Avis juridique important

|

31981D0428

81/428/EEC: Commission Decision of 20 May 1981 establishing a Committee on Commerce and Distribution

Official Journal L 165 , 23/06/1981 P. 0024 - 0025 Finnish special edition: Chapter 15 Volume 3 P. 0117  Spanish special edition: Chapter 13 Volume 11 P. 0201  Swedish special edition: Chapter 15 Volume 3 P. 0117  Portuguese special edition Chapter 13 Volume 11 P. 0201

COMMISSION DECISION of 20 May 1981 establishing a Committee on Commerce and Distribution (81/428/EEC)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Whereas the constant improvement of working and living conditions and harmonious economic development are objectives of the European Economic Community;  Whereas Article 2 of the Treaty defines the Community's aim as "to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it";  Whereas the establishment of close and permanent links with trade interests may help further these aims ; whereas the best way of establishing these links is to set up a Committee on Commerce and Distribution attached to the Commission, on which these organizations are represented;  Whereas persons with extensive knowledge of commerce and distribution should be represented on the Committee;  Whereas, since its inception in 1978 for an experimental period of three years, the Committee on Commerce and Distribution has produced beneficial results for the Commission's departments,  HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:    Article 1 The Commission hereby establishes a Committee on Commerce and Distribution, hereinafter referred to as "the Committee".  The Committee shall be composed of representatives of European and national trade organizations and other prominent persons with special knowledge of commerce and distribution who shall all be heads or managers of undertakings.   Article 2 The Committee shall provide the Commission, at its request, with opinions on all matters relating to commerce and distribution in the Community and on the repercussions which the Commissions's activities in other sectors have on commerce.   Article 3 The Committee shall be composed of 42 members.  22 seats shall be allocated to persons with special knowledge of commerce and distribution representing the organizations of the various forms of trading at Community level, or at national level if such representation does not exist in all Member States.  Two seats per Member State shall be allocated to national professional organizations most representative of commerce in that Member State.  One observer seat shall be allocated to UNICE and one to the Permanent Conference of Chambers of Commerce and Industry.   Article 4 The members of the Committee shall be appointed by the Commission.  The organizations referred to in the third paragraph of Article 3 shall submit to the Commission a list comprising twice as many names as there are seats to be filled.  Each organization representing the various forms of trading referred to in the second paragraph of Article 3 shall propose to the Commission at least two candidates for the category of persons with special knowledge of the distributive trades. 11 of the 22 persons appointed by the Commission shall be chosen from among these candidates.   Article 5 The term of office of a member of the Committee shall be two years and shall be renewable.  After expiry of the two-year period, Committee members shall remain in office until they have been replaced or until their appointments have been renewed.   A member's appointment shall be terminated before the expiry of the two-year period if the member resigns, ceases to belong to the organization which he represents, or dies. Also, a member's appointment may be terminated if the organization which nominated him as a candidate requests that he be replaced.  He shall be replaced for the remainder of his term of office in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 4.  Members shall not be remunerated for their services.   Article 6 The list of members shall be published by the Commission in the Official Journal of the European Communities for information purposes.   Article 7 The Committee shall elect from among its own members a steering committee consisting of ten members taking account of the desirability of having one member from each Member State of the Community.  The steering committee shall prepare the Committee's meetings with the assistance of the departments of the Commission.   Article 8 The Commission may invite any person with special knowledge of any particular item on the agenda to participate in the Committee's work in an expert capacity.  Experts shall participate only in the discussion of items for which their attendance is requested.   Article 9 The Committee may set up working parties.   Article 10 Meetings of the Committee shall be convened by the Commission and the Committee shall meet at the place where the Commission has its seat. It shall meet not less than twice a year.  Representatives of the relevant Commission departments shall take part in the meetings of the Committee, its steering committee and working parties.  A representative of the Commission shall take the chair at meetings of the Committee's steering committee and working parties.   Article 11 When seeking the opinion of the Committee, the Commission may set a date by which the opinion shall be given.   Article 12 Without prejudice to Article 214 of the Treaty, if the Commission informs the members of the Committee or of its working parties that an opinion requested or a question raised involves confidential matters, they shall be under an obligation not to disclose information which comes to them through the work of the Committee or of its working parties.  In such cases, only the members of the Committee and representatives of Commission departments shall be present at meetings.   Article 13 This Decision shall enter into force on 20 May 1981.     Done at Brussels, 20 May 1981.  For the Commission  Karl-Heinz NARJES  Member of the Commission


Avis juridique important

|

31992D0233

92/233/EEC: Council Decision of 6 April 1992 on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters amending the agreement between the European Economic Community and the Federative Republic of Brazil on trade in textile products

Official Journal L 111 , 29/04/1992 P. 0026

COUNCIL DECISION  of 6 April 1992  on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters amending the agreement between the European Economic Community and the Federative Republic of Brazil on trade in textile products   (92/233/EEC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,  Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,  Whereas the Commission has negotiated on behalf of the Community an Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters amending the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Federative Republic of Brazil on trade in textile products for 12  months (1 January to 31 December 1992);  Whereas the two parties have agreed that this Agreement should replace the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters initialled on 20 December 1991 and implemented on 10 February 1992 by the Council on a provisional basis for three months (1  January to 31 March 1992) by Decision 92/114/EEC (1);  Whereas this Agreement should be approved,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  1. The Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters amending the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Federative Republic of Brazil on trade in textile products is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.  The text of that Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters is attached to this Decision.  The Commission has been requested to inform the Federative Republic of Brazil of this Decision and to obtain its agreement by means of an exchange of notes, which it will communicate to the Council.  The text of that exchange of notes is attached to this Decision.  2. The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the persons empowered to sign the Agreement referred to in paragraph 1 in order to bind the Community.  Article 2  1. This Decision shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.  It shall apply from 1 January 1992.  2. Decision 92/114/EEC is hereby repealed when this Decision enters into force. Done at Luxembourg, 6 April 1992. For the Council  The President  Joao PINHEIRO   (1) OJ No L 43, 19. 2. 1992, p. 25.


title: Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1102 of 20 June 2017 amending Decision 2014/219/CFSP on the European Union CSDP Mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali)

text:
               21.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 158/44

         COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2017/1102
   of 20 June 2017
   amending Decision 2014/219/CFSP on the European Union CSDP Mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Articles 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               In its conclusions of 20 June 2016, the Council called for the possibilities for the regionalisation of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions in the Sahel region to be further examined as early as possible.

               (2)

               On 15 May 2017, the Council approved a Concept of Operations on Regionalisation of CSDP action in the Sahel.

               (3)

               The Concept of Operations on Regionalisation of CSDP action in the Sahel provides that the strategic objectives of regionalisation of CSDP actions in the Sahel region are: to support cross-border cooperation in the Sahel, to support regional cooperation structures, in particular those of the G5 Sahel countries, and in this context, to enhance national capacities of the G5 Sahel countries.

               (4)

               In the first phase, a CSDP security network in the Sahel region should be set up and a needs assessment should be conducted with a view to the development of a CSDP Regional Implementation Plan to be agreed upon by the Member States.

               (5)

               In order to further those purposes, a Regional Coordination Cell, including Internal Security and Defence Experts (ISDE) in G5 Sahel countries, should be established within EUCAP Sahel Mali.

               (6)

               Council Decision 2014/219/CFSP (1) should therefore be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   In Decision 2014/219/CFSP the following article is inserted:

      ‘Article 14a
      1.   A Regional Coordination Cell (RCC) shall be established within EUCAP Sahel Mali.
      2.   The RCC shall be based at EUCAP Sahel Mali's Headquarters in Bamako. It shall include the staff collocated with EUCAP Sahel Mali and the Internal Security and Defence Experts (ISDE) located in the Union Delegations to Burkina Faso, Chad, Mauritania and Niger.
      3.   The objectives of the RCC, in close cooperation with existing CSDP Missions in the Sahel, shall be:

                  (a)

                  to contribute to the Union's situational awareness of G5 Sahel countries' security and defence needs and gaps which pertain to regional cross-border cooperation and which deal with security challenges, with a view to the development of a CSDP Regional Implementation Plan that will make recommendations for any subsequent phases;

                  (b)

                  to facilitate the organisation of training courses by Union CSDP Missions in the Sahel for G5 Sahel countries security and defence trainees.

            4.   The ISDE shall collect information related to security and defence matters in their host countries. They shall provide such information and, where appropriate, make recommendations to the Head of the RCC. They shall keep the Head of the Union Delegation in the place where they are located duly informed.
      5.   The Civilian Operation Commander shall exercise strategic command and control of the RCC, under the political control and strategic direction of the PSC and overall authority of the HR. By way of derogation from Article 6(1), the Head of the RCC shall be directly responsible to the Civilian Operation Commander and shall act in accordance with the instructions given by him. The Head of the RCC shall issue instructions to all RCC staff.
      6.   The Head of Mission shall exercise authority over RCC staff in application of Article 6(2) to (4), and Article 11. As regards ISDE, this is without prejudice to paragraph 7 of this Article.
      7.   EUCAP Sahel Mali shall enter into the necessary administrative arrangements with the Union Delegations to Burkina Faso, Chad, Mauritania and Niger.
      Those administrative arrangements shall:

                  (a)

                  ensure that the logistical and security support necessary for ISDE to accomplish their tasks is provided to them;

                  (b)

                  provide that the Heads of Delegation have authority over the ISDE in their respective Union Delegations, notably for the purposes of fulfilling their duty of care, ensuring compliance with applicable security requirements and contributing to the exercise of disciplinary control, and are kept duly informed by ISDE of their activities;

                  (c)

                  provide that the Heads of Delegation must ensure that the ISDE enjoy the same privileges and immunities as granted to staff in the Union Delegations in the place where they are located.’.

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

      Done at Luxembourg, 20 June 2017.

            For the Council

            The President

         H. DALLI

      (1)  Council Decision 2014/219/CFSP of 15 April 2014 on the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (OJ L 113, 16.4.2014, p. 21).


Avis juridique important

|

32003D0628(01)

Council Decision of 5 June 2003 adjusting the basic salaries and allowances applicable to Europol staff

Official Journal C 152 , 28/06/2003 P. 0007 - 0008

Council Decisionof 5 June 2003adjusting the basic salaries and allowances applicable to Europol staff(2003/C 152/03)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees(1) (the "Staff Regulations"), and in particular Article 44 thereof,Having regard to the initiative of the Hellenic Republic(2),Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament(3),Having regard to the review of remuneration of officials of Europol by the Management Board of Europol,Whereas:(1) In the aforementioned review, the Management Board took account of the changes in the cost of living in the Netherlands, as well as of the changes in salaries in the public service in the Member States.(2) The said review justifies an increase of 4,4 % of remuneration for the period between 1 July 2002 and 1 July 2003.(3) It is for the Council, acting unanimously, to adjust the basic salaries and allowances of officials of Europol, on the basis of the review,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The Staff Regulations are hereby amended as follows:1. With effect from 1 July 2002:(a) the table of basic monthly salaries in Article 45 shall be replaced by the following:">TABLE>"(b) in Article 59(3), the amount "EUR 908,40" shall be replaced by "EUR 948,37";(c) in Article 59(3), the amount "EUR 1816,80" shall be replaced by "EUR 1896,74";(d) in Article 60(1), the amount "EUR 242,24" shall be replaced by "EUR 252,90";(e) in Article 2(1) of Appendix 5, the amount "EUR 253,25" shall be replaced by "EUR 264,39";(f) in Article 3(1) of Appendix 5, the amount "EUR 11010,92" shall be replaced by "EUR 11495,40";(g) in Article 3(1) of Appendix 5, the amount "EUR 2477,46" shall be replaced by "EUR 2586,47";(h) in Article 3(2) of Appendix 5, the amount "EUR 14864,74" shall be replaced by "EUR 15518,79";(i) in Article 4(1) of Appendix 5, the amount "EUR 1101,09" shall be replaced by "EUR 1149,54";(j) in Article 4(1) of Appendix 5, the amount "EUR 825,83" shall be replaced by "EUR 862,17";(k) in Article 4(1) of Appendix 5, the amount "EUR 550,54" shall be replaced by "EUR 574,76";(l) in Article 4(1) of Appendix 5, the amount "EUR 440,43" shall be replaced by "EUR 459,81";(m) in Article 5(3) of Appendix 5, the amount "EUR 1553,86" shall be replaced by "EUR 1622,23";(n) in Article 5(3) of Appendix 5, the amount "EUR 2071,82" shall be replaced by "EUR 2162,98";(o) in Article 5(3) of Appendix 5, the amount "EUR 2589,77" shall be replaced by "EUR 2703,72";2. With effect from the date on which this Decision takes effect:- in Article 7(3) of Appendix 5, the amount "EUR 0,23" shall be replaced by "EUR 0,24".Article 2This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.Article 3This Decision shall take effect on the day following that of its adoption.Done at Luxembourg, 5 June 2003.For the CouncilThe PresidentM. Chrisochoïdis(1) OJ C 26, 30.1.1999, p. 23. Act as last amended by the Council Act of 19 December 2002 (OJ C 24, 31.1.2003, p. 1).(2) OJ C 52, 6.3.2003, p. 17.(3) Opinion of 9 April 2003 (not yet published in the Official Journal).


Avis juridique important

|

32001D0647

2001/647/EC: Council Decision of 18 June 2001 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Republic of Cyprus adding a Protocol on mutual administrative assistance in customs matters to the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Cyprus

Official Journal L 229 , 25/08/2001 P. 0005 - 0005

Council Decisionof 18 June 2001concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Republic of Cyprus adding a Protocol on mutual administrative assistance in customs matters to the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Cyprus(2001/647/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,Whereas:(1) To allow mutual administrative assistance in customs matters between the two parties as provided for in the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Cyprus(1), a Protocol should be added to that Agreement.(2) Negotiations to that effect have taken place with the Republic of Cyprus and have led to an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters, which it is in the Community's interest to approve,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Republic of Cyprus adding a Protocol on mutual administrative assistance in customs matters to the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Cyprus is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.The text of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters is attached to this Decision.Article 2The 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.Article 3The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Community, give the notification provided for by the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters.Done at Luxembourg, 18 June 2001.For the CouncilThe PresidentM. Winberg(1) OJ L 133, 21.5.1973, p. 1.


Avis juridique important

|

31981D0212

81/212/EEC: Council Decision of 26 March 1981 replacing a member of the Committee of the European Social Fund

Official Journal L 100 , 11/04/1981 P. 0024 - 0024

****( 1 ) OJ NO L 249 , 10 . 11 . 1971 , P . 54 .  ( 2 ) OJ NO 56 , 31 . 8 . 1960 , P . 1201/60 .  ( 3 ) OJ NO L 91 , 12 . 4 . 1968 , P . 25 .    COUNCIL DECISION   OF 26 MARCH 1981   REPLACING A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND  ( 81/212/EEC )   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY ,   HAVING REGARD TO REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2396/71 ( 1 ) ON THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE RULES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND ( 2 ), AS AMENDED BY THE COUNCIL DECISION OF 9 APRIL 1968 ( 3 ), AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 7 THEREOF ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE COUNCIL DECISION OF 10 NOVEMBER 1980 APPOINTING THE MEMBERS AND ALTERNATES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 9 NOVEMBER 1982 ,   WHEREAS A SEAT AS MEMBER OF THE AFORESAID COMMITTEE IN THE WORKERS '  CATEGORY HAS FALLEN VACANT FOLLOWING THE RESIGNATION OF MR MINIUTTI , NOTIFIED TO THE COUNCIL ON 4 MARCH 1981 ;   HAVING REGARD TO THE NOMINATION SUBMITTED ON 5 MARCH 1981 ,   HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :   SOLE ARTICLE   MR FRANCO CHITTOLINA IS HEREBY APPOINTED MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND IN PLACE OF MR MINIUTTI FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE LATTER ' S TERM OF OFFICE , WHICH RUNS UNTIL 9 NOVEMBER 1982 .   DONE AT BRUSSELS , 26 MARCH 1981 .   FOR THE COUNCIL   THE PRESIDENT   D . S . TUIJNMAN


title: Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/890 of 6 June 2016 amending Decision 2014/219/CFSP on the European Union CSDP Mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali)

text:
               7.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 149/6

         COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2016/890
   of 6 June 2016
   amending Decision 2014/219/CFSP on the European Union CSDP Mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 28, Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 15 April 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/219/CFSP (1) on the European Union CSDP Mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali).

               (2)

               On 18 January 2016, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/50 (2) providing EUCAP Sahel Mali with a reference amount until 14 January 2017.

               (3)

               EUCAP Sahel Mali should take enhanced security measures and the number of staff should be adapted.

               (4)

               Decision 2014/219/CFSP should be amended to adapt the reference amount for EUCAP Sahel Mali,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   In Article 14 of Decision 2014/219/CFSP, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

      ‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUCAP Sahel Mali from 15 April 2014 to 14 January 2015 shall be EUR 5 500 000. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUCAP Sahel Mali from 15 January 2015 to 14 January 2016 shall be EUR 11 400 000. The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUCAP Sahel Mali from 15 January 2016 to 14 January 2017 shall be EUR 19 775 000. The financial reference amount for the subsequent periods shall be decided by the Council.’.

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

      Done at Luxembourg, 6 June 2016.

            For the Council

            The President

         H.G.J. KAMP

      (1)  Decision 2014/219/CFSP of 15 April 2014 on the European Union CSDP Mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali), (OJ L 113, 16.4.2014, p. 21).

      (2)  Decision (CFSP) 2016/50 of 18 January 2016 amending Decision 2014/219/CFSP on the European Union CSDP Mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (OJ L 12, 19.1.2016, p. 48).


title: Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems — Decision No S9 of 20 June 2013 concerning refund procedures for the implementation of Articles 35 and 41 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004  Text of relevance to the EEA and to the EC/Switzerland Agreement

text:
               27.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/8

         ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION FOR THE COORDINATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEMS
   DECISION No S9
   of 20 June 2013
   concerning refund procedures for the implementation of Articles 35 and 41 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004
   (Text of relevance to the EEA and to the EC/Switzerland Agreement)
   2013/C 279/05
   THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION FOR THE COORDINATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEMS,
   Having regard to Article 72(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1), under which the Administrative Commission is responsible for dealing with all administrative questions or questions of interpretation arising from the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (2),
   Having regard to Articles 35 and 41 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004,
   Having regard to Articles 66 to 68 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009,
   Acting in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 71(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The cost of the benefits in kind provided by the institution of one Member State on behalf of the institution of another Member State, shall be fully refunded.

               (2)

               The refunds between institutions, if not otherwise agreed, must be carried out with speed and efficiency in order to prevent a built-up of claims which remain unsettled for longer periods of time.

               (3)

               An accumulation of claims could endanger the efficient functioning of the Union system and jeopardise the right of individuals.

               (4)

               The Administrative Commission in Decision No S1 has decided that the institution of the place of stay shall be reimbursed for the cost of health care provided on the basis of a valid European Health Insurance Card.

               (5)

               Commonly agreed best practices would contribute to a speedy and efficient settlement of refunds between the institutions,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   A.   Reimbursement on the basis of actual expenditure (Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009)

   Article 1
   The institution which claims a refund based on actual expenditure shall introduce the claim at the latest within the deadline mentioned in Article 67(1) Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (hereinafter ‘Implementing Regulation’). The institution which receives a claim shall ensure the payment of the claim within the time limit provided for in Article 67(5) of the Implementing Regulation but before this deadline as soon as it is in a position to do so.
   Article 2
   1.   Claims for refund of benefits, which have been provided on the basis of a European Health Insurance Card (EHIC), a document replacing the EHIC or any other entitlement document, may be rejected and the claim returned to the creditor institution in case the claim, for example:

               —

               is incomplete and/ or incorrectly filled out,

               —

               concerns benefits which have not been given within the validity period of the EHIC or the entitlement document used by the recipient of the benefits.

         2.   A claim may not be rejected on the grounds that the person has ceased to be insured with the institution, which has issued the EHIC or the entitlement document, provided that the benefits were given to the beneficiary within the validity period of the document used.
   3.   An institution which is obliged to refund the cost of benefits provided on the basis of an EHIC may request that the institution with which the person was rightly registered at the time of the award of the benefits shall refund the cost of those benefits to the first institution, or if the person was not entitled to use the EHIC, settle the matter with the person concerned.
   Article 3
   A claim may not be reviewed by the debtor institution as regards its compliance with Articles 19 and 27(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, unless there are reasonable grounds to suspect abuse as clarified under the case-law by the European Court of Justice (3). The debtor institution is consequently obliged to accept the information on which the claim is based and to reimburse the claim. In the case there is suspicion of abuse the debtor institution may for relevant reasons reject the claim as provided for under Article 67(5) of the Implementing Regulation.
   Article 4
   For the purpose of the application of Articles 2 and 3, if the debtor institution expresses doubts as to the correctness of the facts, on which a claim is based, it is incumbent on the creditor institution to reconsider, whether the claim was properly issued and, if appropriate, to withdraw or recalculate the claim.
   Article 5
   A claim, which is introduced after the deadline specified in Article 67(1) of the Implementing Regulation, shall not be considered.
   B.   Reimbursement on the basis of fixed amounts (Article 63 of Implementing Regulation)

   Article 6
   The inventory provided for in Article 64(4) of the Implementing Regulation shall be presented to the liaison body of the debtor member State by the end of the year following the reference year, and the claims based on this inventory shall be introduced to the same body as soon as possible following the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the annual fixed amounts per person, but within the time limit provided for in Article 67(2) of the Implementing Regulation.
   Article 7
   The creditor institution shall whenever possible present the claims which concern a particular calendar year on the same occasion to the debtor institution.
   Article 8
   The debtor institution which receives a claim for a refund determined on the basis of fixed amounts shall ensure the payment of the claim within the time limit provided for in Article 67(5) of the Implementing Regulation but before this deadline as soon as it is in a position to do so.
   Article 9
   A claim, which is introduced after the deadline specified in Article 67(2) of the Implementing Regulation, shall not be considered.
   Article 10
   A claim for a refund determined on the basis of fixed amounts may be rejected and returned to the creditor institution in case the claim, for example:

               —

               is incomplete and/ or incorrectly filled out,

               —

               refers to a time period which is not covered by registration on the basis of valid entitlement document.

         Article 11
   If the debtor institution expresses doubts as to the correctness of the facts on which a claim is based, it is incumbent on the creditor institution to reconsider, whether the invoice was properly issued and, if appropriate, to withdraw or recalculate the claim.
   C.   Settlement of claims (Article 67 of Implementing Regulation)

   Article 12
   1.   In line with Article 67(5) of the Implementing Regulation, no claims can be contested after 18 months of the end of the month during which they were introduced to the liaison body of the debtor Member State.
   2.   Where the liaison body of the creditor Member State has not replied and submitted the requested evidence within 12 months of the end of the month during which the contestation was received by the liaison body of the creditor Member State, the contestation shall be deemed to be accepted by the creditor Member State and the claim or its relevant parts shall be definitely rejected.
   D.   Down payments and interest on late payments (Article 68 of Implementing Regulation)

   Article 13
   In the case of a down payment under Article 68 of the Implementing Regulation be made, the amount of the down payment shall be determined separately for claims based on actual expenditure (Article 67(1) of the Implementing Regulation) and claims based on fixed amounts (Article 67(2) of the Implementing Regulation).
   Article 14
   1.   A down payment pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Implementing Regulation shall represent at least 90 % of the total amount of the initial claim by the liaison body of the creditor Member State.
   2.   If the creditor Member State has made a general statement that it accepts down payments such payments will be automatically considered to be accepted. The Audit Board shall draw up a list of Member States that have stated they accept down payments.
   3.   The Member States that have not stated that they accept down payments generally shall reply to specific offers of down payment within six months of the end of the month during which the claim is introduced. In the absence of a reply within the given timeframe the down payment shall be considered as accepted and shall be executed.
   Article 15
   1.   In the settlement of a claim for which a down payment was made, the debtor shall only be bound to settle the difference between the final amount of the claim and the down payment.
   2.   If the amount of the claim is less than the down payment determined on the basis of the original amount of the claim, the creditor Member State shall either:

               (a)

               Repay the amount in excess to the debtor Member State. Such settlement transaction shall be carried out by the liaison body of the creditor Member State without any delay and no later than six months after the end of the month during which the amount of the claim was determined; or

               (b)

               Agree with the debtor Member State to recover the excess amount by offsetting a later claim. The settlement act shall clearly identify the excess amount recovered through the later claim.

         3.   Interest generated by a down payment does not reduce the debt of the debtor Member State and shall remain as an asset of the creditor Member State.
   Article 16
   1.   Interest on late payments charged pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Implementing Regulation shall be calculated on the basis of months according to the following formula:

   Where:

               —

               I represents the interest on late payment.

               —

               PV (‘present value’) represents the value of the late payment; the value being determined as the amount of the outstanding claim which has not been settled within the time limits set out in Articles 67(5) and 67(6) of the Implementing Regulation and which has not been covered by a down payment in accordance with Article 68(1) of the Implementing Regulation. The present value shall include only the claim or its parts, which have been mutually recognised by the debtor and creditor Member States as valid, even if all or part of the claim was subject to a contestation procedure.

               —

               i represents annual interest rate established by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations, which was in force on the first day of the month on which the payment was due.

               —

                     n
                   represents the period (months) starting with the first month after the deadlines specified in Article 68(1) of the Implementing Regulation has passed and continuing until and including the month before the month during which the payment is received. The period shall not be interrupted in the course of the procedure pursuant to Article 67(7) of the Implementing Regulation.

         2.   The claim for interest on late payment shall be introduced by the liaison body of the creditor Member State to the liaison body of the debtor Member State within six months following the month during which the late payment was made.
   3.   The claim for interest on late payments introduced after the deadline set out in paragraph 2 shall not be considered.
   Article 17
   1.   The interest on late payment shall be paid to the liaison body of the creditor Member State within 12 months of the end of the month during which the claim was introduced to the liaison body of the debtor Member State.
   2.   The Audit Board shall facilitate the final closing of accounts where a settlement of the claim for interest on late payment was not reached within the periods set out in paragraph 1, upon a reasoned request by one of the parties. The reasoned opinion of the Audit Board shall be delivered within six months following the month in which the matter was referred to it.
   E.   Miscellaneous provisions

   Article 18
   1.   For the purpose of payments referred to in the Decision, the date of payment is the value date of the transaction as introduced by the banking institution of the liaison body of the creditor Member State.
   2.   The liaison body of the debtor Member State shall acknowledge receipt of an introduced claim within two months from the date of receipt of the claim. The acknowledgment shall specify the date when the claimed was received.
   3.   Two or more Member States, or their competent authorities or liaison bodies, may waive or provide for other methods of settlement for items covered by this Decision.
   4.   The opinion of the Audit Board delivered under Article 67(7) of the Implementing Regulation may waive or provide for other methods of settlement for items covered by this Decision, taking into account the principle of a good cooperation between the authorities and institutions of the Member States.
   F.   Final provisions

   Article 19
   1.   The institutions should ensure there is good cooperation between them and act as if they were implementing their own legislation.
   2.   This Decision will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. It will apply from the first day following the publication to all claims for reimbursement on the basis of actual expenditure recorded in the accounts for the creditor Member State after the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 and to all claims for reimbursement on the basis of fixed amounts published in the Official Journal of the European Union after the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009.
   3.   This Decision replaces Decision No S4 of 2 October 2009.
   4.   By derogation from paragraph 2, Articles 12(2) and 18(2) apply to claims referred to in paragraph 2 which were introduced to the liaison body of the debtor Member State after the publication of this Decision in the Official Journal of the European Union.

            The Chair of the Administrative Commission

         Anne McMANUS

      (1)  OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 284, 30.10.2009, p. 1.

      (3)  Judgement of 12 April 2005 in case C-145/03 ‘Heirs of Annette Keller v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) and Instituto Nacional de Gestión Sanitaria (Ingesa)’, ECR 2005 Page I-02529.


Avis juridique important

|

41999D0499

1999/499/EC, ECSC, Euratom: Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States by common Accord with the nominee for President of the Commission of 19 July 1999 nominating persons whom the governments of the Member States intend to appoint as members of the Commission of the European Communities

Official Journal L 194 , 27/07/1999 P. 0045 - 0046

DECISION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATESBY COMMON ACCORD WITH THE NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSIONof 19 July 1999nominating persons whom the governments of the Member States intend to appoint as members of the Commission of the European Communities(1999/499/EC, ECSC, Euratom)THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, BY COMMON ACCORD WITH THE NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 214(2) and Article 215 thereof,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 10(2) and Article 12 thereof,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 127(2) and Article 128 thereof,Whereas:(1) By a declaration adopted on the sidelines of the European Council of 24 March 1999, the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States nominated by common accord Mr Romano Prodi as the person they intented to appoint as President of the Commission;(2) The European Parliament approved this nomination by a Resolution dated 5 May 1999;(3) By a declaration dated 9 July 1999, Mr Romano Prodi made known the results of his contacts with the Governments of the Member States;(4) Bearing in mind the resignation as a whole, on 16 March 1999, of the Members of the Commission, who had been appointed until 22 January 2000, it is appropriate to allow the new Commission to take up office as soon as possible and to continue its work with a full mandate as from 23 January 2000 for the following five years,HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 11. The Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, by common accord with Mr Romano Prodi, nominee for President of the Commission, intend to appoint the following nominated persons as Members of the Commission, to replace the Members of the present Commission who have resigned, both for the duration of their term of office which continues to run until 22 January 2000, and for the following five years, namely from 23 January 2000 to 22 January 2005:- Mr Michel Barnier- Mr Frits Bolkestein- Mr Philippe Busquin- Mr David Byrne- Mrs Loyola de Palacio del Valle Lersundi- Mrs Anna Diamantopoúlou- Mr Franz Fischler- Mr Neil Kinnock- Mr Pascal Lamy- Mr Erkki Liikanen- Mr Mario Monti- Mr Poul Nielsen- Mr Christopher Patten- Mrs Viviane Reding- Mrs Michaele Schreyer- Mr Pedro Solbes Mira- Mr Günter Verheugen- Mr António Vitorino- Mrs Margot Wallström2. The President and the other Members of the Commission thus nominated shall be subject as a body to a vote of approval by the European Parliament.Article 2This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.Article 3This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.Done at Brussels, 19 July 1999.The PresidentT. HALONEN


Avis juridique important

|

32000D0003

2000/3/EC: Council Decision of 21 December 1999 on the provisional application of the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and the Arab Republic of Egypt on trade in textile products

Official Journal L 002 , 05/01/2000 P. 0068 - 0068

COUNCIL DECISIONof 21 December 1999on the provisional application of the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and the Arab Republic of Egypt on trade in textile products(2000/3/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 thereof, in conjunction with Article 300(2), first sentence thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,Whereas:(1) The Commission has negotiated on behalf of the European Community a Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and the Arab Republic of Egypt on trade in textile products;(2) The Memorandum of Understanding should be applied on a provisional basis from 1 January 2000 pending the completion of the producers for its conclusion, subject to reciprocal provisional application by the Arab Republic of Egypt,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Sole ArticleThe Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and the Arab Republic of Egypt on trade in textile products shall be applied on a provisional basis from 1 January 2000 pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusions, subject to reciprocal provisional application by the Arab Republic of Egypt(1).The text of the initialled Memorandum of Understanding is attached to this Decision.Done at Brussels, 21 December 1999.For the CouncilThe PresidentT. HALONEN(1) The date from which the Memorandum of Understanding will apply on a provisional basis will be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, C-series by the General Secretariat of the Council.


Important legal notice

|

E2000C0078

Decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority No 78/00/COL of 12 April 2000 revising the guidelines on the application of the EEA State aid provisions to State guarantees and to guarantees given to public enterprises in the manufacturing sector, and amending for the twenty-seventh time the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the field of State aid

Official Journal L 274 , 26/10/2000 P. 0029 - 0035

Decision of the EFTA Surveillance AuthorityNo 78/00/COLof 12 April 2000revising the guidelines on the application of the EEA State aid provisions to State guarantees and to guarantees given to public enterprises in the manufacturing sector, and amending for the twenty-seventh time the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the field of State aidTHE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area(1), and in particular Articles 61 to 63 thereof,Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice(2), and in particular Article 24 and Article 1 of Protocol 3 thereto,Whereas under Article 24 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall give effect to the provisions concerning State aid;Whereas under Article 5(2)(b) of the Surveillance and Court Agreement the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall issue notices or guidelines on matters dealt with in the EEA Agreement, if that Agreement or the Surveillance and Court Agreement expressly so provides or if the EFTA Surveillance Authority considers it necessary;Recalling the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the field of State aid(3) adopted on 19 January 1994 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority(4), in particular the provisions contained in Chapter 17 (aid in the form of State guarantees) and paragraph 7(2) of Chapter 20 (guarantees to public enterprises in the manufacturing sector) thereof;Whereas the European Commission issued on 24 November 1999 a notice to the Member States on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (OJ C 71, 11.3.2000, p. 14);Whereas this notice is of relevance also for the European Economic Area;Whereas a uniform application of the EEA State aid rules is to be ensured throughout the European Economic Area;Whereas according to point II under the heading "General" at the end of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement, the EFTA Surveillance Authority is to adopt, after consultation with the Commission, acts corresponding to those adopted by the Commission, in order to maintain equal conditions of competition;Having consulted the European Commission;Recalling that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has consulted the EFTA States in a multilateral meeting on the subject,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:1. The State Aid Guidelines shall be amended by replacing the existing Chapter 17 and paragraph 7(2)(1) of Chapter 20 with a new Chapter 17 "State guarantees", contained in Annex I to this Decision.2. The Decision, including Annex I, shall be published in the EEA section of and the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities.3. The EFTA States shall be informed by means of a copy of the Decision, including Annex I.4. The European Commission shall be informed, in accordance with point (d) of Protocol 27 to the EEA Agreement, by means of a copy of this Decision, including Annex I.5. The Decision shall be authentic in the English language.Done at Brussels, 12 April 2000.For the EFTA Surveillance AuthorityThe PresidentKnut Almestad(1) Hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement.(2) Hereinafter referred to as the Surveillance and Court Agreement.(3) Hereinafter referred to as the State Aid Guidelines.(4) Initially published in OJ L 231 of 3.9.1994 and in the EEA Supplement No 32 of the same date, last amendment (26th) adopted by Decision No 72/00/COL of 5.4.2000 (see page 26 of this Official Journal).ANNEX I"17. STATE GUARANTEES(1)17.1. Introduction1. This chapter outlines the EFTA Surveillance authority's approach to State aid granted in the form of guarantees. Guarantees are usually associated with a loan or other financial obligation to be contracted by a borrower with a lender. However, this chapter covers all forms of guarantees, irrespective of their legal basis and the transaction covered. Guarantees may be granted as individual guarantees or within guarantee schemes. If aid is involved, this aid in most cases benefits the borrower. However, in certain circumstances, there may also be an aid to the lender.2. This chapter applies without prejudice to Article 125 of the EEA Agreement and thus does not prejudice the rules in the EFTA States governing the system of property ownership. The EFTA Surveillance Authority is neutral as regards public or private ownership. This notice does not apply to export credit guarantees.3. The EFTA Surveillance Authority adopted in 1994 guidelines concerning State guarantees(2), which stipulated that the EFTA Surveillance Authority would regard all guarantees given by the State, either directly or by delegation through financial institutions, as falling within the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. According to these guidelines, the EFTA Surveillance Authority should be notified of any plans to establish guarantee schemes or grant guarantees outside a scheme. The guidelines adopted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority in 1994 on the application of State aid provisions to public enterprises in the manufacturing sector(3) also addressed the subject of guarantees.4. Experience gained in the mean time suggests that the policy pursued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority in this area should be reviewed. This chapter replaces the existing Chapter 17 on State guarantees and Chapter 20, point 20.7.2(1). Its purpose is to give the EFTA States more detailed explanations about the principles on which the EFTA Surveillance Authority intends to base its interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement, as well as Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, and their application to State guarantees. The EFTA Surveillance Authority intends in this way to make its policy in this area as transparent as possible, thereby ensuring that its decisions are predictable and that equal treatment is guaranteed.17.2. Applicability of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement17.2.1. Aid to the borrower1. Usually, the aid beneficiary is the borrower. The State guarantee enables the borrower to obtain better financial terms for a loan than those normally available on the financial markets. Typically, with the benefit of the State guarantee, the borrower can obtain lower rates and/or offer less security. In some cases, the borrower would not, without a State guarantee, find a financial institution prepared to lend on any terms. State guarantees may thus facilitate the creation of new businesses and enable certain undertakings to raise money in order to pursue new activities or simply remain active instead of being eliminated or restructured, thereby creating distortions of competition. State guarantees thus generally fall within the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, if trade between the Contracting Parties is affected and no market premium is paid.2. The benefit of a State guarantee is that the risk associated with the guarantee is carried by the State. This carrying of a risk by the State should normally be remunerated by an appropriate premium. Where the State forgoes such a premium, there is both a benefit for the undertaking and a drain on the resources of the State. Thus, even if no payments are ever made by the State under a guarantee, there may nevertheless be a State aid under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. The aid is granted at the moment when the guarantee is given, not the moment at which the guarantee is invoked or the moment at which payments are made under the terms of the guarantee. Whether or not a guarantee constitutes State aid, and, if so, what the amount of that State aid may be, must be assessed at the moment the guarantee is given.3. The EFTA Surveillance Authority also regards as aid in the form of a guarantee the more favourable funding terms obtained by enterprises whose legal form rules out bankruptcy or other insolvency procedures or provides an explicit State guarantee or coverage of losses by the State. The same applies to the acquisition by a State of a holding in an enterprise if unlimited liability is accepted instead of the usual limited liability(4).4. Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement covers aid granted by EFTA States or through State resources. Therefore, in the same way as other forms of potential aid, guarantees given by the State directly, namely by central, regional or local authorities, as well as guarantees given by undertakings under the dominant influence of public authorities, may constitute State aid.17.2.2. Aid to the lender1. Even if usually the aid beneficiary is the borrower it cannot be ruled out that under certain circumstances the lender, too, will benefit from the aid. In such a case the EFTA Surveillance Authority will certainly pursue the matter accordingly.2. In particular, for example, if a State guarantee is given ex post in respect of a loan or other financial obligation already entered into without the terms of this loan or financial obligation being adjusted, or if one guaranteed loan is used to pay back another, non-guaranteed loan to the same credit institution, then there may also be an aid to the lender, in so far as the security of the loans is increased. Such aid is capable of favouring the lender and distorting competition, and generally falls within the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, if trade between contracting parties is affected.17.3. Amount of the aid1. In the case of an individual State guarantee, the aid element must be assessed by reference to the details of the guarantee and loan (or other financial obligation). The relevant factors include in particular the duration and amount of the guarantee and loan, the risk of default by the borrower, the price paid by the borrower for the guarantee, the nature of any security given, how and when the State could be called upon to pay a debt and the means (e.g. declaration of bankruptcy) to be used by the State to recover amounts owed by the borrower once the guarantee has been invoked.2. The cash grant equivalent of a loan guarantee in a given year can be:- calculated in the same way as the grant equivalent of a soft loan, the interest subsidy representing the difference between the market rate and the rate obtained thanks to the State guarantee after any premiums paid have been deducted, or- taken to be the difference between (a) the outstanding sum guaranteed, multiplied by the risk factor (the probability of default) and (b) any premium paid, i.e. (guaranteed sum × risk) - premium, or- calculated by any other objectively justifiable and generally accepted method.For individual guarantees, the first method should in principle be the standard form of calculation, for guarantee schemes the second one.The risk factor should be based on the past experience of defaults on loans given in similar circumstances (sector, size of firm, level of general economic activity). The yearly grant equivalents should be discounted to their present value using the reference rate, then added up to obtain the total grant equivalent.3. Where, at the time the loan is granted, there is a strong probability that the borrower will default, e.g. because he is in financial difficulty, the value of the guarantee may be as high as the amount effectively covered by that guarantee.4. If a financial obligation is wholly covered by a State guarantee, the lender has less incentive to assess properly, secure and minimise the risk arising from the lending operation, and in particular to assess properly the borrower's creditworthiness. Such risk assessment might also not always be taken over by the guarantor, for lack of means. This lack of incentive to minimise the risk of non-repayment of the loan might encourage lenders to contract loans with a greater than normal commercial risk and could thus increase the amount of higher-risk guarantees in the State's portfolio.5. The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that a percentage of at least 20 % not covered by a State guarantee will serve as an appropriate limit for inducing the lender to properly assess the creditworthiness of the borrower(5), to properly secure its loans and to minimise the risk associated with the transaction(6). The EFTA Surveillance Authority will therefore, in general, examine critically any guarantees covering the entirety (or nearly the entirety) of a financial transaction.6. In the case of State guarantee schemes, the specific features of the individual cases may not be known at the time when the scheme is to be assessed. In these circumstances, the aid element must be assessed by reference to the provisions of the scheme concerning amongst others the maximum amount and duration of loans, the category of enterprise and type of project eligible, the security required from the borrowers, the premium to be paid and the interest rates obtained by them.17.4. Conditions excluding the existence of aid1. An individual guarantee or a guarantee scheme entered into by the State will be outside the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement when there is no aid which favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods. In such cases, notification by the EFTA State is not necessary. Also, a guarantee does not constitute State aid under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement when the measure does not affect trade between contracting parties.2. The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the fulfilment of all the following conditions ensures that an individual State guarantee does not constitute State aid under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:(a) the borrower is not in financial difficulty;(b) the borrower would in principle be able to obtain a loan on market conditions from the financial markets without any intervention by the State;(c) the guarantee is linked to a specific financial transaction, is for a fixed maximum amount, does not cover more than 80 % of the outstanding loan or other financial obligation (except for bonds and similar instruments) and is not open-ended;(d) the market price for the guarantee is paid (which reflects, amongst others, the amount and duration of the guarantee, the security given by the borrower, the borrower's financial position, the sector of activity and the prospects, the rates of default, and other economic conditions).3. The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the fulfilment of all the following conditions ensures that a State guarantee scheme does not constitute State aid under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:(a) the scheme does not allow guarantees to be granted to borrowers who are in financial difficulty;(b) the borrowers would in principle be able to obtain a loan on market conditions from the financial markets without any intervention by the State;(c) the guarantees are linked to a specific financial transaction, are for a fixed maximum amount, do not cover more than 80 % of each outstanding loan or other financial obligation (except for bonds and similar instruments) and are not open-ended;(d) the terms of the scheme are based on a realistic assessment of the risk so that the premiums paid by the beneficiary enterprises make it, in all probability, self-financing;(e) the scheme provides for the terms on which future guarantees are granted and the overall financing of the scheme to be reviewed at least once a year;(f) the premiums cover both the normal risks associated with granting the guarantee and the administrative costs of the scheme, including, where the State provides the initial capital for the start-up of the scheme, a normal return on that capital.4. Failure to comply with any one of the above conditions set out in point 17.4(2) and (3) does not mean that such guarantee or guarantee scheme is automatically regarded as State aid. If there is any doubt as to whether a planned guarantee or scheme does constitute State aid, it should be notified.5. There may be circumstances in which it is planned to use State guarantees to enable enterprises, and in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, to obtain loans that the market would not supply. The enterprises may be starting up, expanding fast or be small and hence unable to furnish the necessary security to secure a loan or obtain a guarantee. They may fall into the category of high-risk enterprises (expected to move into profitability only in the long term and/or having a particularly high failure rate). This may be the case, for example, with projects concerning new, innovative products or processes. The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that such circumstances will generally not take State guarantees outside the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. State guarantees given in such circumstances should therefore be notified to the EFTA Surveillance Authority in sufficient time, in the same way as State guarantees given in other circumstances.17.5. Compatibility of State aid in the form of guarantees with the functioning of the EEA Agreement1. State guarantees within the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement must be examined by the EFTA Surveillance Authority with a view to determining whether or not they are compatible with the functioning of the Agreement. Before such assessment of compatibility can be made, the beneficiary of the aid must be identified. As has been explained in point 17.2, this can be either the borrower, or the lender, or both.2. In most cases the guarantee contains aid to the borrower (point 17.2.1). Whether or not this aid is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement will be examined by the EFTA Surveillance Authority according to the same rules as are applied to aid measures taking other forms. The concrete criteria for the compatibility assessment can be seen from the chapters of these guidelines covering horizontal, regional and sectoral aid. The examination will take into account, in particular, the aid intensity, the characteristics of the beneficiaries and the objectives pursued.3. The EFTA Surveillance Authority will accept guarantees only if their mobilisation is contractually linked to specific conditions which may go as far as the compulsory declaration of bankruptcy of the beneficiary undertaking, or any similar procedure. These conditions will have to be agreed at the initial examination by the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the proposed guarantee within the normal procedures of Article 1(3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, at the stage when it is granted. In the event that an EFTA State wants to mobilise the guarantee under conditions other than those initially agreed at the granting stage, then the EFTA Surveillance Authority will regard the mobilisation of the guarantee as creating a new aid which has to be notified under Article 1(3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.4. Where the guarantee contains aid to the lender (point 17.2.2), attention should be drawn to the fact that such aid might, in principle, constitute operating aid.17.6. Consequences of infringement of Article 1(3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement1. Where an EFTA State does not observe the obligations of prior notification and suspension laid down in Article 1(3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the aid element of the guarantee is to be qualified as unlawful in accordance with Chapter 6 of these guidelines. As to the consequences of infringement of the third sentence of Article 1(3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, various distinctions should be drawn. In the following the position of the aid beneficiary and that of lenders not being a beneficiary will be examined in turn.2. First, where aid has been illegally granted, the beneficiaries of the aid contained in the guarantee will run a risk. The EFTA Surveillance Authority may take interim measures in accordance with Chapter 6, point 6.2.1, of these guidelines, pending the outcome of the examination as to the compatibility of the aid. If, after this examination, the EFTA Surveillance Authority finds that the State aid is incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, it will as a rule order the State to recover the aid from the beneficiary in accordance with Chapter 6, point 6.2.3, of these guidelines, even if this means the declaration of bankruptcy of the enterprise.3. Moreover, aid beneficiaries also run a risk at national level, inasmuch as the national courts' role is to safeguard rights which individuals enjoy as a result of the prohibition laid down in the 'standstill provision' of the last sentence of Article 1(3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, which has been accordingly implemented into the national legal order of the EFTA States. The fact that the last sentence of Article 1(3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement has been incorporated in the national legal order of the EFTA States, gives national courts sufficient powers to ensure that the 'standstill provision' will be complied with(7). National courts in the EFTA States have to draw all the appropriate conclusions from the illegality of State aid granted in breach of the procedural rules of the Surveillance and Court Agreement. If a national court is requested to order recovery of the unlawful aid, it must normally grant that application(8).4. Secondly, guarantees differ from other State aid measures, such as grants or tax exemptions, in the sense that in the case of a guarantee the State also enters into a legal relation with the lender. Therefore, consideration has to be given to whether the fact that a State aid has been illegally granted also has consequences for third parties. In the case of State guarantees for loans, this concerns mainly the financial lending institutions. In the case of guarantees for bonds issued to obtain financing for undertakings, this concerns the financial institutions involved in the issuance of the bonds.5. The question whether the illegality of the aid affects the legal relations between the State and third parties is a matter which has to be examined under national law. National courts may have to examine whether national law prevents the guarantee contracts from being honoured, and in that assessment the EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that they should take account of the breach of EEA law. Accordingly, lenders may have an interest in verifying, as a standard precaution, that the EEA rules on State aid have been observed, whenever guarantees are granted. The EFTA State should be able to provide a case number issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority for an individual case or a scheme and eventually a non-confidential copy of the EFTA Surveillance Authority's decision together with the relevant reference to the EEA section of the Official Journal of the European Communities and the EEA Supplement thereto. The EFTA Surveillance Authority for its part will do its utmost to make available in a transparent manner information on cases and schemes approved by it.17.7. Reports to be submitted to the EFTA Surveillance Authority by the EFTA States1. As there may be new developments on the financial markets and as the value of State guarantees is difficult to assess, the constant review pursuant to Article 62(1) of the EEA Agreement of State guarantee schemes approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority is of particular importance. In addition to the usual data on expenditure, the reports to be presented annually to the EFTA Surveillance Authority should give (for schemes and individual guarantees as well) data on the total amount of State guarantees outstanding, the total amount paid in the preceding year by the State to defaulting debtors (net of any funds recovered), and the premiums paid for State guarantees in the same year. This information will help in calculating the rate of default and will be used to reassess the value of future guarantees and, if necessary, the premium to be paid in the future.2. The EFTA Surveillance Authority does not intend to use information supplied in the abovementioned reports and not known or foreseeable when it took an earlier decision, in order to revise its initial conclusions concerning the existence or scale of aid contained in State guarantee schemes. The EFTA Surveillance Authority may, however, use such information to propose appropriate measures to an EFTA State under Article 1(1) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, in order to alter an existing State guarantee scheme."(1) This chapter corresponds to the Commission notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (OJ C 71, 11.3.2000, p. 14).(2) Chapter 17 of the guidelines. Chapter 17 corresponded to the following Commission letters to the EC Member States: SG(89) D/4328 of 5 April 1989 and SG(89) D/12772 of 12 October 1989 (points 11 and 12 of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement).(3) Chapter 20 of these guidelines. Guarantees are addressed in section 20.7.2 thereof.(4) See Chapter 20 of these guidelines, points 20.7.2(2) and 20.7.2(3).(5) This is under the assumption that the same level of security is provided by the company to the State and the credit institution.(6) The answers to a questionnaire on State guarantees in the EFTA States show that this principle is being applied only to a certain extent. Most of the guarantees cover the full amount of the underlying financial operation, thereby exempting the lending institution from the necessity to access properly the creditworthiness of the beneficiary in its own interest.(7) See in this context also Chapter 9A of these guidelines (On cooperation between national courts and the EFTA Surveillance Authority in the State aid field).(8) See Case C-39/94 Syndicat Français de l'Express International (SFEI) and others v La Poste and others [1996] ECR I-3547.


title: 76/921/EEC: Commission Decision of 21 December 1976 amending Decision 73/351/EEC setting up an Advisory Committee on Customs Matters

text:
31 . 12. 76                           Official Journal of the European Communities                          No L 362/ 55
                                                 COMMISSION
                                                COMMISSION DECISION
                                                   of 21 December 1976
               amending Decision 73/35 1 /EEC setting up an Advisory Committee on Customs
                                                           Matters
                                                        (76/921 /EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN                                       — four to representatives of industry,
COMMUNITIES,                                                         — one to representatives of craft industry,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European                — three to representatives of agriculture (of which
Economic Community,                                                      one shall be to representatives of agricultural
                                                                         cooperatives),
Whereas, in order to gather the opinions of profes
sional and consumer circles on problems arising from                 — four to representatives of commercial organiza
                                                                         tions,
the operation of the customs union, the Commission
set up an Advisory Committee on Customs Matters by                   — three to representatives of Chambers of
its Decision 73/351 /EEC of 7 November 1973 ( ! ) ;                      Commerce and Industry,
                                                                     — one ' to representatives of rail transport,
Whereas experience has shown that the number of
representatives from industry is not sufficient to                   — one to representatives of road transport,
ensure to the best advantage the participation of this               — one to representatives of shipping,
important economic category in the work of the                       — one to representatives of inland waterways
Committee ; whereas it is also desirable that the                        transport,
Commission should gather the opinions of other pro                  —   one to representatives of air transport,
fessional categories which are in close contact with                 —   one to representatives of banking institutions,
the problems arising in international trade by                       —   one to representatives of insurance institutions,
providing for the participation in the work of the
Committee of a representative of 'other parties                      —   three to representatives of customs agents
concerned with customs problems',                                        (including specialized transport carriers),
                                                                     —   two to representatives of tourist boards,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :                                             —   four to representatives of workers,
                                                                     —   three to representatives of consumers (of which
                          Article 1
                                                                         one shall be for consumers cooperatives),
Article 3 of Commission Decision 73 /351 / EEC is                    —   one to representatives of other parties
hereby amended to read as follows :                                      concerned with customs problems.'
     'Article 3
                                                                                Article 2
     1 . The Committee shall consist of 35 members .
                                                                  This Decision shall enter into force on 21 December
     The Committee shall be composed of representa               1976 .
     tives from the following categories : industrialists,
     craftsmen, agriculturists, tradesmen, carriers,
     banking and insurance institutions, customs agents           Done at Brussels, 21 December 1976.
     (including specialized transport carriers), tourist
     boards, workers, consumers, and other parties                                         For the Commission
     concerned with customs problems.
                                                                                Finn GUNDELACH
     2. Representation on the Committee shall be as
     follows :                                                                          Member of the Commission
(') OJ No L 321 , 22. 11 . 1973 , p. 37 .


title: Council Decision 2007/670/CFSP of 1 October 2007 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand on the participation of New Zealand in the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN)

text:
               18.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 274/17

         COUNCIL DECISION 2007/670/CFSP
   of 1 October 2007
   concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand on the participation of New Zealand in the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 24 thereof,
   Having regard to the recommendation from the Presidency,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 30 May 2007, the Council adopted Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP on establishment of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN) (1).

               (2)

               Article 12(5) of Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP provides that detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third states shall be the subject of an agreement, in conformity with Article 24 of the Treaty.

               (3)

               On 13 September 2004, the Council authorised the Presidency, assisted where necessary by the Secretary-General/High Representative, in case of future EU civilian crisis management operations to open negotiations with third states with a view to concluding an agreement on the basis of the model agreement between the European Union and a third state on the participation of a third state in a European Union civilian crisis management operation. On that basis, the Presidency negotiated an Agreement with New Zealand on the participation of the Republic of Croatia in the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN).

               (4)

               The Agreement should be approved,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The Agreement between the European Union and New Zealand on the participation of New Zealand in the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.
   The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the European Union.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.
   Article 4
   This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Luxembourg, 1 October 2007.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. LINO

      (1)  OJ L 139, 31.5.2007, p. 33.
    ---documentbreak---

               18.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 274/18

         AGREEMENT
   between the European Union and New Zealand on the participation of New Zealand in the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN)
   THE EUROPEAN UNION (EU),
   of the one part, and
   NEW ZEALAND,
   of the other part,
   hereinafter referred to as the ‘Parties’,
   TAKING INTO ACCOUNT:

               —

               the adoption by the Council of the European Union of Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP of 30 May 2007 on establishment of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN),

               —

               the invitation to New Zealand to participate in EUPOL AFGHANISTAN,

               —

               the decision by New Zealand to participate in EUPOL AFGHANISTAN,

               —

               the Political and Security Committee Decision on the acceptance of New Zealand’s contribution to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN,

         HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   Participation in the operation
   1.   New Zealand shall associate itself with the Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP and with any Joint Action or Decision by which the Council of the European Union decides to extend EUPOL AFGHANISTAN, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and any required implementing arrangements.
   2.   The contribution of New Zealand to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN is without prejudice to the decision-making autonomy of the European Union.
   3.   New Zealand shall ensure that its personnel participating in EUPOL AFGHANISTAN undertake their mission in consistency with:

               —

               Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP and possible subsequent amendments,

               —

               the Operation Plan,

               —

               implementing measures.

         4.   Personnel seconded to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN by New Zealand shall carry out their duties and conduct themselves solely with the interest of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN in mind.
   5.   New Zealand shall inform in due time the EUPOL AFGHANISTAN Head of Mission and the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union of any change to its contribution to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN.
   6.   Personnel seconded to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN shall undergo a medical examination, vaccination and be certified medically fit for duty by a competent authority from New Zealand. Personnel seconded to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN shall produce a copy of this certification.
   Article 2
   Status of personnel
   1.   Without prejudice to any arrangement concluded between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the status of the personnel contributed to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN by New Zealand shall be governed by the Agreement on the status of mission concluded between the European Union and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
   2.   Without prejudice to the Agreement referred to in paragraph 1, New Zealand shall exercise jurisdiction over its personnel participating in EUPOL AFGHANISTAN.
   3.   New Zealand shall be responsible for responding to any claims from, linked to or concerning the participation of its forces or personnel in EUPOL AFGHANISTAN. New Zealand shall be responsible for bringing any action, in particular legal or disciplinary, against any of its personnel, in accordance with its laws and regulations.
   4.   New Zealand undertakes to make a declaration as regards the waiver of claims against any State participating in EUPOL AFGHANISTAN, and to do so when signing this Agreement. A model for such a declaration is annexed to this Agreement.
   5.   The European Union shall ensure that its Member States make a declaration as regards the waiver of claims for the participation of New Zealand in EUPOL AFGHANISTAN and to do so when signing this Agreement.
   Article 3
   Classified information
   1.   New Zealand shall take appropriate measures to ensure that EU classified information is protected in accordance with the European Union Council’s security regulations, contained in Council Decision 2001/264/EC (1), and in accordance with further guidance issued by competent authorities, including the EUPOL AFGHANISTAN Head of Mission.
   2.   Where the European Union and New Zealand have concluded an Agreement on security procedures for the exchange of classified information, the provisions of such an Agreement shall apply in the context of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN.
   Article 4
   Chain of command
   1.   All personnel participating in EUPOL AFGHANISTAN shall remain under the full command of their national authorities.
   2.   National authorities shall transfer Operational control to the EUPOL AFGHANISTAN Head of Mission, who shall exercise that command through a hierarchical structure of command and control.
   3.   The Head of Mission shall lead EUPOL AFGHANISTAN and assume its day-to-day management.
   4.   New Zealand shall have the same rights and obligations in terms of the day-to-day management of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN as participating European Union Member States taking part in the operation, in accordance with the legal instruments referred to in Article 1(1) of this Agreement.
   5.   The EUPOL AFGHANISTAN Head of Mission shall be responsible for disciplinary control over EUPOL AFGHANISTAN personnel. Where required, disciplinary action shall be taken by the national authority concerned.
   6.   A National Contingent Point of Contact (NPC) shall be appointed by New Zealand to represent its national contingent in EUPOL AFGHANISTAN. The NPC shall report to the EUPOL AFGHANISTAN Head of Mission on national matters and shall be responsible for day-to-day contingent discipline.
   7.   The decision to end the operation shall be taken by the European Union, following consultation with New Zealand, provided that New Zealand is still contributing to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN at the date of termination of the operation.
   Article 5
   Financial aspects
   1.   New Zealand shall assume all the costs associated with its participation in the operation apart from the costs which are subject to common funding, as set out in the operational budget of the operation.
   2.   Subject to any arrangement concluded between the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Government of New Zealand, in case of death, injury, loss or damage to natural or legal persons from Afghanistan, New Zealand shall, when its liability has been established, pay compensation under the conditions provided for in the Agreement on status of mission, if available, as referred to in Article 2(1) of this Agreement.
   Article 6
   Contribution to operational budget
   As the participation by New Zealand constitutes a significant contribution which is essential for the operation, New Zealand is exempted from contributions to the operational budget of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN.
   Article 7
   Arrangements to implement this Agreement
   Any necessary technical and administrative arrangements in pursuance of the implementation of this Agreement shall be concluded between the Secretary-General/High Representative and the appropriate authorities of New Zealand.
   Article 8
   Non-compliance
   Should one of the Parties fail to comply with its obligations laid down in this Agreement, the other Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by serving a notice of one month.
   Article 9
   Dispute settlement
   Disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement shall be settled by diplomatic means between the Parties.
   Article 10
   Entry into force
   1.   This Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the first month after the Parties have notified each other of the completion of the internal procedures necessary for this purpose.
   2.   This Agreement shall be provisionally applied from the date of signature.
   3.   This Agreement shall remain in force for the duration of New Zealand’s contribution to the operation.

      Done at Brussels, on the third day of October in the year two thousand and seven in the English language in two copies.

            For the European Union

            For New Zealand

      (1)  OJ L 101, 11.4.2001, p. 1. Decision as last amended by Decision 2007/438/EC (OJ L 164, 26.6.2007, p. 24).
   ANNEX
   DECLARATIONS
   Referred to in Article 2(4) and (5)
   Declaration by the EU Member States:
   ‘The EU Member States applying Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP of 30 May 2007 on establishment of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN) will endeavour, insofar as their internal legal systems so permit, to waive on a reciprocal basis, as far as possible claims against New Zealand for injury, death of their personnel, or damage to, or loss of, any assets owned by themselves and used by EUPOL AFGHANISTAN if such injury, death, damage or loss:

               —

               was caused by personnel from New Zealand in the execution of their duties in connection with EUPOL AFGHANISTAN, except in case of gross negligence or wilful misconduct,

               —

               or arose from the use of any assets owned by New Zealand, provided that the assets were used in connection with the operation and except in case of gross negligence or wilful misconduct of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN personnel from New Zealand using those assets.’,

         Declaration by New Zealand:
   ‘New Zealand being associated with Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP of 30 May 2007 on establishment of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN) will endeavour, on a reciprocal basis, insofar as its internal legal system so permits, to waive as far as possible claims against any other State participating in EUPOL AFGHANISTAN for injury, death of their personnel, or damage to, or loss of, any assets owned by itself and used by EUPOL AFGHANISTAN if such injury, death, damage or loss:

               —

               was caused by personnel in the execution of their duties in connection with EUPOL AFGHANISTAN, except in case of gross negligence or wilful misconduct,

               —

               or arose from the use of any assets owned by States participating in EUPOL AFGHANISTAN, provided that the assets were used in connection with the operation and except in case of gross negligence or wilful misconduct of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN personnel using those assets.’


Avis juridique important

|

31995D0495

95/495/EC, Euratom: Council Decision of 20 November 1995 appointing a member of the Economic and Social Committee

Official Journal L 283 , 25/11/1995 P. 0016 - 0016

COUNCIL DECISION of 20 November 1995 appointing a member of  the Economic and Social Committee (95/495/EC, Euratom)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN  UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 195  thereof, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular  Article 167 thereof, Having regard to the Council Decision of 26 September 1994 appointing the members of the Economic  and Social Committee for the period ending on 20 September 1998  (1), Whereas a seat has become vacant on the Economic and Social Committee following the death of Mr  Achim Denkhaus, notified to the Council on 12 September 1995; Having regard to the nominations submitted by the German Government on 9 October 1995; Having obtained the opinion of the Commission of the European Communities, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Sole Article Mr Michael Kubenz is hereby appointed a member of the Economic and  Social Committee in place of Mr Achim Denkhaus for the remainder of the latter's term of office,  which runs until 20 September 1998. Done at Brussels, 20 November 1995. For the Council The President C. ALBORCH BATALLER


title: 2013/119/EU: Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 6 March 2013 appointing Judges to the General Court

text:
               8.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 65/21

         DECISION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
   of 6 March 2013
   appointing Judges to the General Court
   (2013/119/EU)
   THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 254 and 255 thereof,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The terms of office of 13 Judges of the General Court are due to expire on 31 August 2013. Judges should therefore be appointed for the period from 1 September 2013 to 31 August 2019.

               (2)

               It has been proposed that the terms of office of Ms Mariyana KANCHEVA, Ms Ingrīda LABUCKA, Mr Alfred DITTRICH and Mr Nicholas James FORWOOD as Judges of the General Court should be renewed.

               (3)

               The panel set up by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given its opinion on the suitability of Ms Mariyana KANCHEVA, Ms Ingrīda LABUCKA, as well as of Mr Alfred DITTRICH and Mr Nicholas James FORWOOD to perform the duties of Judge of the General Court,

         HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The following are hereby appointed Judges to the General Court from 1 September 2013 to 31 August 2019:

               —

               Mr Alfred DITTRICH,

               —

               Mr Nicholas James FORWOOD,

               —

               Ms Mariyana KANCHEVA,

               —

               Ms Ingrīda LABUCKA.

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

      Done at Brussels, 6 March 2013.

            The President

         R. MONTGOMERY