save where the Council has decided by a simple majority against those measures.   Article 6 Article 5 shall apply until 21 June 1981.    Article 7 1. The estimated assistance of the Community shall be, for the period in question, a maximum of 5 million European units of account, representing at the maximum 50 % of the total cost.  2. Payments shall be made in annual instalments, within the limits of the budgetary appropriations, on presentation of the relevant supporting documents to the Commission.  3. The three-year period for completing the programme provided for in Article 2 shall run from the date laid down by the Commission in its Decision approving the programme.   Article 8 1. The Commission shall follow the implementation of the programme referred to in Article 2. It shall make regular reports to the Member States meeting within the Committee on the progress of the programme, in the light of information obtained from the Maltese authorities and any reports from experts who, acting on behalf of the Community and appointed by the Commission, have made on the spot visits.  2. The Commission may suspend Community aid if it considers the development of the situation and the results obtained justify such a measure.  3. Amendments by the Maltese authorities to the programme as initially approved must themselves be approved by the procedure referred to in Article 4.     Done at Brussels, 24 May 1979.  For the Council  The President  J. FRANÇOIS-PONCET


Avis juridique important

|

31988D0229

88/229/Euratom: Commission Decision of 26 February 1988 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement of participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Conceptual Design Activities, by the European Atomic Energy Community, with Japan, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United States of America, by the Commission for and on behalf of the Community

Official Journal L 102 , 21/04/1988 P. 0031 - 0044

*****COMMISSION  DECISION  of 26 February 1988  concerning the conclusion of an Agreement of participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Conceptual Design Activities, by the European Atomic Energy Community, with Japan, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United States of America, by the Commission for and on behalf of the Community  (88/229/Euratom)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 101 (2) thereof,  Whereas the Council, in its decision of 8 February 1988, approved the conclusion of the Agreement of participation by the European Atomic Energy Community in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Conceptual Design Activities, with Japan, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United States of America,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  The Agreement of participation by the European Atomic Energy Community in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Conceptual Design Activities, with Japan, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United States of America shall be concluded on behalf of the Community.  The text of the Agreement is appended to this Decision.  Article 2  The President of the Commission is empowered to designate the person authorized to reply to the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (part B of the Agreement of participation) for the purpose of committing the European Atomic Energy Community.  Done at Brussels, 26 February 1988.  For the Commission  Karl-Heinz NARJES  Vice-PresidentT . KAZUHARA  FOR THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS  E . VELIKHOV  FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  J . DECKER  B . LETTER FROM THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  26 FEBRUARY 1988  SIR,  I HAVE THE HONOUR TO REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF 2 NOVEMBER 1987, ADDRESSED TO THE HEAD OF THE DELEGATION OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES TO THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN VIENNA, INVITING THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY ( EURATOM ) TO PARTICIPATE IN THE INTERNATIONAL THERMONUCLEAR EXPERIMENTAL REACTOR ( ITER ) CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ACTIVITIES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF REFERENCE AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE RECORD OF THE SECOND ITER QUADRIPARTITE INITIATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING ( VIENNA, 18 AND 19 OCTOBER 1987 ), BOTH OF WHICH ARE ANNEXED TO YOUR LETTER, TOGETHER WITH JAPAN, THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .  I HAVE THE HONOUR TO INFORM YOU OF THE AGREEMENT BY EURATOM TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AFOREMENTIONED ACTIVITIES ON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN YOUR LETTER TOGETHER WITH ITS ANNEXES .  ACCEPT, SIR, THE ASSURANCES OF MY HIGHEST CONSIDERATION .  FOR THE COMMISSION  MICHAEL GOPPEL  HEAD OF DELEGATION


Avis juridique important

|

31994D0825

94/825/EC: Commission Decision of 12 December 1994 accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of urea ammonium nitrate solution originating in Bulgaria and Poland

Official Journal L 350 , 31/12/1994 P. 0115 - 0116 Finnish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 34 P. 0081  Swedish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 34 P. 0081

COMMISSION DECISION of 12 December 1994 accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of urea ammonium nitrate solution originating in Bulgaria and Poland (94/825/EC)THE COMMISSION OF  THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 522/94 (2), and in  particular Article 10 thereof,  After consultation within the Advisory Committee,  Whereas:  (1) The Commission, by Regulation (EC) 1506/94 (3) (hereinafter referred to as the 'provisional duty Regulation'), imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of urea-ammonium-nitrate solution ('UAN') originating in Bulgaria  and Poland, and falling under CN code 3102 80 00. By Regulation (EC) No 2620/94 (4), the Council extended the validity of this duty for a period not exceeding two months.  (2) In the subsequent procedure it was established that definitive anti-dumping measures should be taken in order to eliminate injurious dumping. The findings and conclusions on all aspects of the investigation are set out in Council Regulation (EC)  3319/94 (5).  (3) Having been informed of those conclusions, the Bulgarian producer and exporter offered an undertaking with regard to the import prices to independent customers in the Community pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88. According to this  undertaking, import prices will be at a non-injurious level as established in the framework of the present anti-dumping proceeding.  (4) In addition, since the Bulgarian producer and eaxporter have undertaken to submit detailed and regular sales information to the Commission and not to enter into direct or indirect compensatory arrangements with their customers, it has been concluded  that the correct observance of the undertaking can be effectively monitored by the Commission.  (5) In view of the provisions of Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, the undertaking should enter into force on the same date as the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) 3319/94 in the present proceeding.  (6) In those circumstances, the undertaking offered is considered acceptable and the investigation can, therefore, be terminated with respect to the Bulgarian producer and exporter concerned.  (7) The producer and exporter concerned were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the definitive anti-dumping measures were proposed and have had the opportunity to comment on all aspects of the investigation.  Accordingly should the undertaking be withdrawn or should the Commission have reason to believe that the undertaking has been violated, it may, where the interests of the Community so require, apply provisional anti-dumping duties forthwith under  Article 10 (6) of Regulation (EEC) 2423/88 and, subsequently definitive anti-dumping duties could be imposed by the Council.  (8) When the Advisory Committee was consulted on the acceptance of the undertakings offered, several Member States raised objections. Therefore, in accordance with Article 9 and 10 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, the Commission sent a report to the  Council on the results of the consultations and a proposal that the investigation be terminated by the acceptance of undertakings. Consequently, in accordance with the said Articles 9 and 10 (1) this Decision will only take effect and be published if  the Council does not decide otherwise within one month,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  The undertaking offered by Agropolychim, Devnya and Chimimport Investment and Fertilizer Inc., Sofia in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of urea ammonium nitrate solution originating in Bulgaria and Poland and falling  within CN code 3102 80 00 is hereby accepted. This acceptance shall take effect on the date of entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 3319/94.   Article 2  The investigation in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding referred to in Article 1 is hereby terminated in respect of the companies named in that Article.  Done at Brussels, 12 December 1994.  For the Commission Karel VAN MIERT Member of the Commission  (1) OJ No L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1.  (2) OJ No L 66, 10. 3. 1994, p. 10.  (3) OJ No L 162, 30. 6. 1994, p. 16.  (4) OJ No L 280, 29. 10. 1994, p. 1.  (5) See page 20 of this Official Journal.