Avis juridique important

|

E1994C0069

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION No 69/94/COL of 27 June 1994 approving a control programme and laying down additional guarantees for certain fish species destined for Sweden with regard to spring viremia in carp

Official Journal L 201 , 04/08/1994 P. 0040 - 0041

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION No 69/94/COL of 27 June 1994 approving a control programme and laying down additional guarantees for certain fish species destined for Sweden with regard to spring viremia in carp THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, in particular Article 17 and Protocol 1 (4) (d) thereof,Having regard to the Act referred to in Point 5 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area concerning the animal health conditions governing the placing on the market of aquaculture animals and products (Council Directive 91/67/EEC; hereinafter referred to as the Aquaculture Act), and in particular Article 12 thereof,Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, and in particular Article 5 (2) (d) and Protocol 1, Article 1 (c) and (e) thereof,Whereas Sweden, as stated in letters dated 15 December 1993 and 29 May 1994, has submitted a control programme for spring viremia of carp in its coastal and continental zones;Whereas the programme fulfils the conditions referred to in Article 12 (1) of the Aquaculture Act;Whereas it is appropriate to propose certain additional guarantees to protect the progress already made, and to ensure that the programme is successfully concluded in Sweden;Whereas the additional guarantees provided for in the present Decision must not be requested from EFTA States or regions thereof which are themselves regarded as free from spring viremia in carp;Whereas the measures provided for are in accordance with the opinion of the EFTA Veterinary Committee assisting the EFTA Surveillance Authority,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:1. The control programme for spring viremia of carp (SVC) in Sweden is hereby approved.2. The introduction into Sweden of live fish belonging to the species susceptible to spring viremia in carp listed in Annex A to the Aquaculture Act and of their eggs, not intended for human consumption, shall be subject to the following conditions:2.1 either2.1.1 spring viremia of carp must be a notifiable disease in the region of origin;2.1.2 reports of suspected infection in cyprininds must be immediately investigated by the official services for the region of origin;2.1.3 infected sites in the region of origin must be designated as infected;2.1.4 they shall not come from sites designated as infected by the official services of the region of origin;2.2 or2.2.1 the site of origin must, at the time of year when spring viremia in carp is expected to manifest itself, have been submitted for at least two years to an annual inspection by the official services at the place of origin and laboratory tests for the isolation of the virus must have been carried out;2.2.2 in the case of sites already infected,eitherit must have been submitted for at least 3 years to the tests referred to in 2.2.1, after which period susceptible species certified as being free of the disease are exposed to the population under control for proving the absence of the virus,orits population must have been eliminated and its installations disinfected; in that event, restocking must be carried out using species certifried as being free of the disease;2.2.3 in the sites referred to in 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, all species introduced must originate from a site certified as being free of the disease.2.3 The consignments must be accompanied by a certificate, completed by the official service, certifying that the site of origin complies with the conditions laid down in this Decision.3. Sweden shall submit an annual report of its monitoring of the programme, in particular with regard to on the spot inspections, the sampling procedures followed and the results of the virological testing, including a description of the procedures. This report shall be submitted to the EFTA Surveillance Authority at the latest by 1 April, the following year.4. The conditions laid down in Point 2 shall not apply to introduction into Sweden of fish or eggs from an EFTA State or from a part thereof, which under Article 13 of the Aquaculture Act has been granted additional guarantees corresponding to those provided for in this Decision.5. Sweden shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the conditions laid down in this Decision by 1 July 1994.6. This Decision shall enter into force on 1 July 1994.7. This Decision is addressed to the EFTA States.8. This Decision shall be authentic in the English language.Done at Brussels, 27 June 1994.For the EFTA Surveillance AuthorityPekka SÄILÄColleg Member


Avis juridique important

|

31981D0637

81/637/EEC: Commission Decision of 20 July 1981 on the Advisory Committee on Sugar

Official Journal L 231 , 15/08/1981 P. 0035

****( 1 ) OJ NO L 122 , 22 . 5 . 1969 , P . 2 .  ( 2 ) OJ NO L 355 , 24 . 12 . 1973 , P . 43 .  ( 3 ) OJ NO L 221 , 12 . 8 . 1974 , P . 28 .  ( 4 ) OJ NO L 177 , 1 . 7 . 1981 , P . 4 .    COMMISSION DECISION   OF 20 JULY 1981   ON THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SUGAR  ( 81/637/EEC )   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN   COMMUNITIES ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY ,   WHEREAS AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SUGAR WAS SET UP BY COMMISSION DECISION 69/146/EEC ( 1 ), THE TEXT OF WHICH WAS REPLACED BY DECISION 73/422/EEC ( 2 ), AS LAST AMENDED BY DECISION 74/420/EEC ( 3 );   WHEREAS THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SHOULD BE INCREASED NOW THAT ISOGLUCOSE IS COVERED BY COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1785/81 ( 4 ); WHEREAS THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS IN THE JOINT WORKING PARTY SHOULD ALSO BE INCREASED , TO ENSURE BALANCED REPRESENTATION OF THE REGIONS ,   HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :   ARTICLE 1   DECISION 69/146/EEC IS HEREBY AMENDED AS FOLLOWS :   1 . ARTICLE 3 IS REPLACED BY THE FOLLOWING :   ' ARTICLE 3   1 . THE COMMITTEE SHALL CONSIST OF 46 MEMBERS .   2 . SEATS ON THE COMMITTEE SHALL BE APPORTIONED AS FOLLOWS :  ( A ) 17 TO SUGAR-BEET AND SUGAR-CANE GROWERS ;  ( B ) SIX TO PROCESSING COOPERATIVES IN THE SECTOR ;  ( C ) 11 TO THE INDUSTRIES PRODUCING SUGAR AND ISOGLUCOSE AND TO THE INDUSTRIES USING SUGAR , OF WHICH :   -  SEVEN TO SUGAR MANUFACTURERS ,   -  ONE TO ISOGLUCOSE PRODUCERS ,   -  ONE TO THE RAW SUGAR REFINING INDUSTRY ,   -  TWO TO THE INDUSTRIES USING SUGAR ;  ( D ) TWO TO THE SUGAR AND MOLASSES TRADE ;  ( E ) FIVE TO AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD-INDUSTRY WORKERS ;  ( F )  FIVE TO CONSUMERS . '   2 . ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ) IS REPLACED BY THE FOLLOWING :   ' ARTICLE 5   1 . THERE SHALL BE SET UP UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE COMMITTEE A JOINT WORKING PARTY CONSISTING OF 10 REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SUGAR-BEET AND SUGAR-CANE GROWERS AND 10 REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SUGAR MANUFACTURERS , APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSION ON PROPOSALS FROM THE TRADE ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 4 .   MEMBERS OF THE JOINT WORKING PARTY NEED NOT BE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE . '   ARTICLE 2   THIS DECISION SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE ON 20 JULY 1981 .   DONE AT BRUSSELS , 20 JULY 1981 .   FOR THE COMMISSION   THE PRESIDENT   GASTON THORN


Avis juridique important

|

31985D0013

85/13/EEC: Commission Decision of 19 December 1984 relating to the setting up of a Joint Committee on Railways

Official Journal L 008 , 10/01/1985 P. 0026 - 0028 Finnish special edition: Chapter 5 Volume 4 P. 0058  Spanish special edition: Chapter 07 Volume 3 P. 0235  Swedish special edition: Chapter 5 Volume 4 P. 0058  Portuguese special edition Chapter 07 Volume 3 P. 0235

*****COMMISSION  DECISION  of 19 December 1984  relating to the setting up of a Joint Committee on Railways  (85/13/EEC)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Whereas the Heads of State or Government stated in their declaration of 21 October 1972 that the first aim of economic expansion should be to enable disparities in living conditions to be reduced and that this aim should express itself in better quality and higher standard of living;  Whereas in this connection they considered it indispensable that both employers and employees should be increasingly involved in the economic and social decisions of the Community;  Whereas amongst the priority matters contained in the Community's 'Social Action Programme' the Commission has recommended that dialogue and cooperation between employers and employees be promoted at Community level; whereas the Council in its resolution of 21 January 1974 concerning a social action programme (1) named increased involvement of management and labour in the economic and social decisions of the Community as one of the priority measures to be taken;  Whereas the European Parliament in its resolution of 13 June 1972 (2) has stated that the participation of employers and employees in the formulation of a Community social policy should be achieved during the first stage of economic and monetary union;  Whereas the Economic and Social Committee in its opinion of 24 November 1971 expressed a similar view;  Whereas the Council stresses in its conclusions of 22 June 1984 concerning a Community medium-term social action programme, that the European social dialogue must be strengthened and its procedures adapted in order to involve the social partners more effectively in the economic and social decisions of the Community (3);  Whereas the situation in the various Member States clearly demonstrates the need for the two sides of the railways industry to participate actively in the improvement and harmonization of living and working conditions in railways; whereas a joint committee attached to the Commission is the most appropriate means of ensuring such participation by creating at Community level a representative forum for the socio-economic interests involved;  Whereas Commission Decision 72/172/EEC of 24 April 1972 relating to the setting-up of a Joint Advisory Committee for Social Problems in Railways (4) is no longer in accord with the developments in social policy advocated by the Community institutions,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  The Commission hereby creates a Joint Committee on Railways (hereinafter called 'the Committee').  Article 2  The Committee shall assist the Commission in the formulation and implementation of the Community social policy aimed at improving and harmonizing living and working conditions in railways.  Article 3  1. In order to attain the objectives laid down in Article 2, the Commission shall:  (a) issue opinions and submit reports to the Commission, either at the latter's request or on its own initiative, and  (b) in respect of matters falling within the competence of the employers' and employees' associations listed in Article 4 (2) (a):  - promote dialogue and cooperation and facilitate negotiation between these associations,  - arrange for studies to be carried out,  - participate in discussions and seminars.  2. The Committee shall ensure that all interested parties are informed of its activities.  3. Upon requesting an opinion or report from the Committee under the terms of paragraph 1 (a) the Commission may fix a time limit within which the opinion or report shall be given.  Article 4  1. The Committee shall consist of 44 members.  2. (a) The members of the Committee shall be appointed by the Commission on a proposal from the following associations of carriers and employees in railways:  Carriers' association:  Group of the 10 Railways of the European Communities (UIC);  Employees' association:  Committee of Transport Workers' Unions of the European Community.  (b) Seats shall be attributed as follow:  - to representatives of the carriers' association, 22,  - to representatives of the employees' association, 22.  Article 5  1. An alternate shall be appointed for each member of the Committee under the same conditions as laid down in Article 4 (2).  2. Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 9, an alternate shall not attend meetings of the Committee or a working group provided for in Article 9, nor participate in its work, unless the member for whom he is the alternate is prevented from doing so.  Article 6  1. Committee members and their alternates shall hold office for a term of four years; appointments shall be renewable.  2. Members and their alternates whose term of office has expired shall remain in office until they have been replaced or their term of office has been renewed.  3. A member's or alternate's term of office shall cease before the expiry of the period of four years upon his resignation or death or if the association which nominated him requests his replacement. The vacancy thereby caused shall be filled in the manner prescribed in Article 4 (2) by a person appointed for the remainder of the term of office.  4. There shall be no payment for duties performed.  Article 7  1. The Committee shall, by a two-thirds majority of members present, elect from among its members a chairman and vice-chairman who shall hold office for a term of two years. The chairman and the vice-chairman shall be chosen alternately, and in reverse order, from amongst the two groups of associations listed in Article 4 (2) (a).  2. (a) The chairman or vice-chairman whose term of office has expired shall remain in office until he has been replaced.  (b) Should the chairman or vice-chairman cease to hold office before expiry of its term, he shall be replaced for the remainder of the term by a person appointed in the manner prescribed in paragraph 1 upon a proposal from the group to which his association belongs.  Article 8  The Committee may create a bureau consisting of the chairman, vice-chairman and rapporteurs of the working groups provided for in Article 9 to plan and coordinate its work. Article 9  The Committee may:  (a) set up ad hoc or permanent working groups to facilitate its work. It may authorize a member to delegate another representative of his association, who shall be named, to take his place in a working group; such delegate shall enjoy the same rights at meetings of the working group as the member he replaces;  (b) ask the Commission to appoint experts to assist it in specific tasks. It shall be its duty to do so if one of the associations listed in Article 4 (2) (a) so requests;  (c) ask for the attendance at Committee meetings, as an expert, of any person who is specially qualified in any particular subject on the agenda. The expert shall be present only for the discussion of the particular subject for which his attendance is required.  Article 10  The Committee shall be convened by the secretary at the request of the Commission, the bureau or of one-third of the Committee's members. In the latter case, the Committee shall meet within 30 days.  Article 11  1. No opinion of the Committee shall be valid unless two-thirds of the members or their alternates are present.  2. The Committee shall submit its opinions or reports to the Commission. If an opinion or report is not unanimous, the Committee shall submit to the Commission the dissenting opinions delivered.  Article 12  1. The Commission shall provide a secretariat for the Committee, the bureau and the working groups.  2. Representatives of the relevant services of the Commission shall attend the meetings of the Committee, the bureau and the working groups.  3. A representative of the secretariat of each of the associations listed in Article 4 (2) (a) shall attend the meetings of the Committee as observer.  4. After hearing the Committee's views the Commission may ask other organizations than those mentioned in Article 4 (2) (a) to participate as observers in the Committee's work.  Article 13  If the Commission has informed the Committee that an opinion requested relates to a matter of a confidential nature, members of the Committee shall be bound, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 214 of the Treaty, not to disclose any information acquired at the meetings of the Committee, the working groups or the bureau.  Article 14  After hearing the Committee's views, the Commission may review this Decision in the light of experience.  Article 15  Commission Decision 72/172/EEC is hereby repealed.  Article 16  This Decision shall take effect on 19 December 1984.  Done at Brussels, 19 December 1984.  For the Commission  Ivor RICHARD  Member of the Commission  (1) OJ No C 13, 12. 2. 1974, p. 1.  (2) OJ No C 70, 1. 7. 1972, p. 11.  (3) OJ No C 175, 4. 7. 1984, p. 1.  (4) OJ No L 104, 3. 5. 1972, p. 9.


Avis juridique important

|

31993D0479

93/479/EEC: Commission Decision of 30 July 1993 accepting undertakings offered in connection with the review of anti-dumping measures applicable to certain imports of monosodium glutamate originating in Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand

Official Journal L 225 , 04/09/1993 P. 0035 - 0039

COMMISSION DECISION of 30 July 1993 accepting undertakings offered in connection with the review of anti-dumping measures applicable to certain imports of monosodium glutamate originating in Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand(93/479/EEC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), and in particular Articles 10 and 14 thereof,  After consultation within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the above Regulation,  Whereas:  A. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE  (1) The Council, by Regulation (EEC) No 1798/90 (2), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2966/92 (3), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of monosodium glutamate (hereinafter referred to as 'MSG') originating in  Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand with the exception of imports from certain producers in these countries from which the Commission accepted undertakings by Regulation (EEC) No 547/90 (4) and Decision 92/493/EEC (5).  B. INITIATION OF A REVIEW PROCEEDING  (2) The Community industry during the original investigation period (1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988) comprised of three producers representing the total production of MSG in the Community. Following the adoption of  anti-dumping measures in this proceeding, two of these producers closed down.  Furthermore, the sole remaining producer in the Community, which constitutes the Community industry in this review proceeding, argued that because of the substantial changes in the value of the US Dollar, the currency in which most of the trade of MSG  is carried out, against the ECU, the prices in the undertakings accepted by the Commission, which are expressed in ECU, have been rendered insufficient to eliminate the injurious effects of continued dumping. The alleged impact on this producer was a  continuation of financial losses and a significant deterioration in cash flow.  (3) Accordingly, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (6), the Commission, after consultation within the Advisory Committee and in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, initiated a review of the  Regulations and the Decision which imposed anti-dumping measures in the framework of the proceeding and reopened the investigation.  C. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE  (4) The Commission officially informed the parties known to be concerned, in particular the producer and the importers in the Community, the producers in the exporting countries concerned and the representatives of these  countries. It gave the interested parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing.  (5) The Community industry, some producers in the exporting countries, and some importers and a federation of industrial users in the Community made their views known in writing. Some producers in the exporting countries concerned requested and were  granted a hearing.  (6) In reviewing the anti-dumping measures in force, the situation of the Community market during the period from 1 January to 30 September 1992 was compared to that in the previous three years i.e. in the periods before and after the imposition of  anti-dumping measures in this proceeding.  (7) The information requested and obtained from the producer concerned in the Community, Orsan SA, was verified at its premises in Nesle and Paris, France. The analysis of the volume and price of the imports concerned was based on data obtained from  Eurostat statistics and on the information periodically provided by the exporting producers in the framework of the requirements in the undertakings currently in force.  D. PRODUCT CONCERNED  (8) The product concerned by this review is the same as that covered by the previous investigations in the proceeding, i.e. MSG produced in the form of crystals of various sizes, falling within CN code ex 2922 42 00.  E. SCOPE OF THE REVIEW  (9) This review was limited to an examination of the extent to which the measures in force should be amended to reflect any changed circumstances in the situation of the Community industry. The Commission had no reason to believe  that the dumping situation had changed given that no interested party requested a review of the findings on dumping as confirmed by Regulation (EEC) No 1798/90.  F. ANALYSIS OF THE COMMUNITY MARKET  (i) Consumption in the Community (10) Community consumption of MSG was approximately 43 000 tonnes in 1989, 44 000 tonnes in 1990, 48 000 tonnes in 1991 and 37 000 tonnes during the first nine months of 1992. This represents an increase of 14,7 % over that period.  (ii) Volume of the dumped imports (11) The volume of the dumped imports from the countries concerned increased from nearly 3 800 tonnes per year in 1989 and 1990 to 12 183 tonnes in 1991 and to 9 696 tonnes during the first nine months of 1992 i.e. by 240 % over that period. The  combined Community market share of these imports also increased from nearly 8,7 % in 1989 and 1990 to 25 % in 1991 and to 26,1 % during the first nine months of 1992.  (iii) Price of the dumped imports (12) In spite of the fact that the exporters in the countries concerned have respected the minimum prices in the undertakings accepted by the Commission, when expressed in US Dollars, the difference between the US Dollar/ECU exchange rate as provided  for in the undertakings currently in force and that subsequent to the acceptance of these undertakings has resulted in ECU prices of the imports concerned lower by up to 20 % than those set in the said undertakings.  (iv) Situation of the Community industry (a) Preliminary comments (13) In assessing the situation of the Community industry, it should be noted that the manufacture of MSG is an industry requiring high investments in which most of the processing is continuous and involves a large proportion of fixed costs. The  economics of this industry requires production at full capacity to maximize economies of scale.  (b) Production, capacity utilization, sales and market share (14) Since 1989, the production volume of the Community industry has remained stable and the capacity installed has been fully utilized. The volume of sales in the Community of the product concerned by the Community industry increased by 13 % from 1989  to the first nine months of 1992 extrapolated on an annual basis. However, this development of sales volume, compared to that of the apparent Community consumption, shows a market share held by the Community industry which decreased by 4,5 % from 1989  to the first nine months of 1992. The evolution of this market share was, on an indexed basis, 100 in 1989, 105 in 1990, 101 in 1991 and 95,5 in the first nine months of 1992.  (c) Prices (15) Since the imposition of the anti-dumping measures, the Community industry has increased its prices for the product concerned in the Community market. However, given that MSG is a highly price sensitive commodity product, the Community industry  concerned was forced to align its prices to those of the imports in question which, as mentioned in recital (12) above, due to the changes in the exchange rates, were lower than the level of prices in ECU terms set in the undertakings. Consequently, the  Community industry was prevented from increasing its prices up to an adequate level.  (d) Profitability (16) The costs of production of the product concerned incurred by the Community industry have remained rather stable between 1989 and the first nine months of 1992. This, combined with an increase in prices over the same period, led to a progressive  reduction of losses. Indeed, this trend in costs and prices has put the Community industry back into profit during the first nine months of 1992, even if the profitability achieved is totally insufficient to ensure the viability of the business. On an  indexed basis, the return on turnover of the Community industry with regard to the Community market was as follows: losses of 100 in 1989, losses of 60 in 1990, losses of 13 in 1991 and profits of 10 in the first nine months of 1992.  (e) Investments (17) Since 1989 the Community industry financed substantial investments merely intended to maintain its production levels. Although a substantial part of the profits generated in recent years has been reinvested, the losses or insufficient profits made  by the Community industry threaten the continuation of its investment programme and thus its competitiveness.  (f) Conclusion on the situation of the Community industry (18) The examination of the facts available shows that, notwithstanding certain positive effects of the anti-dumping measures currently in force on the Community industry, the financial situation of that industry remains precarious while its market  share has continued to decline.  G. CAUSALITY  (i) Imports of MSG from the countries concerned (19) In examining whether the dumped imports from the countries concerned were responsible for the continuing poor situation of the Community industry, the Commission noted the fact that this situation coincided with a substantial increase in imports of  MSG from the countries concerned as stated in recital (11) and with a decrease in the price of these imports. As far as the latter is concerned, the price decrease results from the US Dollar/ECU exchange rate changes as outlined in recital (12).  (ii) Effect of other factors (20) The impact on the situation of the Community industry of factors other than the imports concerned was also examined.  (21) Some interested parties claimed that the difficult situation of the Community industry was due to its low priced exports to countries outside the Community. In this respect, the Commission recalls that its examination of the relevant injury factors  exclusively concerned those relating to the production and sales on the Community market. Any effects of the Community industry's sales performances outside that market do not form part of the findings on injury. Consequently, the difficult situation  found for the Community industry as described above cannot have been caused by such exports. This argument has, therefore, to be rejected.  (22) As to imports of MSG from third countries other than those covered by the proceeding, only those originating in Brazil, because of their current penetration of the Community market (i.e. 2 980 tonnes during the first nine months of 1992  representing a market share of 8 %), could have had some adverse effects on the Community industry. However, even if it was admitted that imports from Brazil had contributed to the injury still being suffered by the Community industry, this would not  alter the fact that the injury caused by the dumped imports concerned, taken in isolation, is material.  (23) In these circumstances, the Commission has concluded that prices of the imports from the countries concerned have continued to adversely affect the situation of the Community industry.  H. COMMUNITY INTEREST  (24) The Concil, in Regulation (EEC) No 1798/90, confirmed that it was in the Community interest that measures be imposed on imports of MSG from the four countries concerned.  (25) In the particular circumstances of this review, it is considered that failure to maintain the anti-dumping measures in force, duly amended to take account of the improvement in the situation of the Community to take account of the improvement in  the situation of the Community industry, would seriously affect that industry's investment programme, erode its competitiveness and thus threaten its viability.  (26) Some interested parties argued that any increase in the level of the anti-dumping measures currently in force would allow the Community industry to reinforce its strong position in the Community market to the detriment of the users of MSG in the  Community. In this respect, it should be noted that, notwithstanding the significant share of the Community market held by the Community industry, there is sufficient competition in that market as demonstrated by the substantial increase in the market  share held by the imports concerned between 1989 and the first nine months of 1992 and also by the recent significant penetration of Brazilian imports into the market. As to the impact of any amendment of the measures in force on the situation of the  Community users of MSG, it has to be noted that this product has only a minor effect on the costs of the products in which it is used.  (27) The Commission also noted that the Community industry had financed substantial investments in recent years. The Commission considered it to be in the interest of the Community that the industry be allowed to benefit from this investment thereby  ensuring the continued employment of a substantial number in the production of this essential commodity product for the food industry.  (28) In the light of the above, it is considered to be in the interest of the Community that the anti-dumping measures remain in force, duly amended, in order to give the Community industry the opportunity to continue to redress its precarious financial  situation.  I. AMENDMENT OF THE MEASURES IN FORCE  (i) General (29) In establishing the price level in ECU terms which would allow the Community industry sufficient profitability, the actual cost of production of the Community producer concerned was increased by a reasonable profit margin. This profit, while not  reaching the level of profits made by that producer prior to the impact of the imports concerned, is considered to be the minimum necessary to ensure that considered reasonable by the Commission in the original investigation.  The price so constructed for the Community industry is higher than the actual prices of the imports concerned from each of the producers in the exporting countries when expressed in ECU terms. Accordingly, the anti-dumping measures in force should be  amended so that the import prices in ECU terms from each of the exporting producers concerned reach the constructed price for the Community industry without exceeding the corresponding normal values determined in the previous investigations.  (ii) Exporting producers for which undertakings are in force (30) Following the disclosure of the findings to the exporting producers concerned, they offered new undertakings with the exception of one company in Thailand which ceased exporting to the Community before 1992. The effects of these undertakings would  be to revise prices of the imports from each producer up to the level of the price considered necessary to eliminate the injury to the Community industry caused by dumping, provided the normal values established in the previous investigations for these  producers, adjusted to a Community frontier duty unpaid level, are not exceeded. As the undertakings offered are administratively feasible to monitor, it is considered that they should be accepted. While the price in these undertakings is established in  ECU, since practically all imports into all Community are made in US Dollars, exchange rates have been provided to be used when imports are made in currencies other than the ECU. These exchange rates are adjusted on a half-yearly basis.  Moreover, in case of breach of these price undertakings, the Commission can impose provisional duties immediately and the Council can subsequently impose definitive duties based on the facts established in the present investigation.  (31) The Community industry concerned was informed at the main facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission intended to accept the new undertakings and did not object.  (iii) Other producers in the exporting countries concerned (32) For those producers in each of the countries concerned which did not make themselves known during the proceeding and the imports from whom are, therefore, subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty based on the findings on dumping confirmed by  Regulation (EEC) No 1798/90, since the dumping situation has not been investigated in the framework of the present review, it is considered appropriate that the amount of the duty should remain unchanged.  (33) As to the company in Thailand which did not export to the Community during the first nine months of 1992 and which has not offered a new undertaking, no individual anti-dumping measures should be maintained.  K. CONSULTATION WITHIN THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE  (34) Objections to the acceptance of new undertakings were raised in the Advisory Committee by one Member State. Therefore, in accordance with Article 9 and Article 10 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88,  the Commission sent to the Council a report on the results of the consultations and a proposal that the undertakings be accepted and the investigation be terminated. As the Council has not decided otherwise within one month, the present Decision should  stand adopted.  (35) As the current review has been of only a partial nature, the period of validity of the measures in force shall not be prolonged insofar as Article 15 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 is concerned,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  The Commission's acceptance of the undertakings referred to in Regulation (EEC) No 547/90 and Decision 92/493/EEC is hereby withdrawn.  Article 2  The price undertakings offered by the following companies:  - PT Sasa, Indonesia,  - PT Indomiwon Citra Inti, Indonesia,  - PT Cheil Samsung Astra, Indonesia,  - Miwon Co Ltd, Republic of Korea,  - Cheil Foods &  Chemicals Inc., Republic of Korea,  - Tung Hai Fermentation Industry Corporation, Taiwan,  - Ve Wong Corporation, Taiwan,  - Thai Fermentation Industry Co., Thailand,  in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of monosodium glutamate falling within CN code ex 2922 42 00 (Taric code 2922 42 00 * 10) originating in Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand are hereby accepted.  Article 3  This Decision shall take effect from the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.  Done at Brussels, 30 July 1993.  For the Commission Leon BRITTAN Vice-President (1) OJ No L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1.  (2) OJ No L 167, 30. 6. 1990, p. 1.  (3) OJ No L 299, 15. 10. 1992, p. 1.  (4) OJ No L 56, 3. 3. 1990, p. 1.  (5) OJ No L 299, 15. 10. 1992, p. 40.  (6) OJ No C 286, 4. 11. 1992, p. 3.


title: Council Decision 2012/686/CFSP of 6 November 2012 amending Decision 2012/333/CFSP updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism

text:
               7.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 307/80

         COUNCIL DECISION 2012/686/CFSP
   of 6 November 2012
   amending Decision 2012/333/CFSP updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 27 December 2001, the Council adopted Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (1).

               (2)

               On 25 June 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/333/CFSP (2).

               (3)

               The Council has determined that there are no longer grounds for keeping one person on the list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply.

               (4)

               The list of the persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply should be updated accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The person listed in Annex to this Decision shall be removed from the list of persons, groups and entities set out in the Annex to Decision 2012/333/CFSP.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 6 November 2012.

            For the Council

            The President

         A. D. MAVROYIANNIS

      (1)  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 93.

      (2)  OJ L 165, 26.6.2012, p. 72.

      ANNEX

         PERSON REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1

      WALTERS, Jason Theodore James


title: EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 081/17/COL of 26 April 2017 to close the formal investigation into alleged state aid granted through the rent of land and property in the Gufunes area (Iceland) [2017/1911]

text:
               19.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 269/53

         EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION
   No 081/17/COL
   of 26 April 2017
   to close the formal investigation into alleged state aid granted through the rent of land and property in the Gufunes area (Iceland) [2017/1911]
   THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY (‘the Authority’),
   Having regard to:
   the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), in particular to Article 61 and Protocol 26,
   the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (‘the Surveillance and Court Agreement’), in particular to Article 24,
   Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (‘Protocol 3’), in particular to Article 1 of Part I and Articles 7(2) and 13 of Part II, and
   having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions (1), and having regard to their comments,
   Whereas:
   I.   FACTS

   1.   PROCEDURE

               (1)

               By email dated 2 April 2014, Gámaþjónustan hf. (‘the complainant’) lodged a complaint with the Authority concerning alleged unlawful state aid granted by the City of Reykjavík (‘the City’) through the rent of property and land in the Gufunes area in Reykjavík, Iceland, to Íslenska Gámafélagið (‘ÍG’), allegedly below market price (2).

               (2)

               Following a preliminary examination the Authority, on 30 June 2015, adopted Decision No 261/15/COL to initiate a formal investigation into the alleged aid. By letter dated 1 October 2015 (3), the Icelandic authorities responded to the Authority's decision.

               (3)

               On 24 September 2015, the Authority's Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union and in the EEA Supplement to it, giving interested parties one month to comment on the Authority's preliminary views (4).

               (4)

               Having received a one week extension, ÍG submitted comments by letter dated 29 October 2015 (5). The Authority received no other comments. After the expiry of the one month deadline to submit comments, the Authority received market information from the complainant by email dated 25 November 2015 (6). By letter dated 26 November 2015 (7), the Authority forwarded the comments and the market information to the Icelandic authorities who were given the opportunity to respond. By letter dated 5 January 2016, (8) the Icelandic authorities responded. The matter was also discussed between representatives of the Icelandic authorities and the Authority at a meeting in Reykjavík on 12 February 2016.

               (5)

               Finally, the Authority received additional information concerning developments in the Gufunes area, from the complainant by emails dated 21 May 2016 (9), 27 May 2016 (10) and 15 December 2016 (11).

         2.   DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE

   2.1.   THE GUFUNES AREA

               (6)

               The Gufunes area is situated in the Grafarvogur district of Reykjavík, Iceland. Until the year 2001, a fertiliser factory, Áburðarverksmiðjan, was operating in the area. In 2002, the planning fund of Reykjavík (Skipulagssjóður Reykjavíkur, ‘SR’) bought the factory and the surrounding area from the shareholders of Áburðarverksmiðjan (‘the purchase agreement’). According to the Icelandic authorities, the plan at the time was to remove all the buildings and installations from the area. In 2007, SR was dissolved and a new fund, Eignasjóður, was founded to take over SR's assets and tasks.

               (7)

               According to the Reykjavík Municipal Zoning Plan 2001-2024, the Gufunes area is intended for residential purposes and not for industrial activities (12). Additionally, the area is intended for the construction of the Sundabraut highway, connecting Laugarnes and Gufunes. Moreover, according to the Reykjavík Municipal plan for 2010-2030, the industrial area of Gufunes is regressing and a mixed urban area of residential units and clean commercial activities is anticipated in the future (13). Neither plan foresees that industrial activities will continue to be located in the area in the future.

         2.2.   AGREEMENTS CONCLUDED BETWEEN THE CITY OF REYKJAVÍK AND ÍSLENSKA GÁMAFÉLAGIÐ FOR THE RENT OF LAND AND PROPERTIES IN THE GUFUNES AREA

               (8)

               In February 2002, when SR purchased the land and the properties in the Gufunes area, the area was occupied by several tenants (mainly contractors and developers). At the time, ÍG had a lease agreement with Áburðarverksmiðjan, which had been concluded 29 October 1999 (‘the 1999 Agreement’). The 1999 Agreement set out a monthly rental fee of ISK 159 240, based on a price per square meter (14). ÍG used the land for its waste management business. According to the purchase agreement, SR took over all obligations and rights from Áburðarverksmiðjan regarding the existing lease agreements, including the 1999 Agreement with ÍG.

               (9)

               According to the City, the Gufunes area was continuingly busy and difficult to manage. Moreover, the buildings and installations were in bad shape, some tenants were not paying rent and there had been an accumulation of scrap, such as car wreckages. It was therefore clear to the City that in order to serve its role as a landowner, it would have to hire staff to control the area during day and night.

               (10)

               In light of that situation, it was not considered realistic to offer the area for rental purposes. It was therefore decided not to renew the current lease agreements and instead conclude an agreement with one party only. Consequently, SR decided to negotiate terms regarding lease, clean-up and supervision of the area with ÍG, which was the largest single tenant at the time, in addition to being on time with its rental payments (15). The following is an overview of the agreements concluded between SR and ÍG:

                           (i)

                              22 February 2005. SR and ÍG concluded a lease agreement on some of the properties in the area, replacing the 1999 Agreement. The total monthly rental fee was set at ISK 960 000 for a total of 4 676 square meters (including a 500 square meter lot) (16).

                           (ii)

                              14 October 2005. SR and ÍG concluded an agreement (‘the 2005 General Lease Agreement’), replacing the previous agreement from 22 February 2005, regarding lease, clean-up and supervision of land in the area of Gufunes. According to the agreement, ÍG had the obligation to carry out all maintenance work and improvements on the property. The 2005 General Lease Agreement was valid until 31 December 2009. The 2005 General Lease Agreement did not set out how many square meters of property ÍG rented. However, as an annex to the 2005 General Lease Agreement, an aerial printout demonstrated which parts of the area were rented to ÍG (17). The Icelandic authorities have explained that the agreement covered an area of about 130 000 square meters. The 2005 General Lease Agreement did not set out the price paid per square meter or the value of ÍG's obligations. The total monthly rental fee was set at ISK 2 000 000, recalculated monthly in accordance with the consumer price index (18).

                           (iii)

                              29 December 2006. The validity of the 2005 General Lease Agreement was extended, through an amendment, until 31 December 2011. ÍG was also obliged to demolish specified properties and remove equipment on the ground. ÍG was allowed to keep devices and installations removed from the ground at its own expense (19).

                           (iv)

                              21 December 2007. The validity of the 2005 General Lease Agreement was extended, through an amendment, until 31 December 2015. The owner could at any time take over part or all of the leased land if necessary due to changes in land use planning. ÍG also committed to reconnect pipes for electricity, water and heating that had become unusable. Moreover, ÍG withdrew a tort claim against the City (20).

                           (v)

                              15 June 2009. The validity of the 2005 General Lease Agreement was extended, through an amendment, until 31 December 2018. ÍG undertook to handle the maintenance of the area and to raise a levee, and an existing lease of a boat storage owned by Reykjavík Yacht club was extended. ÍG also committed to withdraw a claim against the City regarding maintenance costs (21).

               (11)

               According to the City, although the size of land rented by ÍG is 130 000 m2, only 110 000 m2 is usable for their purposes. The total registered size of the buildings is 24 722 m2. According to the Icelandic Property Registry, the value of the land previously owned by Áburðarverksmiðjan is ISK 211 000 000. The value of the land which ÍG rents has not been assessed, but the value of the entire land previously owned by Áburðarverksmiðjan it is estimated by the City at around ISK 137 000 000. The total registered value of buildings rented by ÍG is ISK 850 323 512 (22).

               (12)

               According to Article 4(2) of the Icelandic Act on Municipal Income No 4/1995, the property owner shall pay the property tax except where leased farms, leased lots or other contractual utilisation of land are involved, in which case the tax shall be paid by the resident or the user. The land, buildings and installations in question are on a defined harbour area which belongs to Faxaflóahafnir sf. and is leased to the City. The City therefore pays the property tax on the leased land and the properties rented out to ÍG.

               (13)

               Although none of the agreements include information concerning the value of the services provided by ÍG, the City has provided a table setting out an estimation of ÍG's costs stipulated in the 2005 General Lease Agreement and later amendments (hereafter collectively referred to as ‘the rental agreements’) from the time when the 2005 General Lease Agreement was concluded and until the end of the lease period in 2018 (23). The estimation was carried out by the City's expert analysts. Furthermore, the information provided contains the cost of both finished and unfinished demolition projects. According to the information provided, the average monthly cost borne by ÍG is ISK 10 815 624, including the rental fee. The rental fee per month is therefore approximately 25 % of ÍG's total cost per month.

               (14)

               When the lease agreement dated 22 February 2005 was concluded, SR did not impose any obligations on ÍG. ÍG's obligations were introduced with the 2005 General Lease Agreement of 14 October 2005 and determined in light of the proposed demolitions and estimated costs of cleaning, disposal and supervision of the area. The cleaning and disposal obligations were considered extensive in light of the area's condition. Below is an evaluation of ÍG's costs in accordance with their obligations stipulated in the 2005 General Lease Agreement (24):

                           Year

                           2006

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           2010

                           2011

                           2012

                           2013

                           2014

                           2015

                           2016

                           2017

                           2018

                              Rental fee

                           32 370 315

                           32 370 315

                           32 370 315

                           32 370 315

                           32 370 315

                           32 370 315

                           32 370 315

                           32 370 315

                           32 370 315

                           32 370 315

                           32 370 315

                           32 370 315

                           32 370 315

                              Employee

                           11 520 000

                           11 520 000

                           11 520 000

                           11 520 000

                           11 520 000

                           11 520 000

                           11 520 000

                           11 520 000

                           11 520 000

                           11 520 000

                           11 520 000

                           11 520 000

                           11 520 000

                              Administration

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                              Maintenance

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                              Legal

                           1 500 000

                           1 000 000

                           500 000

                           500 000

                           500 000

                           500 000

                           500 000

                           500 000

                           500 000

                           500 000

                           500 000

                           500 000

                           500 000

                              Energy costs of others

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                              Demolition unf.

                           21 538 462

                           21 538 462

                           21 538 462

                           21 538 462

                           21 538 462

                           21 538 462

                           21 538 462

                           21 538 462

                           21 538 462

                           21 538 462

                           21 538 462

                           21 538 462

                           21 538 462

                              Demolition fin.

                           8 835 222

                           8 835 222

                           8 835 222

                           8 835 222

                           8 835 222

                           8 835 222

                           8 835 222

                           8 835 222

                           8 835 222

                           8 835 222

                           8 835 222

                           8 835 222

                           8 835 222

                              Repairs

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                              Gates/Fences

                           1 000 000

                           1 000 000

                           1 000 000

                           1 000 000

                           600

                           600

                           600

                           600

                           600

                           600

                           600

                           600

                           600

                              Cleaning

                           7 000 000

                           7 000 000

                           7 000 000

                           7 000 000

                           3 000 000

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                              Painting

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                           2 000 000

                              Restorations

                           30 000 000

                           10 000 000

                           10 000 000

                           8 000 000

                           6 000 000

                           6 000 000

                           6 000 000

                           6 000 000

                           6 000 000

                           6 000 000

                           6 000 000

                           6 000 000

                           6 000 000

                              Wiring etc.

                           7 500 000

                           8 000 000

                           9 000 000

                           12 000 000

                           9 500 000

                           7 200 000

                           6 500 000

                           5 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           3 000 000

                           3 000 000

                           3 000 000

                           3 000 000

                              Sewage

                           10 600 000

                           10 600 000

                           10 600 000

                           10 600 000

                              Breakwater

                           6 000 000

                           6 000 000

                              Disposal

                           500 000

                           500 000

                           500 000

                           7 200 000

                           6 500 000

                           2 000 000

                           500 000

                           500 000

                           500 000

                           500 000

                           500 000

                           500 000

                           500 000

                              Asphalt

                           8 000 000

                           8 000 000

                           8 000 000

                           8 000 000

                           6 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           5 000 000

                              Soil

                           10 000 000

                           10 000 000

                           10 000 000

                           10 000 000

                           5 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                           4 000 000

                              Fire alarm

                           10 000 000

                           1 000 000

                           1 000 000

                           1 000 000

                           1 000 000

                           1 000 000

                           1 000 000

                           1 000 000

                           1 000 000

                           1 000 000

                           1 000 000

                           1 000 000

                           1 000 000

                              Total obligations

                           138 393 684

                           109 393 684

                           104 893 684

                           112 593 684

                           95 394 284

                           91 594 284

                           89 394 284

                           81 894 284

                           91 494 284

                           90 494 284

                           90 494 284

                           90 494 284

                           79 894 284

                              Total ISK

                           170 763 999

                           141 763 999

                           137 263 999

                           144 963 999

                           127 764 599

                           123 964 599

                           121 764 599

                           114 264 599

                           123 864 599

                           122 864 599

                           122 864 599

                           122 864 599

                           112 264 599

                              Average per month

                           14 230 333

                           11 813 667

                           11 438 667

                           12 080 333

                           10 647 050

                           10 330 383

                           10 147 050

                           9 522 050

                           10 322 050

                           10 238 717

                           10 238 717

                           10 238 717

                           9 355 383

                              Average

                              10 815 624

                              Source: City of Reykjavík.

         2.3.   RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE GUFUNES AREA

               (15)

               In early 2014 the Reykjavík City Council agreed to establish a steering committee to present a vision for the Gufunes area (25). The committee proposed an open idea competition concerning the future planning of the Gufunes area. At a meeting of the Reykjavík City Council in June 2015 it was agreed to publish an advertisement announcing a competition where interested parties were encouraged to submit ideas about the future organisation of the Gufunes area (26). The City received four ideas following the advertisement. One of those submissions came from RVK Studios, a film production company, which expressed its interest to buy part of the buildings in the Gufunes area with the objective to establish a film industry in the area. The buildings which RVK Studios expressed an interest in purchasing are some of the old Áburðarverksmiðjan properties which were rented out to ÍG through the rental agreements.

               (16)

               The City and RVK Studios subsequently had two independent real estate agents appraise the part of the Gufunes area in question (27). At a meeting of the City Council on 18 November 2015, the Council agreed to assign the Office of Property Management and Economic to begin negotiations with RVK Studios on the basis of the appraisals (28). Furthermore, the Council assigned the Office to begin negotiations with ÍG on evacuation and possible relocation in accordance to the provisions of the 2005 General Lease Agreement.

               (17)

               On 19 May 2016, the Reykjavík City Council agreed to enter into an agreement with RVK Studios for the purchase of certain properties in the Gufunes area (29). The City subsequently announced that ÍG would move its operations to the City's new industrial area in Esjumelar (30). On 20 May 2016, the Mayor of Reykjavík and the CEO of ÍG signed agreements concerning the termination of the rental agreements and the relocation of ÍG, and broke ground on ÍG's new premises in Esjumelar. On 27 May 2016, the City signed an agreement with RVK Studios concerning the sale of some of the old Áburðarverksmiðjan properties (31). The size of the properties sold to RVK Studios is 8 400 m2 and the purchase price was ISK 301 650 000. The City also granted RVK Studios an option for the purchase of an area east of the buildings, totalling 19 200 m2. RVK Studios will pay ISK 1 000 per m2 annually for the option.

         3.   THE COMPLAINT

               (18)

               According to the complainant, the City has granted unlawful state aid to ÍG through the rent of property and land in the Gufunes area at prices which are below market rates. In its complaint to the Authority, the complainant states that although it is difficult to pinpoint the exact aid amount, the price is clearly far below reasonable market price. Since ÍG is not paying normal market price, the company enjoys a competitive advantage. Furthermore, according to the complainant, the land at Gufunes is of interest for many companies that need spacious land for their operations, for instance transport hubs and storage companies.

               (19)

               The complainant noted that the rental price was set at ISK 2 million in the 2005 General Lease Agreement, with annual increases in accordance with the consumer price index (the property tax, which is not paid by ÍG, but by the owner of the property, i.e. the City, amounts to 41 % of the yearly rental amount). Furthermore, ÍG has certain maintenance obligations, which are considered as being a part of the rental price, although the approximate costs of those obligations are not to be found in the agreements. Moreover, the rental agreements do not forbid ÍG from subleasing the land to third parties. The complainant stressed that there is no evaluation in the rental agreements concerning the possible income from subletting parts of the property, and whether this affected the rental price.

               (20)

               The complainant also notes that it is unclear what the price per square meter is and how the rental price was determined. According to the complainant, the market price for the lease of the property should be between ISK 12 and 41 million per month, based on different recognised pricing methodologies. The complainant maintains that the renting of the property to ÍG at a price that is far below market value is contrary to EEA state aid rules.

         4.   GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE

               (21)

               In Decision No 261/15/COL, the Authority preliminarily assessed whether the agreements concluded between the City and ÍG concerning the lease of the Gufunes area constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and, if so, whether the state aid could be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

               (22)

               Having assessed the information submitted by the Icelandic authorities, the Authority came to the preliminary conclusion that it could not be excluded that the agreements between the City and ÍG constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. The following aspects were identified in Decision No 261/15/COL:

                           (i)

                           The State, for the purpose of Article 61(1) EEA, covers all bodies of the state administration, from the central government to the municipality level. Since the land and properties rented to ÍG belonged to the City, any discount on rental price would therefore constitute a transfer of state resources.

                           (ii)

                           The Authority expressed doubts as to whether the City, when entering into the agreements with ÍG, had acted like a private lessor finding itself in a comparable legal and factual situation. The preliminary assessment of the Authority was that an economic advantage in favour of ÍG could not be excluded.

                           (iii)

                           Since no other companies had the opportunity to negotiate with the City for the lease of the land and the properties, it was the Authority's preliminary view that the measures appeared to be selective.

                           (iv)

                           Finally, the Authority noted that any aid granted to ÍG, in the form of discounted rent, would in theory have allowed the company to increase or at least maintain its activities as a result of the aid. The aid was thus liable to limit the opportunities for undertakings established in other Contracting Parties, which might have wanted to compete with ÍG on the Icelandic waste collection market. The aid was thus liable to distort competition and affect trade within the EEA.

               (23)

               According to the Authority, further evidence was needed in order to determine whether the terms of the rental agreements could be regarded as compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

               (24)

               Consequently, the Authority had doubts as to whether the rental agreements between the City and ÍG constituted state aid, and if so, whether they could be found to be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement pursuant to its Article 61(3)(c).

         5.   COMMENTS BY THE CITY TO THE OPENING DECISION

               (25)

               According to the City, the agreements with ÍG do not involve state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, since ÍG did not receive an advantage.

               (26)

               According to the City, the agreements dated 22 February 2005 and 14 October 2005 were entered into on normal market conditions, since the rental fee was based on the rental fee determined following an open advertising process towards the end of the year 2003 and was in line with analyses/estimations conducted by the City's experts.

               (27)

               The City rejects that the methodologies that the complainant had presented are suitable for determining the market rental price. Instead, the City draws a comparison with the rent of another property, i.e. the old State cement factory at Sævarhöfði 31, which is located in an industrial area similar to Gufunes.

               (28)

               In 2014, the City purchased the Sævarhöfði 31 property. In 2013, Central Public Procurement (Ríkiskaup), on behalf of the Icelandic State, advertised the property for rent. When the City purchased the property, it pledged to take the highest bid according to the advertisement. Central Public Procurement received four bids, the highest ISK 420 000 per month, without any special services or obligations set out for the lessee. The property evaluation of the property at Sævarhöfði 31 is ISK 293 028 000. Therefore, the highest rental bid as a percentage of the property evaluation is 0,147 %. By comparison the rental price according to the 2005 General Lease Agreement with ÍG is 0,320 % of the Gufunes property evaluation. The City highlights that the rental price of Sævarhöfði 31 was found after an open advertisement procedure and fairly reflects the market value of industrial areas in the City under normal market conditions. This comparison shows that the rental price paid by ÍG can by no means be considered below the market value of industrial areas in the City, especially bearing in mind that the rental price for Sævarhöfði 31 did not take into account the factors that affected the rental price for the Gufunes area.

               (29)

               According to the City, the fact that other parties were later interested in the area is of little relevance when assessing the demand for the area at the time when the 2005 General Lease Agreement was concluded, i.e. in October 2005. At that time it was not considered realistic to offer the area for rental purposes. ÍG has carried all the costs of cleaning the area and bringing the buildings to proper conditions. Furthermore, other parties did not show an interest when the area was advertised for rent in 2003. It must therefore be presumed that the late interest is related to the condition of the area after ÍG took over the management of the area.

               (30)

               According to the City, the highest price is not the only factor that the Authority should take into account when the market economy operator test is applied. Instead, the relevant question is whether a market economy operator would have entered into the transaction in question on the same terms (32). Furthermore, the comparison between the conduct of public and private investors must be made by reference to the attitude which a private investor would have had at the time of the transaction in question, having regard to the available information and foreseeable developments at that time.

               (31)

               When the agreements were concluded between the City and ÍG the market conditions were not normal as there was no active market to be found for industrial property of this type and in that condition. Therefore, according to the City, normal market conditions must be assessed from objective and verifiable perspective that existed at that time. With reference to the above, the City considers that such information is found in the documents Reykjavik has submitted in this case. Furthermore, if one could demonstrate normal market conditions for industrial areas of this type, the example of the rental price obtained in the year 2014 for the former State cement factory at Sævarhöfði 31 demonstrates the market value for industrial areas such as Gufunes.

               (32)

               According to the City, the obligations imposed on ÍG by the rental agreements cannot be compared to the obligations in dispute in the case of Haslemoen Leir
                   (33). The price reducing obligation disputed in that case concerned a possible loss for Haslemoen AS in not being able to lease out a certain building. However, the obligations imposed on ÍG concerned maintenance work and improvements on the property, demolition, reconnecting pipes for electricity, water and heating and other constructions on the area. The costs of these obligations were estimated by the City's expert analysts based on the results of recent tenders for similar projects. Despite the lack of documentation supporting the precise economic impact of the services entrusted to ÍG and the zoning uncertainty, the Authority must accept that these obligations had the effect of reducing the rental price. According to the City, discarding the impact of the obligations would be unreasonable, especially since the actual costs that ÍG has carried due to the obligations is in accordance to the estimation.

               (33)

               According to the City, it acted as a market economy operator and took into account zoning considerations when concluding the rental agreements with ÍG. The City included very onerous and short termination clauses to be able to clear the area in a short time, if and when the State agreed to start the construction of Sundabraut highway. SR was thoroughly acquainted with the properties and the area, and was in a good position to make an objective assessment of whether the condition of the area was proper enough so that it could be rented out on the market. A private investor would always pay attention to zoning plans when making decisions regarding the use of plot and properties.

               (34)

               In light of the above considerations, the City maintains that the rental agreements with ÍG comply with the market economy operator test.

         6.   COMMENTS FROM ÍG

               (35)

               According to ÍG, the large size of the land is of very limited benefit for them as a tenant and only makes the maintenance and supervision obligations more cumbersome and costly. Moreover, although the buildings are voluminous in square meters they are in a very bad condition. ÍG highlights that the buildings were indeed bought in order to tear them down. A total demolition was planned and it was foreseen that there would be a residential area and a highway on the site. Therefore, any calculation based on square meters or the size of the land is irrelevant for the purposes of determining the market rental value of the area.

               (36)

               In 2003, SR had used the area and the buildings in Gufunes to provide storage for various individuals and companies that had been ordered by SR to evacuate other areas in the City. This arrangement soon became problematic for SR, from a logistical point of view, and therefore SR offered ÍG to rent the entire area with the aim of having the area cleaned up. ÍG was very reluctant in the beginning to take on the task as the area presented several problems, such as difficult tenants and a collection of car wrecks and industrial waste.

               (37)

               For the last 10 years, ÍG has spent ISK 16,5 million on average each month in maintenance and other costs that should normally have been borne by a lessor. Those costs must be taken into consideration when assessing the market value of the rent.

               (38)

               According to ÍG, the conditions of the buildings in the Gufunes area are dire, despite the resources spent on renovations. Almost every building leaks and most of the roofs of the buildings are damaged and useless. Moreover, almost all windows apart from in the office building are damaged and useless, many floors of the buildings are in dangerous conditions and there are holes in some places and stairs that do not fulfil regulatory conditions. In addition, most of the buildings have no water, no toilets, and electricity that does not comply with regulatory measures.

               (39)

               Furthermore, ÍG has for the largest part of the rental period been faced with the fact that the City could have requested the land back on short notice. The short termination provision of 18 months and the obligation to return part of the land upon request with only 12 months' notice, was a drawback in running a business such as waste disposal, which involves heavy machines and equipment

               (40)

               According to ÍG, the late interest of the complainant has limited meaning when assessing the demand for the area when the 2005 General Lease Agreement was concluded. The situation in 2005 was such that at that time it was not considered realistic to offer the area for rental purposes. Since then, ÍG has spent considerable resources to renovate, clean up and maintain the area. Therefore it must be presumed that the late interest is related to the condition of the area after ÍG took over the management of the area.

               (41)

               Finally, ÍG submitted an independent lease assessment, dated 15 October 2015, from 101 Reykjavík Fasteignasala (34). The lease assessment provides an estimate of the value of the 2005 General Lease Agreement in October 2005 based on the value and the condition of the individual properties. The conclusion of the appraiser is that the total monthly rental value of the properties and the area is ISK 1 870 000.

         II.   ASSESSMENT

   1.   THE PRESENCE OF STATE AID

               (42)

               Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows:
               ‘Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement.’

               (43)

               This implies that a measure constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement if the following conditions are cumulatively fulfilled: the measure: (i) is granted by the State or through state resources; (ii) confers a selective economic advantage on the beneficiary; (iii) is liable to affect trade between Contracting Parties and to distort competition.

         1.1.   NO ADVANTAGE
   1.1.1.   General

               (44)

               In the following, the Authority sets out its reasoning for why it has come to the conclusion that the rental agreements do not provide ÍG with an advantage within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

               (45)

               An advantage, within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, is any economic benefit which an undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions, i.e. in the absence of state intervention, thus placing it in a more favourable position than its competitors (35). If the transaction was carried out under favourable terms, in the sense that ÍG was paying a rent below market price, the company would be receiving an advantage within the meaning of the state aid rules.

               (46)

               To examine this question, the Authority applies the ‘market economy operator’ (‘MEO’) test whereby the conduct of states or public authorities when selling or leasing assets is compared to that of private economic operators (36).

               (47)

               The purpose of the MEO test is to assess whether the State has granted an advantage to an undertaking by not acting like a private market economy operator with regard to a certain transaction, e.g. the sale or lease of assets (37). The public authority must disregard public policy objectives and instead focus on the single objective of obtaining a market rate of return or profit on its investments and a market price for the sale or lease of assets (38). The Authority notes, however, that this assessment normally must take into account any special rights or obligations attached to the asset concerned, in particular those that could affect the market value.

               (48)

               Compliance with market conditions, and whether the agreed price in a transaction corresponds to market price, can be established through certain proxies. Organising an open, transparent and unconditional bidding procedure is generally an appropriate means to ensure that the sale or lease by national authorities of assets is consistent with the MEO test and that a fair market value has been paid for the goods and services in question. However, this does not automatically mean that the absence of an orderly bidding procedure or a possible flaw in such a procedure justifies a presumption of state aid. The Authority can also rely on other proxies, including expert valuations.

         1.1.2.   The absence of a competitive procedure

               (49)

               In light of the above consideration, the Authority must first examine whether the City organised a tender procedure, adequate and well-suited to establish a market price (39). However, in this case it has been confirmed that no public tendering was initiated regarding the area in question. Additionally, an independent valuation was not performed in advance of the 2005 General Lease Agreement.

               (50)

               The City has nevertheless highlighted that the various existing rental agreements in the area, which were concluded following open advertisements in the Icelandic media in 2003, were considered when determining the rent in the 2005 General Lease Agreement with ÍG. However, the Authority considers that these advertisements were merely calls for interest and would not constitute an open and competitive bidding procedure. Moreover, they did not concern the area in its entirety, offered for lease to one tenant, but rather individual properties within that area.

               (51)

               The Authority therefore concludes that this advertisement procedure does not meet the requirements of the MEO test. Accordingly, this procedure cannot provide a reliable proxy for establishing the market price for the lease right in question.

         1.1.3.   Expert valuation of the rental value

               (52)

               As stated above, the absence of a sufficient tender process does not exclude the possibility of the Authority applying the MEO test. However, the Authority needs to examine the substance of the transaction in question, and in particular compare the agreed price to the market price. For this purpose, the Authority normally refers to an independent expert valuation study as a proxy for the market price. Such a study should ideally be prepared at the time of the transaction. However, the Authority can also rely on an ex post valuation study in its assessment (40).

               (53)

               The City has stated that there are several issues that affect the market rental price for the Gufunes area. Firstly, the buildings and installations were in poor shape, some tenants were not paying rent and there had been accumulation of scrap which needed clean-up. Secondly, uncertainty has reigned concerning the zoning plans for the Gufunes area. Industrial activity is retreating in the area according to previous and current Municipal Plans and the City is therefore unable to conclude a long term rental agreement for the property. Thirdly, ÍG has the obligation to return part of the land upon request upon 12 months' notice and the notice period for the entire area, including the buildings, was as short as 18 months.

               (54)

               As previously noted, the City had two independent real estate agents appraise the value of the properties and the lease rights when they conducted their negotiations with RVK Studios for the sale of the buildings in the Gufunes area. Although these independent assessment do not directly concern the market rental price for the properties, they do confirm the bad state of the properties and their market value. Both the independent appraisers highlight that the buildings leak, are insufficiently isolated, contain considerable industrial waste from the time the land was occupied by a fertiliser company, and are generally run down. In addition, some of the buildings contain asbestos, and others need to be torn down.

               (55)

               As previously noted, the City has also provided a comparison with a similar industrial property located at Sævarhöfði 31. The property was advertised for rent by Central Public Procurement and the highest of four bids, worth ISK 420 000 per month, was accepted. This rental agreement did not include any special services or obligations to be carried out by the lessee. The highest rental bid as a percentage of the property valuation is 0,147 % whereas the rental price according to the 2005 General Lease Agreement with ÍG is 0,320 % of the Gufunes area property valuation.

               (56)

               Moreover, 101 Reykjavík Fasteignasala has conducted an independent valuation of the 2005 General Lease Agreement (41). The valuation is dated 15 October 2015. It is based on the value and the state of the individual properties, which were individually assessed and scrutinised. The valuation looks at the conditions of the properties and the area at the time the General Lease Agreement was concluded in 2005 as well as the prevailing market conditions then. The conclusion of the appraiser is that the total monthly rental value of the properties was ISK 1 870 000 in October 2005. However, in accordance with the 2005 General Lease Agreement the monthly rental fee for ÍG was set at ISK 2 000 000, recalculated monthly in accordance with the consumer price index (42). The fee paid monthly by ÍG is thus higher than the market rental price according to the expert valuation.

               (57)

               Having taken into account all of the above, the Authority considers that the 2005 General Lease Agreement was not entered into below market price.

               (58)

               Finally, the Authority notes that neither the comparison to the property located at Sævarhöfði 31 nor the valuation prepared by 101 Reykjavík Fasteignasala take into account the special obligations contained in the rental agreements, in particular the short notice period (which has now been evoked) and the various maintenance obligations. The financial impact of these obligations on the rental price are difficult to quantify. However, they inherently favour the City at the expense of ÍG, further comforting the Authority's conclusion that the 2005 General Lease Agreement was concluded on market terms.

               (59)

               In light of the above, the Authority concludes that ÍG did not receive an economic advantage from the rental agreements.

         2.   CONCLUSION

               (60)

               Based on the above assessment, the Authority considers that the rental agreements concluded between the City and ÍG concerning the lease of the Gufunes area do not entail state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The rental agreements concluded between the City of Reykjavík and Íslenska Gámafélagið concerning the lease of the Gufunes area do not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. The formal investigation is hereby closed.
   Article 2
   This Decision is addressed to Iceland.
   Article 3
   Only the English language version of this decision is authentic.

      Done in Brussels, on 26 April 2017.

            For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

         Sven Erik SVEDMAN

            President

         Frank J. BÜCHEL

            College Member

      (1)  Decision No 261/15/COL to initiate the formal investigation procedure into potential state aid granted through the rent of land and property in the Gufunes area, published in OJ C 316, 24.9.2015, p. 22 and EEA Supplement No 57, 24.9.2015, p. 21.

      (2)  Document Nos 704341-704343.

      (3)  Document No 774957.

      (4)  Decision No 261/15/COL to initiate the formal investigation procedure into potential state aid granted through the rent of land and property in the Gufunes area, published in OJ C 316, 24.9.2015, p. 22 and EEA Supplement No 57, 24.9.2015, p. 21.

      (5)  Document No 778453.

      (6)  Document No 781877.

      (7)  Document No 781927.

      (8)  Document No 786716.

      (9)  Document No 805588.

      (10)  Document No 806264.

      (11)  Document No 831665.

      (12)  Available online at; http://skipulagssja.skipbygg.is/skipulagssja/. See also http://reykjavik.is/sites/default/files/adalskipulag/08_grafarvogur.pdf

      (13)  Ibid.

      (14)  Document No 716986, page 17.

      (15)  Documents No 716985 and 742948.

      (16)  Document No 716986, page 21.

      (17)  See Document No 716985.

      (18)  Document No 716986, page 25.

      (19)  Document No 716986, page 29.

      (20)  Document No 716986, page 31.

      (21)  Document No 716986, page 33.

      (22)  Document No 716985.

      (23)  Document No 742948.

      (24)  All figures are in ISK.

      (25)  Document No 716985.

      (26)  Announcement available online at: http://www.hugmyndasamkeppni.is/samkeppnir/gufunes-framtidharskipulag.

      (27)  Document No 786718.

      (28)  Minutes of the City Council meeting are available online at: http://reykjavik.is/fundargerd/fundur-nr-5386.

      (29)  Minutes of the City Council meeting are available online at: http://reykjavik.is/fundargerd/fundur-nr-5407.

      (30)  Announcement available online at: http://reykjavik.is/frettir/islenska-gamafelagid-flytur-esjumela.

      (31)  Announcement available online at: http://reykjavik.is/frettir/gengid-fra-kaupum-rvk-studios-fasteignum-undir-kvikmyndaver.

      (32)  Judgment in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Commission, T-228/99 and T-233/99, EU:T.2003:57.

      (33)  See the Authority's Decision No 90/12/COL of 15.3.2012 on the sale of certain buildings at the Inner Camp at Haslemoen Leir, available at: http://www.eftasurv.int/media/decisions/90-12-COL.pdf, paragraph 81.

      (34)  Document No 778453.

      (35)  Judgment in SFEI and Others, C-39/94, ECLI:EU:C:1996:285, paragraph 60, and judgment in Spain v Commission, C-342/96, ECLI:EU:C:1999:210, paragraph 41.

      (36)  For the application of the MEO test, see Case E-12/11 Asker Brygge [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 536 and judgment in Land Burgenland and Others v Commission, C-214/12 P, C-215/12 P and C-223/12 P, EU:C:2013:682. These cases concern the sale of an outright property right in land. However, they also provide guidance for the sale of other rights in land, including the lease right in the present case.

      (37)  See the Authority's Guidelines on the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, paragraph 133. Available at: http://www.eftasurv.int/media/esa-docs/physical/EFTA-Surveillance-Auhtority-Guidelines-on-the-notion-of-State-aid.pdf.

      (38)  Judgment in Land Burgenland and Others v Commission, C-214/12 P, C-215/12 P and C-223/12 P, EU:C:2013:682.

      (39)  EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 61/16/COL to close the formal investigation into potential aid through the lease of an optical fibre previously operated on behalf of NATO, not yet published, available online at: http://www.eftasurv.int/media/esa-docs/physical/061-16-COL.pdf, paragraph 80.

      (40)  Case E-12/11 Asker Brygge [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 536, paragraph 81 and EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 61/16/COL to close the formal investigation into potential aid through the lease of an optical fibre previously operated on behalf of NATO, not yet published, paragraph 88.

      (41)  Document No 778453.

      (42)  Document No 716986, page 25.


title: 2014/948/EU: Council Decision of 15 December 2014 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Protocol between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Cape Verde

text:
               24.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 369/1

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 15 December 2014
   on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Protocol between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Cape Verde

      (2014/948/EU)

   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43 in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 19 December 2006, by adopting Regulation (EC) No 2027/2006 (1) the Council approved the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Cape Verde (the ‘Agreement’).

               (2)

               The Protocol agreed between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the two parties (2) expired on 31 August 2014.

               (3)

               The Council authorised the Commission to negotiate with the Republic of Cape Verde a new protocol (the ‘Protocol’) granting Union vessels fishing opportunities in the fishing zone in which the Republic of Cape Verde exercises sovereignty or jurisdiction in fishing matters.

               (4)

               On completion of the negotiations, the Protocol was initialled on 28 August 2014.

               (5)

               To ensure that Union vessels can continue their fishing activities, the Protocol should be applied on a provisional basis from the date of its signature, in accordance with Article 15 thereof.

               (6)

               The Protocol should be signed and applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The signature of the Protocol between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde setting out fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Cape Verde is hereby authorised, subject to its conclusion.
   The text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol on behalf of the Union.
   Article 3
   The Protocol shall be applied provisionally, in accordance with Article 15 thereof, from the date of its signature, pending the completion of the procedures necessary for its conclusion.
   Article 4
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 15 December 2014.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. MARTINA

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/2006 of 19 December 2006 on the conclusion of the Fisheries partnership agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Cape Verde (OJ L 414, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ L 181, 9.7.2011, p. 2.