title: Council Decision (EU) 2015/1032 of 7 May 2015 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Agreement between the European Union and the Commonwealth of Dominica on the short-stay visa waiver

text:
               3.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 173/19

         COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2015/1032
   of 7 May 2015
   on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Agreement between the European Union and the Commonwealth of Dominica on the short-stay visa waiver
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular point (a) of Article 77(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5), thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Regulation (EU) No 509/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) transferred the reference to the Commonwealth of Dominica from Annex I to Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (2).

               (2)

               That reference to the Commonwealth of Dominica is accompanied by a footnote indicating that the exemption from the visa requirement shall apply from the date of entry into force of an agreement on visa exemption to be concluded with the European Union.

               (3)

               On 9 October 2014, the Council adopted a decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with the Commonwealth of Dominica for the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and the Commonwealth of Dominica on the short-stay visa waiver (the ‘Agreement’).

               (4)

               Negotiations on the Agreement were opened on 12 November 2014 and were successfully finalised by the initialling thereof, by Exchange of Letters, on 11 December 2014.

               (5)

               The Agreement should be signed, and the declarations attached to the Agreement should be approved, on behalf of the Union. The Agreement should be applied on a provisional basis as from the date of its signature, pending the completion of the procedures for its formal conclusion.

               (6)

               This Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC (3); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

               (7)

               This Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC (4); Ireland is therefore not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The signing on behalf of the Union of the Agreement between the European Union and the Commonwealth of Dominica on the short-stay visa waiver (the ‘Agreement’) is hereby authorised, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement.
   The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   The declarations attached to this Decision shall be approved on behalf of the Union.
   Article 3
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.
   Article 4
   The Agreement shall be applied on a provisional basis as from the date of signature thereof (5), pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion.
   Article 5
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 7 May 2015.

            For the Council

            The President

         E. RINKĒVIČS

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 509/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ L 149, 20.5.2014, p. 67).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 131, 1.6.2000, p. 43).

      (4)  Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland's request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 20).

      (5)  The date of signature of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the General Secretariat of the Council.


Avis juridique important

|

31998D0305(06)

Council Decision of 23 February 1998 appointing a member of the Advisory Committee on Pharmaceutical Training

Official Journal C 069 , 05/03/1998 P. 0007 - 0007

COUNCIL DECISION of 23 February 1998 appointing a member of the Advisory Committee on Pharmaceutical Training (98/C 69/06)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to Council Decision 85/434/EEC of 16 September 1985, setting up an Advisory Committee on Pharmaceutical Training (1), and in particular Articles 3 and 4 thereof;Whereas, by Decision of 23 July 1996 (2) the Council appointed Miss Sirkka-Leena HÖRKKÖ a member for the period ending on 22 July 1999;Whereas the Finnish Government has nominated Mrs Marja-Liisa NIEMI to replace Miss Sirkka-Leena HÖRKKÖ,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Sole Article Mrs Marja-Liisa NIEMI is hereby appointed a member of the Advisory Committee on Pharmaceutical Training in place of Miss Sirkka-Leena HÖRKKÖ for the remainder of the latter's term of office, which expires on 22 July 1999.Done in Brussels, 23 February 1998.For the CouncilThe PresidentR. COOK(1) OJ L 253, 24.9.1985, p. 43.(2) OJ C 239, 17.8.1996, p. 5.


title: Council Decision (EU) 2016/268 of 12 February 2016 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Saint Lucia on the short-stay visa waiver

text:
               27.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 52/3

         COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2016/268
   of 12 February 2016
   on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Saint Lucia on the short-stay visa waiver
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular point (a) of Article 77(2), in conjunction with point (a)(v) of the second subparagraph of Article 218(6), thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Having regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Commission has negotiated on behalf of the European Union an agreement with Saint Lucia on the short-stay visa waiver (the ‘Agreement’).

               (2)

               In accordance with Council Decision (EU) 2015/1031 (2), the Agreement has been signed and is applied on a provisional basis as from 28 May 2015.

               (3)

               The Agreement sets up a Joint Committee of experts for the management of the Agreement. The Union is to be represented within that Joint Committee by the Commission, which should be assisted by the representatives of the Member States.

               (4)

               This Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC (3); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

               (5)

               This Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC (4); Ireland is therefore not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

               (6)

               The Agreement should be approved,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The Agreement between the European Union and Saint Lucia on the short-stay visa waiver is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.
   Article 2
   The President of the Council shall give, on behalf of the Union, the notification provided for in Article 8(1) of the Agreement (5).
   Article 3
   The Commission, assisted by the representatives of the Member States, shall represent the Union within the Joint Committee of experts set up pursuant to Article 6 of the Agreement.
   Article 4
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 12 February 2016.

            For the Council

            The President

         J.R.V.A. DIJSSELBLOEM

      (1)  Consent given on 15 December 2015 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

      (2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/1031 of 7 May 2015 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Agreement between the European Union and Saint Lucia on the short-stay visa waiver (OJ L 173, 3.7.2015, p. 10).

      (3)  Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 131, 1.6.2000, p. 43).

      (4)  Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland's request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 20).

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


title: 2011/457/EU: Council Decision of 19 July 2011 on the position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms (MEDIA Mundus)

text:
               26.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 194/2

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 19 July 2011
   on the position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms (MEDIA Mundus)
   (2011/457/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 166 and 173 and Article 218(9) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Protocol 31 to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1) (‘the EEA Agreement’) contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms.

               (2)

               It is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement to include Decision No 1041/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing an audiovisual cooperation programme with professionals from third countries (MEDIA Mundus) (2).

               (3)

               Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly.

               (4)

               The position of the Union within the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the attached draft Decision,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The position to be taken by the European Union within the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 19 July 2011.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. SAWICKI

      (1)  OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ L 288, 4.11.2009, p. 10.

      DRAFT
      DECISION No …/2011 OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
      of …
      amending Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms
      THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,
      Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the Agreement’), and in particular Articles 86 and 98 thereof,
      Whereas:

                  (1)

                  Protocol 31 to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No …/… of … (1).

                  (2)

                  It is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the Agreement to include Decision No 1041/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing an audiovisual cooperation programme with professionals from third countries (MEDIA Mundus) (2).

                  (3)

                  Protocol 31 to the Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended cooperation to take place. That amendment should apply from 1 January 2011,

            HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
      Article 1
      The following indent is added to Article 9(4) of Protocol 31 to the Agreement:

                  ‘—

                     32009 D 1041: Decision No 1041/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing an audiovisual cooperation programme with professionals from third countries (MEDIA Mundus) (OJ L 288, 4.11.2009, p. 10).
                  Liechtenstein shall be exempted from the participation in, and the financial contribution to, this programme.’.

            Article 2
      This Decision shall enter into force on the day following the last notification to the EEA Joint Committee pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Agreement. (3)

      It shall apply from 1 January 2011.
      Article 3
      This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

         Done at …, …

               For the EEA Joint Committee

               The President

               The Secretaries to the EEA Joint Committee

         (1)  OJ L …

         (2)  OJ L 288, 4.11.2009, p. 10.

         (3)  [No constitutional requirements indicated.] [Constitutional requirements indicated.]


Avis juridique important

|

32003D0502

2003/502/EC: Commission Decision of 23 June 2003 suspending the examination procedure concerning an obstacle to trade consisting of trade practices maintained by Canada in relation to certain geographical indications for wines

Official Journal L 170 , 09/07/2003 P. 0029 - 0029

Commission Decisionof 23 June 2003suspending the examination procedure concerning an obstacle to trade consisting of trade practices maintained by Canada in relation to certain geographical indications for wines(2003/502/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community's rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation(1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 356/95(2), and in particular Articles 11 and 14 thereof,Whereas:(1) On 6 December 2001 CIVB (Conseil Interprofessionel du Vin de Bordeaux) lodged a complaint pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 (hereinafter the Regulation).(2) CIVB claimed that Community sales of Bordeaux and Médoc in Canada are hindered by a number of obstacles to trade within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Regulation, i.e. "a practice adopted or maintained by a third country and in respect of which international trade rules establish a right of action".(3) The alleged obstacle results from the C-57 Amendment to the Canadian Trademarks act, which deprives the geographical indications Bordeaux and Médoc of a standard protection in compliance with the protection requirements laid down by the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) for geographical indications for wines.(4) The Commission decided that the complaint contained sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an examination procedure. A corresponding notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(3).(5) The investigation confirmed the complainant's legal claim that the C-57 Amendment to the Canadian Trade-Marks Act violates Articles 23.1 and 2 as well as Article 24.3 (the so-called standstill clause) of TRIPS and that such infringements cannot be justified on the basis of the exception under Article 24.6 of TRIPS.(6) The examination procedure also confirmed that Bordeaux wines have a considerable market share in Canada, which is strictly connected with the Bordeaux/Médoc product's name. If such an asset is not duly protected, holders of the "Bordeaux" and "Médoc" geographical indications could see their market position in Canada seriously curtailed. This prejudice could eventually result in adverse trade effects for the producers of "Bordeaux" and "Médoc" wine. It can therefore be concluded that the C-57 Amendment threatens to cause adverse trade effects to the complainant, within the meaning of Article 2(4) and 10(4) of the Regulation.(7) On 12 February 2003, the Advisory Committee established by the Regulation considered the final report on the examination procedure.(8) On 24 April 2003, the Commission initialled a bilateral agreement with Canada on trade in wine and spirits, which once it has entered into force, would contribute to the protection of Community interests in this field. In particular, this agreement would provide for the definitive elimination of the names listed as "generic" in Canada, including "Bordeaux", "Médoc" and "Medoc" by the entry into force of the agreement.(9) However, the procedure cannot be terminated until the denominations "Bordeaux", "Médoc" and "Medoc" are effectively eliminated from the list of generics of the C-57 Amendment.(10) The Commission considers therefore that it is appropriate to suspend the procedure.(11) The measures provided for in this decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Advisory Committee,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Sole ArticleThe examination procedure concerning obstacles to trade, consisting of trade practices maintained by Canada in relation to certain geographical indications for wines, is hereby suspended.Done at Brussels, 23 June 2003.For the CommissionPascal LamyMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 71.(2) OJ L 41, 23.2.1995, p. 3.(3) OJ C 124, 25.5.2002, p. 6.


title: 2011/659/CFSP: Political and Security Committee Decision EUJUST LEX-Iraq/2/2011 of 30 September 2011 concerning the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-Iraq

text:
               7.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 263/16

         POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUJUST LEX-IRAQ/2/2011
   of 30 September 2011
   concerning the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-Iraq
   (2011/659/CFSP)
   THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,
   Having regard to Council Decision 2010/330/CFSP of 14 June 2010 on the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX-Iraq (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Decision 2010/330/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST LEX-Iraq), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

               (2)

               The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of Brigadier General László HUSZÁR as Head of Mission of EUJUST LEX-Iraq as from 1 October 2011,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Brigadier General László HUSZÁR is hereby appointed as Head of Mission of EUJUST LEX-Iraq as from 1 October 2011.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 30 September 2011.

            For the Political and Security Committee

            The Chairperson

         O. SKOOG

      (1)  OJ L 149, 15.6.2010, p. 12.


title: 2007/675/EC: Commission Decision of 17 October 2007 setting up the Group of Experts on Trafficking in Human Beings

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 277/29

      COMMISSION DECISION

   of 17 October 2007
   setting up the Group of Experts on Trafficking in Human Beings
   (2007/675/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               With a view to enhancing the fight against trafficking in human beings at European level and in accordance with the Brussels Declaration (1) (2002) that expressed the need for a group of experts on trafficking in human beings to be set up by the Commission, the group was created with the Commission Decision 2003/209/EC of 25 March 2003. The consultative group is to be known as the ‘Experts Group on Trafficking in Human Beings.’ (2).

               (2)

               The Experts Group on Trafficking in Human Beings was mandated to contribute to the further development of the prevention of and the fight against trafficking in human beings, to enable the Commission to gather opinions in view of Commission initiatives relating to trafficking in human beings and to prepare a report based on the recommendations set out in the Brussels Declaration. The Experts Group in December 2004 submitted the report together with a set of recommendations with a view to launching further concrete proposals at European level.

               (3)

               The Commission Communication of 18 October 2005‘Fighting trafficking in human beings — an integrated approach and proposals for an action plan’ (3) was largely based upon the report and the recommendations developed by the Experts Group. On 1 December 2005, the Council adopted the EU plan on best practices, standards and procedures for combating and preventing trafficking in human beings (4), which reflects a number of suggestions made in the Commission's Communication.

               (4)

               In the light of the valuable work carried out by the Experts Group on Trafficking in Human Beings since 2003 that has enabled the Commission to further develop its policy in the area and taking into account the increasing importance at global level of the policy area of trafficking in human beings, the Group of Experts should continue its work. A new decision is required in order to take account the enlargement of the European Union. The scope of the group of experts should also be extended and should be able to benefit from a wider range of expertise that is demanded by the changing phenomenon of trafficking in human beings.

               (5)

               The Group of Experts should continue to advise the Commission taking into account current developments at European, national and international level. In particular, it should assist the Commission in the implementation and development of actions envisaged in the EU plan on best practices, standards and procedures for combating and preventing trafficking in human beings of December 2005 while paying special attention to the area of labour exploitation.

               (6)

               The Group of Experts should be composed of 21 members representing a balance of representatives of public bodies of EU Member States and non-profit organisations of the European Union, and Europol. Experts from the academic sector and consultancies specialising in the non-profit sector should also be eligible for membership.

               (7)

               The Group of Experts should be able to establish sub-groups in order to facilitate and accelerate its work by focusing on a specific issue. The terms of reference of such sub-groups should be agreed upon by the Group of Experts as a whole and should be clearly defined.

               (8)

               Rules on disclosure of information by members of the Group of Experts should be provided for, without prejudice to the Commission’s rules on security as set out in the Annex to Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom (5).

               (9)

               Personal data relating to members of the group should be processed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (6).

               (10)

               The term of office of the Members should be three years and should be renewable.

               (11)

               Decision 2003/209/EC should be repealed,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The group of experts on trafficking in human beings
   The ‘Group of experts on Trafficking in Human Beings’, hereinafter referred to as ‘the group’, is hereby set up.
   Article 2
   Consultation
   1.   The Commission may consult the group on any matter relating to trafficking in human beings.
   2.   The group's task shall be:

               (a)

               to establish cooperation between Member States, other parties as listed in Article 3 paragraph 2(b) and the Commission on the range of questions relating to trafficking in human beings;

               (b)

               to help the Commission, by issuing opinions related to the trafficking in human beings, and ensuring a coherent approach to the subject;

               (c)

               to help the Commission assess the evolution of policy in the filed of trafficking in human beings at national, European and international levels;

               (d)

               to assist the Commission in identifying and defining possible relevant measures and actions at European and national level across the range of the anti-trafficking policy;

               (e)

               The Group of Experts shall issue opinions or reports to the Commission at the latter's request or on its own initiative, taking into due consideration the implementation and further development at EU level of the EU Plan on best practices, standards and procedures for combating and preventing trafficking in human beings, and related forms of exploitation. It will also take into account the gender dimension.

         3.   The Chairperson of the group may advise the Commission that is desirable to consult the group on a specific question.
   Article 3
   Membership — Appointment
   1.   The group shall be composed of 21 members. Call for application to be a member in the group will be published in the Official Journal and at the public website of Directorate-general Justice, liberty and Security.
   2.   The members of the group of experts shall be appointed from specialists with expertise and experience in the fight against trafficking in human beings, including the labour dimension of trafficking in human beings, taken from:

               (a)

               administrations of the Member States (up to 11 members);

               (b)

               inter-governmental, international and non-governmental organisations active at European level with well documented expertise and experience in the area of trafficking in human beings (up to 5 members);

               (c)

               social partners and employers' associations operating at European level (up to 4 members);

               (d)

               Europol (1 member);

               (e)

               individuals with experience deriving from academic research for public or private universities or institutes in Member States may also become members of the group (up to 2 members).

         3.   The members referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 shall be designated and appointed by the Commission on the proposal of Member States. The members referred to in points (b), (c) and (e) of paragraph 2 shall be appointed by the Commission from among those who have responded to the call for applications. The member referred to in (d) of paragraph 2 shall be appointed by Europol.
   4.   On the basis of the call for applications applicants who were deemed suitable candidates for group membership, but were not appointed, should be placed on a reserve list, with their consent. The Commission will use this list for the appointment of replacements for members, if needed.
   5.   Members of the group shall remain in office until such time as they are replaced or their terms of office ends.
   6.   Members who are no longer capable of contributing effectively to the group’s deliberations, who resign or who do not comply with the conditions set out in paragraph 3 of this Article, or Article 287 of the Treaty, may be replaced for the remainder of their term of office.
   7.   Members appointed in a personal capacity shall each year sign an undertaking to act in the public interest and a declaration indicating the absence or existence of any interest which may undermine their objectivity.
   8.   The names of members appointed in a personal capacity shall be published on the Internet site of the DG Justice, Freedom and Security and in the C Series of the Official Journal of the European Union.
   9.   The names of members shall be collected, processed and published in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.
   Article 4
   Operation
   1.   The group shall elect a Chairperson and two vice Chairpersons from among its members acting by a simple majority.
   2.   In agreement with the Commission, sub-groups may be set up within the framework of the group to examine specific questions under terms of reference established by the group. The sub-groups shall comprise a maximum of nine members and shall be dissolved as soon as their mandates are fulfilled.
   3.   Information obtained by participating in the deliberations of the group or its sub-group shall not be divulged if, in the opinion of the Commission, that information relates to confidential matters.
   4.   The group and its sub-groups shall normally meet on Commission premises in accordance with the procedures and schedule established by it. The Commission shall provide secretarial services to the meetings of the group and its sub-groups. Representatives of interested Commission services may attend meetings of the group and its sub-groups.
   5.   The group shall adopt its rules of procedure on the basis of the standard rules of procedure adopted by the Commission.
   6.   The Commission may publish, in the original language of the document concerned, any summary, conclusion, or partial conclusion or working document prepared by the group.
   Article 5
   Additional experts
   1.   The Commission may invite experts or observers from outside the group with specific competence in a subject on the agenda to take part in the work of the group.
   2.   The Commission may invite official representatives of Member States, candidate countries or third countries and of international, inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations to participate at the meeting of the Group of Experts.
   Article 6
   Meeting expenses
   1.   The Commission shall reimburse travel and, where appropriate, subsistence expenses for member and experts in connection with the group’s activities in accordance with the Commission’s rules on the compensation of external experts.
   2.   The members, experts and observers shall not be remunerated for the services they render.
   3.   Meeting expenses are reimbursed within the limits of the annual budget allocated to the group by the responsible Commission services.
   Article 7
   Repeal
   Decision 2003/209/EC is repealed.
   Article 8
   Applicability
   The Decision shall apply for 3 years.

      Done at Brussels, 17 October 2007.

            For the Commission

         Franco FRATTINI

            Vice-President

      (1)  The Brussels Declaration was adopted at the European Conference on Preventing and Combating Trafficking in Human Beings — Global Challenge for the 21st Century from 18-20 September 2002, OJ C 137, 12.6.2003, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 79, 26.3.2003, p. 25.

      (3)  COM(2005) 514 final.

      (4)  OJ C 311, 9.12.2005, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ L 317, 3.12.2001, p. 1. Decision as last amended by Decision 2006/548/EC, Euratom (OJ L 215, 5.8.2006, p. 38).

      (6)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.


title: 2011/460/EU: Council Decision of 19 July 2011 appointing a Swedish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

text:
               26.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 194/32

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 19 July 2011
   appointing a Swedish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions
   (2011/460/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal of the Swedish Government,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.

               (2)

               An alternate member’s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Carin JÄMTIN,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The following is hereby appointed as alternate member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

               —

               Mr Roger MOGERT, Ledamot i kommunfullmäktige, Stockholms kommun.

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

      Done at Brussels, 19 July 2011.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. SAWICKI

      (1)  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

      (2)  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.


title: 2013/562/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 17 April 2013 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2011

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 308/180

      DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

   of 17 April 2013
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2011
   (2013/562/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2011,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2011, together with the College’s replies (1),

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 12 February 2013 (05753/2013 – C7-0041/2013),

               —

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

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

               —

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

               —

               having regard to Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL) and repealing Decision 2000/820/JHA (4), and in particular Article 16 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Commission Decision C(2011) 4680 of 30 June 2011 granting consent to a derogation requested by the European Police College from Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002,

               —

               having regard to the report of the European Police College of 12 July 2010 on the Reimbursement of Private Expenditure (10/0257/KA),

               —

               having regard to the external audit commissioned by the European Police College (Contract Ref. No CEPOL/2010/001) on the reimbursement of private expenditure,

               —

               having regard to the final report on the five-year external evaluation of the European Police College (Contract Ref. No CEPOL/CT/2010/002),

               —

               having regard to the Annual Activity Report 2009 of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security,

               —

               having regard to the fourth progress report of the European Police College on the implementation of its Multi-annual Action Plan (MAP) for 2010–2014,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the implementation of the European Police College MAP for 2010–2014,

               —

               having regard to the note of the Internal Audit Service (IAS) of 4 July 2011 (Ref. Ares (2011) 722479) on the third progress report on the implementation of the European Police College MAP for 2010–2014,

               —

               having regard to the report and annexes of the European Police College on the implementation of the European Parliament’s resolution on ‘2009 Discharge: European Police College’,

               —

               having regard to the report and annex of the European Police College on the application of its Procurement Manual for the period covering 1 July 2010 - 1 July 2011,

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0064/2013),

               1.

               Grants the Director of the European Police College discharge in respect of the implementation of the College’s budget for the financial year 2011;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this Decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the Director of the European Police College, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

            The President

         Martin SCHULZ

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ C 388, 15.12.2012, p. 23.

      (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

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

      (4)  OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 63.

      (5)  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

         RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

      of 17 April 2013
      with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2011
      THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

                  —

                  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2011,

                  —

                  having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2011, together with the College’s replies (1),

                  —

                  having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 12 February 2013 (05753/2013 – C7-0041/2013),

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2) (‘the Financial Regulation’), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL) and repealing Decision 2000/820/JHA (4), and in particular Article 16 thereof,

                  —

                  having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

                  —

                  having regard to Commission Decision C(2011)4680 of 30 June 2011 granting consent to a derogation requested by the European Police College from Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002,

                  —

                  having regard to the report of the European Police College of 12 July 2010 on the Reimbursement of Private Expenditure (10/0257/KA),

                  —

                  having regard to the external audit commissioned by the European Police College (Contract Ref. No CEPOL/2010/001) on the reimbursement of private expenditure,

                  —

                  having regard to the final report on the five-year external evaluation of the European Police College (Contract Ref. No CEPOL/CT/2010/002),

                  —

                  having regard to the Annual Activity Report 2009 of the Directorate-General Justice, Freedom and Security,

                  —

                  having regard to the fourth progress report of the European Police College on the implementation of its Multi-annual Action Plan (MAP) for 2010–2014,

                  —

                  having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the implementation of the European Police College MAP for 2010–2014,

                  —

                  having regard to the note of the Internal Audit Service (IAS) of 4 July 2011 (Ref. Ares (2011) 722479) on the third progress report on the implementation of the European Police College MAP for 2010–2014,

                  —

                  having regard to the report and annexes of the European Police College on the implementation of the European Parliament’s resolution on ‘2009 Discharge: European Police College’,

                  —

                  having regard to the report and annex of the European Police College on the application of its Procurement Manual for the period covering 1 July 2010–1 July 2011,

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0064/2013),

                  A.

                  whereas the European Police College (‘the College’), which is located in Bramshill, was established by Council Decision No 2000/820/JHA, which was repealed and replaced in 2005 by Council Decision 2005/681/JHA,

                  B.

                  whereas the College was set up in 2001 and, with effect from 1 January 2006, was transformed into a Community body within the meaning of Article 185 of the Financial Regulation, thus coming under the provisions of the Framework Financial Regulation for agencies,

                  C.

                  whereas the Court of Auditors, in its reports on the College’s annual accounts for the financial years 2006, 2007 and 2009, qualified its opinion with regard to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions on the grounds that the procurement procedures did not comply with the provisions of the Financial Regulation,

                  D.

                  whereas the Court of Auditors, in its report on the College’s annual accounts for the financial year 2008, emphasised its opinion on the reliability of the accounts, without expressly qualifying it, and qualified its opinion on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions,

                  E.

                  whereas in its decision of 7 October 2010, Parliament refused to grant the Director of the College discharge for implementation of the College’s budget for the financial year 2008 (6),

                  F.

                  whereas in its Decision of 10 May 2011, Parliament decided to postpone its decision on granting the Director of the College discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for 2009 (7) but then granted it in its decision of 25 October 2011 (8),

                  G.

                  whereas the Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 2010, stated, for the first time since the College became an agency, that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2008 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular,

                  H.

                  whereas the Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2011 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular,

                  I.

                  whereas on 10 May 2012, Parliament granted the Director of the College discharge for implementation of the College’s budget for the financial year 2010 (9), and in its resolution accompanying the discharge decision, inter alia:

                              —

                              encouraged the College to introduce a clear distinction between the different components of the Union contribution to the College’s budget in its final annual accounts;

                              —

                              called on the College to take action in order to avoid a repeat of deficiencies which occurred in the preparation of individual budgets;

                              —

                              recalled that failure to meet cut-off dates is one of the main factors hindering sound financial management and asked the College to keep the discharge authority informed of the implementation of Decision 34/2010/GB;

                              —

                              called on the College to inform the discharge authority of the effective implementation of the Internal Audit Service (IAS) as a ‘very important’ recommendation on the completion of the internal recording of mission expenses;

                              —

                              called on the College to update Parliament on the level of implementation of the new 16 Internal Control Standards (ICS) of the Commission which were adopted by the Governing Board of the College, replacing the former ICS,

                  J.

                  whereas by Decision C(2011)4680 of 30 June 2011, the Commission granted a derogation to the College from the provisions of Article 74b of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002,

                  K.

                  whereas the budget of the College for 2011 was EUR 8 341 000, compared to EUR 7 800 000 in 2010, which represents an increase of 6,93 %,

                  L.

                  whereas the contribution of the Union to the budget of the College for 2011 was EUR 8 341 000,

                  M.

                  whereas the balance for the outturn account for the College in 2011 was positive, totalling EUR 1 358 764,32,

                  1.

                  Believes that common elements between the College and the European Police Office should be explored further, taking into account the results of the study issued by the College in 2011 (Contract Ref. No CEPOL/CT/2010/002); notes that the College is to leave its current premises in Bramshill (UK) in March 2014; requests that the Commission come up with a proposal for the relocation of the College to The Hague (NL), where the European Police Office is located, in order to share facilities and services and benefit from synergies, without jeopardising both agencies’ core tasks and autonomy, and present those proposals to Parliament and the Council; emphasises that a swift decision on the relocation of the College would diminish the uncertainty that might pose adverse effects on staff and recruitment procedures;

         Budgetary and financial management

                  2.

                  Takes note that the College received its total budget of EUR 8 341 000 for 2011 from Directorate-General Home;

                  3.

                  Acknowledges from the College’s Final Financial Statements that financial management inefficiencies such as the use of payments on incorrect budget lines within chapters or titles took place in 2011; calls on the College to provide the discharge authority, as soon as possible, with further details on the issue, including the amounts and budget lines involved and the measures implemented in order to remedy the situation;

         Carryover appropriations

                  4.

                  Notes from the College’s annual activity report (AAR) 2011 that commitment appropriations were committed at a level of almost 100 % for Title I ‘staff’, while the payment appropriations were consumed to the level of 93,98 %;

                  5.

                  Establishes from the AAR that commitment appropriations have been committed to the level of 99,93 % for Title II ‘administrative expenditure’, while the payment appropriations have been consumed up to 88,86 %;

                  6.

                  Takes note from the AAR that for Title III ‘operational expenditure’, out of a total budget of EUR 4 063 000, 93,31 % of the appropriations were committed compared to 99,56 % in 2010 and that 55,98 % of payment appropriations were consumed compared to 45,20 % in 2010;

                  7.

                  Acknowledges from the Court of Auditors’ report that appropriations amounting to EUR 1 772 523 (22 %) were carried over to 2012, of which EUR 208 813 relates to Title I, EUR 47 275 relates to Title II and EUR 1 516 435 relates to Title III; calls on the College to inform the discharge authority of the actions taken to address this deficiency as the high level of carryovers indicate shortcomings in budget planning and implementation and it is at odds with the budgetary principle of annuality;

                  8.

                  Establishes from the Court of Auditors’ report that out of the appropriations carried over from 2010 amounting to EUR 2,5 million, EUR 0,7 million (27,5 %) were cancelled in 2011; calls on the College to inform the discharge authority of the actions taken to address this deficiency as the high level of cancellations indicate shortcomings in budget planning and implementation and it is at odds with the budgetary principle of annuality;

                  9.

                  Notes from the AAR that 96,74 % of the commitment appropriations have been committed; notes, furthermore, that 75,21 % of the payment appropriations have been spent (EUR 6 273 389);

         Transfers

                  10.

                  Takes note from the Court of Auditors’ report that in 2011, the College made 38 budgetary transfers amounting to EUR 1,8 million; is of the opinion that budget planning and budget implementation procedures should be further strengthened and calls on the College to inform the discharge authority of the actions taken to address that deficiency as it indicates weaknesses in budget planning and is at odds with the principle of specification;

         Procurement procedures

                  11.

                  Establishes from the AAR that in 2011, efforts towards the improvement of the College’s procurement continued and that overall 40 procurement procedures were completed in 2011 and one procurement procedure was on-going as of 31 December 2011;

         Internal audit

                  12.

                  Establishes from the AAR (10) that the College took measures to streamline its internal control by adopting 16 internal control standards and recruiting an internal control officer in August 2011; welcomes the compliance assessment review regarding the degree of implementation of the 16 internal control standards, which was held in the fourth quarter of 2011 and which showed that, overall, the College was in compliance with the requirements of the internal control standards;

                  13.

                  Acknowledges from the AAR that the Internal Audit Panel started to be functional in 2011; welcomes the three main audits undertaken by the College in 2011: two external audits carried out by the Court of Auditors and one internal audit carried out by the IAS of the Commission;

         Recruitment procedures

                  14.

                  Notes from the Court of Auditors’ report that the College needs to improve the transparency of recruitment procedures; urges the College to inform the discharge authority of the actions taken by the College to address that deficiency; acknowledges from the College that the documentation standards and templates for each stage of recruitment procedures were revised in June 2012 to ensure better transparency and clarity in the documentation; considers that some of the provisions of the Staff Regulations may present a considerable administrative burden; encourages, therefore, the Commission to allow for a certain degree of simplification under Article 110 of the Staff Regulations in regard to the agencies;

                  15.

                  Notes that 10 recruitments were completed in 2011 and that at the end of that year, the College employed 23 of the 26 temporary agents anticipated in the establishment plan following the departure of one member of staff on 15 December 2011, previously there being only two vacant posts; notes, moreover, that the College’s total staff of 38 is completed by five seconded national experts;

         Performance

                  16.

                  Commends the College’s efforts to improve its performance without a budget increase, and the results it has achieved; congratulates it, moreover, on responding comprehensively to Parliament’s requirements and to the current budgetary challenges by radically reducing its governing costs;

                  17.

                  Commends the College’s efforts in streamlining and improving the efficiency of its governance, for example through the implementation of measures to disband committees and the reduction of the number of Governing Board meetings per year which should now focus essentially on policy and decision-making at a strategic and long-term level;

                  18.

                  Refers, in respect of the other observations accompanying its Decision on discharge, which are of a horizontal nature, to its resolution of 17 April 2013 (11) on the performance, financial management and control of the agencies.

         (1)  OJ C 388, 15.12.2012, p. 23.

         (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

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

         (4)  OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 63.

         (5)  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

         (6)  OJ L 320, 7.12.2010, p. 11.

         (7)  OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 260.

         (8)  OJ L 313, 26.11.2011, p. 17.

         (9)  OJ L 286, 17.10.2012, p. 156.

         (10)  Annual Activity Report 2011, p. 14.

         (11)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0134 (see page 374 of this Official Journal).


title: 2011/790/EU: Council Decision of 14 November 2011 on the signing of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Central African Republic on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 320/2

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 14 November 2011
   on the signing of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Central African Republic on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (FLEGT)
   (2011/790/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(3), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               In May 2003 the European Commission adopted a Communication to the European Parliament and to the Council entitled ‘Forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT): proposal for an EU action plan’ which called for measures to address illegal logging through the development of voluntary partnership agreements with timber-producing countries. Council conclusions on that Action Plan were adopted in October 2003 (1) and the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the subject on 11 July 2005 (2).

               (2)

               On 5 December 2005 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations on partnership agreements to implement the FLEGT.

               (3)

               On 20 December 2005 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 (3) which established a FLEGT licensing scheme for imports of timber into the Union from countries with which the Union has concluded voluntary partnership agreements.

               (4)

               The negotiations with the Central African Republic have been concluded, and the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Central African Republic on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’) was initialled on 21 December 2010.

               (5)

               The Agreement should be signed subject to its conclusion,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The signing of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Central African Republic on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union (hereinafter ‘FLEGT’) is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (4).
   Article 2
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union subject to its conclusion.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 14 November 2011.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. SAWICKI

      (1)  OJ C 268, 7.11.2003, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ C 157 E, 6.7.2006, p. 482.

      (3)  OJ L 347, 30.12.2005, p. 1.

      (4)  The text of the Agreement will be published together with the Decision on its conclusion.


Avis juridique important

|

31982D0220

82/220/EEC: Council Decision of 14 April 1982 terminating an anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports of upright pianos originating in Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic and Polandi

Official Journal L 101 , 16/04/1982 P. 0045 - 0048

*****COUNCIL  DECISION  of 14 April 1982  terminating an anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports of upright pianos originating in Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic and Poland  (82/220/EEC)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3017/79 of 20 December 1979 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,  Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consultations within the Advisory Committee set up under Regulation (EEC) No 3017/79,  Whereas in September 1980 and June 1981 the Commission received complaints lodged by the Confédération des associations des facteurs d'instruments de musique de la CEE (CAFIM) on behalf of manufacturers accounting for the major part of the Community production of upright pianos;  Whereas since the first complaint provided sufficient evidence of dumping in respect of the like product originating in the German Democratic Republic and Poland, and of material injury resulting therefrom, the Commission accordingly announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (2), the initiation of a proceeding concerning imports of upright pianos originating in the German Democratic Republic and Poland and commenced an investigation of the matter at Community level;  Whereas, since the second complaint provided sufficient evidence of dumping in respect of the like product originating in Czechoslovakia and the USSR, and of material injury resulting therefrom, the Commission accordingly announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (3), the extension of the above investigation to upright pianos originating in Czechoslovakia and the USSR;  Whereas the Commission officially so advised the exporters and importers known to be concerned, as well as the exporting countries and the complainants;  Whereas the Commission has given all parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to be heard orally; whereas neither the exporter in the USSR, nor any importer of USSR pianos, took advantage of this opportunity; whereas several of the other importing and exporting parties known to be concerned have taken the opportunity to make known their views in writing; whereas the exporters in Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic and Poland requested, and were granted, an opportunity to make known their views orally;  Whereas, in order to arrive at a preliminary determination of dumping and injury, the Commission sought to obtain and verify all information which it deemed to be necessary;  Whereas, in order to verify the export prices to the Community of the pianos under investigation, and the resale prices of these pianos in the Community, the Commission carried out inspections at the premises of the principal agents and importers concerned, namely: Cross and Ticher Ltd, London; Fortin Euromusic, Paris; Furcht & Co., Milan; General Music, Les Eyzies, France; Hamm, Paris; Harlet, Paris; Minns Music Ltd, Bournemouth; Ricordi, Milan; Sisme, Osimo; Whelpdale, Maxwell and Codd Ltd, London;  Whereas the Commission requested and received detailed written submissions from the complainant Community producers with respect to the question of injury and causation thereof; whereas the Commission also carried out inspections at the premises of a number of complainant Community producers, namely: Barratt and Robinson Ltd, London; Bentley Piano Co. Ltd, Stroud (Gloucestershire); Farfisa SpA, Ancona; Kemble & Co. Ltd, Bletchley (Buckinghamshire); Rameau SA Pianos, Alès, France; Whelpdale, Maxwell and Codd Ltd, London;  Whereas no information was submitted by, or on behalf of, any Community purchaser or consumer of upright pianos, other than by firms who were also purchasing from the exporting countries under investigation;  Whereas a large number of different models and finishes are covered by the investigation; whereas, consequently, the Commission, in its preliminary determination of dumping, has based all its calculations on the prices charged for upright pianos 110 cm in height, with 88 notes, three pedals and matt mahogany veneer, this being in the Commission's view, generally accepted by the interested parties, the most representative model;  Whereas, in determining the normal value for the product in question, the Commission had to take into account the fact that the exporting countries concerned do not operate market economies; whereas the complainant initially proposed South African domestic prices as the basis for normal value; whereas, after having considered the arguments advanced by the interested parties to the proceeding, the Commission has based its preliminary determination of normal value on the prices charged for pianos manufactured in Finland; whereas, in arriving at this decision, the Commission has taken into account in particular the physical similarity of Finnish pianos to those under investigation, and the proximity to supplies of key raw materials;  Whereas, owing to the particular structure of the retail market for pianos in Finland, and the fact that the greater part of Finnish production is exported, much of it to the Community, the Commission considered that it was appropriate and not unreasonable to use as basis for normal value the weighted average of Finnish export prices to the Community;  Whereas, after having considered the arguments and evidence presented by interested parties, the Commission adjusted the above normal value to take account of certain differences in physical characteristics as between, on the one hand, Finnish pianos and, on the other, the pianos exported by the countries under investigation; whereas in this context account was taken of the quality of the action, the type of soundboard used, and the raw material used for the cabinet; whereas the allowance for such differences was based on the Commission's best estimate of the effect these would have had on the price charged for Finnish pianos exported to the Community; whereas the normal value was also adjusted to take account of the inferior condition in which these pianos are delivered to the importer in the Community, compared with Finnish pianos; whereas the allowance for this difference was based on the cost to importers of remedying the defects involved; whereas, in the case of the USSR, the Commission deemed it appropriate to make these adjustments, despite the fact that no interested party had claimed them;  Whereas, as concerns the export price, the Commission has used, for each exporting country, the actual export price to the Community for the representative model chosen;  Whereas a comparison between the normal value and the export price shows the following margins of dumping, expressed as a percentage of the price free at Community frontier:  1.2.3 //   //   //   //   // 1980 (second half)  // Situation at 1 September 1981  //   //   //   // Czechoslovakia  // 21;1 %  // 23;0 %  // German Democratic Republic  // from 21;8 to 33;7 %  // from 14;0 to 42;8 %  //   // weighted average 26;6 %  // weighted average 27;3 %  // Poland  // from 17;2 to 30;2 %  // from 14;2 to 35;0 %  //   // weighted average 21;1 %  // weighted average 23;6 %  // USSR  // 55;8 %  // 79;7 %  //  //   //  Whereas, with regard to the injury caused by the dumped imports to the Community industry, the evidence available to the Commission during the preliminary investigation showed that total imports of upright pianos from the countries in question increased from 25 136 in 1978 to 31 213 in 1980, an increase of 24 %;  Whereas, in examining the market shares held respectively by dumped imports and by Community producers, the Commission has concluded that, by virtue of their style and quality, the pianos from the countries in question are competing mainly in a very specific sector of the market, namely that for low-priced beginner's pianos; whereas a separate identification of this market has been possible, since such pianos are produced only by certain producers in specific countries; whereas the sales of the imported pianos under investigation should consequently be measured against the market for such low-priced beginner's pianos; whereas most of the Community producers directly competing with the dumped imports in the market for low-priced beginner's pianos are situated in the UK;  Whereas, according to the Commission's best estimates, the share of the Community market held by dumped pianos from the countries in question stood at 40 % in 1978 and rose to 43 % in 1980;  Whereas, depending on the country of origin, the average cif price of the dumped pianos was, in 1978, between 28 % (in the case of Czechoslovakia) and 47 % (in the case of the USSR) below the average unit sales price of Community producers of this type of piano; whereas in 1980 this difference had increased to between 39 % (for Czechoslovakia) and 56 % (for the USSR); whereas, given the structure of the market for imported and Community-produced pianos, this indicates a substantial and increasing margin of price undercutting; whereas, even taking into account the evidence available concerning differences in quality between Community-produced pianos and those under investigation, the extent of price undercutting appears to the Commission to be greater than the margins of dumping determined;  Whereas, as regards the effect of these dumped imports on the Community industry, the evidence available to the Commission shows that total Community production stood at 55 772 pieces in 1978, rose to 57 849 pieces in 1979, and fell to 54 250 pieces in 1980; whereas in the United Kingdom, production fell from 18 708 pieces in 1979 to 13 012 in 1980, after having previously increased from 18 400 in 1978; whereas in Germany, where the industry produces a higher quality product not directly affected by the dumped imports production rose from 25 800 in 1978, to 26 500 in 1979 and 27 500 in 1980;  Whereas the evidence available to the Commission shows that the number of persons employed by Community piano producers, other than those in Germany, is expected to be 23 % lower in 1981 than in 1979; whereas, moreover, at least one major Community producer has been obliged considerably to curtail the number of hours worked in 1981;  Whereas the share of the market for low-priced beginner's pianos held by Community producers has, according to the Commission's best estimates, fallen from 39;5 % in 1978 to 30;7 % in 1980;  Whereas the evidence available to the Commission shows that Community producers competing in this market have been unable to raise their selling prices sufficiently to cover increases in production costs, with the result that their profitability has been severely eroded since 1979;  Whereas the Commission has considered the injury caused by other factors which, individually or in combination, are also affecting the Community industry; whereas it has examined in particular the level of consumption of pianos in the Community, the prices and level of non-dumped imports, and the problems which may have been faced by UK producers as a result of the rise in the value of the pound sterling;  Whereas the evidence available to the Commission shows that total consumption of pianos in the Community rose from approximately 102 000 pieces in 1978 to approximately 126 000 pieces in 1980; whereas a similar trend was visible for low-priced beginner's pianos, the Commission's best estimate showing an increase from approximately 64 000 pieces in 1978 to approximately 72 500 pieces in 1980;  Whereas total imports of non-dumped pianos rose from 32 646 pieces in 1978 to 51 379 pieces in 1980; whereas it is estimated that the share of the market for low-priced beginner's pianos held by non-dumped imports rose from 21;1 % (13 500 pieces) in 1978 to 26;4 % (19 140 pieces) in 1980; whereas this is considerably less than the share held by dumped pianos; whereas the Commission consequently considers that the impact on the market of non-dumped pianos has likewise been considerably smaller than that of dumped pianos;  Whereas it has been suggested by some interested parties that the difficulties faced by the UK producers have been principally the result of the rise in the value of the pound sterling, and of related economic factors; whereas, however, UK exports of pianos to third countries increased from 4 561 pieces in 1979 to 4 618 pieces in 1980, at a time when total Community exports of pianos were declining; whereas the Commission consequently takes the view that the rise in the value of the pound sterling cannot have been a significant factor causing injury to the UK industry in respect of its export sales, either to third countries or within the Community; Whereas, therefore, the impact of non-dumped imports on the market for low-priced beginner's pianos is in the Commission's view the only significant other factor causing injury to the Community industry; whereas, however, the Commission takes the preliminary view that, despite this, dumped imports from Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Poland and the USSR have, by the increase in their already substantial market share, and by the increased level of price undercutting, been a cause of material injury to Community production;  Whereas in these circumstances, and in order to prevent injury being caused during the investigation, the Commission is of the view that the interests of the Community require immediate intervention consisting in the imposition of a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of upright pianos originating in Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Poland and the USSR at a rate which, having regard to the extent of injury caused, should be equal to the margin of dumping provisionally established;  Whereas, after being informed of the results of the Commission's investigation, the exporters in Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic and Poland voluntarily undertook to increase their prices to a level which the Commission considers adequate to eliminate the dumping margin provisionally established, or the injurious effects thereof; whereas, however, during the consultations within the Advisory Committee concerning the acceptability of these undertakings, certain delegations objected to the termination of the proceeding on the basis of acceptance of these undertakings;  Whereas the Commission has consequently submitted a proposal to the Council to terminate the proceeding on the basis of the acceptance of the undertakings offered, in respect of pianos originating in those three countries,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Sole Article  The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of upright pianos originating in Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Poland and the USSR is hereby terminated in respect of such goods originating in Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic and Poland on the basis of the acceptance of price undertakings offered to the Commission by the exporters concerned, namely Musicexport, Prague, Demusa, Berlin (East) and Ars Polona, Warsaw.  Done at Brussels, 14 April 1982.  For the Council  The President  P. de KEERSMAEKER  (1) OJ No L 339, 31. 12. 1979, p. 1.  (2) OJ No C 35, 18. 2. 1981, p. 2.  (3) OJ No C 181, 23. 7. 1981, p. 3.


title: 2009/528/EC,Euratom: Council Decision of 3 July 2009 appointing a new member of the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 178/16

      COUNCIL DECISION

   of 3 July 2009
   appointing a new member of the Commission of the European Communities
   (2009/528/EC, Euratom)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 215 thereof,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 128 thereof,
   Whereas:
   In a letter dated 24 June 2009, Ms Danuta HÜBNER resigned from her post as a member of the Commission. She should be replaced for the remainder of her term of office,
   HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   Mr Pawel SAMECKI is hereby appointed a member of the Commission for the period from 4 July 2009 to 31 October 2009.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall take effect on 4 July 2009.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 3 July 2009.

            For the Council

            The President

         A. BORG


title: Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/666 of 28 April 2015 amending Decision 2013/184/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma

text:
               29.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 110/14

         COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2015/666
   of 28 April 2015
   amending Decision 2013/184/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 22 April 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/184/CFSP (1) concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma.

               (2)

               On 14 April 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/214/CFSP (2) renewing the restrictive measures until 30 April 2015.

               (3)

               On the basis of a review of Decision 2013/184/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 30 April 2016.

               (4)

               Decision 2013/184/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Article 3 of Decision 2013/184/CFSP is hereby replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 3
      This Decision shall apply until 30 April 2016. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’

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

      Done at Brussels, 28 April 2015.

            For the Council

            The President

         E. RINKĒVIČS

      (1)  Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP of 22 April 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma and repealing Decision 2010/232/CFSP (OJ L 111, 23.4.2013, p. 75).

      (2)  Council Decision 2014/214/CFSP of 14 April 2014 amending Decision 2013/184/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma (OJ L 111, 15.4.2014, p. 84).


Avis juridique important

|

31988D0656

88/656/EEC: Council Decision of 19 December 1988 concerning the provisional application of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the People's Republic of China on trade in textile products

Official Journal L 380 , 31/12/1988 P. 0001

COUNCIL DECISION of 19 December 1988 concerning the provisional application of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the People's Republic of China on trade in textile products (88/656/EEC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,  Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,  Whereas the Commission has, on behalf of the European Economic Community, negotiated an Agreement with China on trade in textile products;  Whereas the said Agreement should be applied provisionally as from 1 January 1989 pending the completion of the procedures necessary for its conclusion, provided that there is a reciprocal provisional application on the part of the contracting country,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:    Article 1 The Agreement between the European Economic Community and the People's Republic of China on trade in textile products shall be applied provisionally as from 1 January 1989 pending its formal conclusion provided that there is a reciprocal provisional application on the part of the contracting country.  The text of the agreement is attached to the Decision.  Article 2 The Commission is invited to inform the contracting country of this Decision and seek its agreement thereto, which will be duly communicated to the Council.   Done at Brussels, 19 December 1988.  For the Council The President Th. PANGALOS EWG:L380UMBE00.95 FF: 1UEN;   SETUP: 01;   Hoehe: 348 mm;   40 Zeilen;   1572 Zeichen;  Bediener: MARL   Pr.: C;  Kunde: 43438 Montan England 00


title: Council Decision of 20 April 2015 appointing an alternate member of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for Slovakia

text:
               22.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/5

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 20 April 2015
   appointing an alternate member of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for Slovakia
   (2015/C 130/05)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2062/94 of 18 July 1994 establishing a European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (1), and in particular Article 8 thereof,
   Having regard to the lists of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States and by the employees' and the employers' organisations,
   Having regard to the lists of members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               By its Decisions of 2 December 2013 (2), of 12 June 2014 (3), of 18 November 2014 (4), and of 15 December 2014 (5) and Decision (EU) 2015/453 (6), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the period ending on 7 November 2016.

               (2)

               The employers' organisation BUSINESSEUROPE has submitted a nomination for one post to be filled,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The following shall be appointed as alternate member of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the period ending on 7 November 2016:
   III.   REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYERS' ORGANISATIONS

               Country

               Member

               Alternate member

               Slovakia

               Mr Štefan PETKANIČ

         Article 2
   The Council shall appoint the members and alternate members who have not yet been nominated at a later date.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Luxembourg, 20 April 2015.

            For the Council

            The President

         Jānis DŪKLAVS

      (1)  OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Decision of 2 December 2013 appointing the members and alternate members of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (OJ C 360, 10.12.2013, p. 8).

      (3)  Council Decision of 12 June 2014 appointing the members and alternate members of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for Lithuania and Malta (OJ C 182, 14.6.2014, p. 14); Council Decision of 12 June 2014 appointing the members and alternate members of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for France (OJ C 186, 18.6.2014, p. 5).

      (4)  Council Decision of 18 November 2014 appointing a member and an alternate member of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for Latvia (OJ C 420, 22.11.2014, p. 6).

      (5)  Council Decision of 15 December 2014 appointing a member of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for Germany (OJ C 453, 17.12.2014, p. 2).

      (6)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/453 of 16 March 2015 appointing a member and an alternate member of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for Denmark and Germany (OJ L 75, 19.3.2015, p. 18).


Avis juridique important

|

31988D0649

88/649/EEC: Council Decision of 21 December 1988 on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on the import into the Community of preserved fruit salads originating in Morocco

Official Journal L 358 , 27/12/1988 P. 0022 - 0024

COUNCIL DECISION of 21 December 1988 on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on the import into the Community of preserved fruit salads originating  in Morocco (88/649/EEC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,  Having regard to the recommendation from the Commission,  Whereas the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco(1) was signed on 25 April 1976 and entered into force on 1 November 1978;  Whereas the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on the import into the Community of preserved fruit salads originating in Morocco should be approved,   HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on the import into the Community of preserved fruit salads originating in Morocco is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.  The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.  Article 2  The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement for the purpose of binding the Community.  Article 3  This Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.   Done at Brussels, 21 December 1988.  For the CouncilThe PresidentV. PAPANDREOU  (1)OJ No L 264, 27. 9. 1978, p. 2.


Avis juridique important

|

31986D0657

86/657/EEC: Council Decision of 22 December 1986 amending Decision 85/8/EEC on specific Community action to combat poverty

Official Journal L 382 , 31/12/1986 P. 0029 - 0029 Finnish special edition: Chapter 5 Volume 4 P. 0089  Swedish special edition: Chapter 5 Volume 4 P. 0089

COUNCIL DECISIONof 22 December 1986amending  Decision 85/8/EEC on specific Community action to combat poverty(86/657/EEC)THE  COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article  235 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1), Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2), Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3), Whereas Decision 85/8/EEC (4) enables the application of a programme of action to combat poverty in  the Community; Whereas that Decision enabled the implementation of specific Community action covering the period  1985 to 1988 in the Member States; Whereas, following the accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Communities this current  Community action should be extended to include those two Member States; Whereas, therefore, specific measures as envisaged in Article 1 of the said Decision should be  implemented to aid underprivileged persons in those two Member States; Whereas the funds estimated as necessary to implemented the measures referred to in the  aforementioned Decision should be increased in consequence, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Article 1In Article 2 of Decision 85/8/EEC, the first paragraph is hereby  replaced by the following: 'The funds estimated as necessary to implement the measures referred to in Article 1 amount to 29  million ECU for four years (1985 to 1988).'Article 2This Decision shall be published in the  Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall take effect on the fifth day following its  publication. Done at Brussels, 22 December 1986. For the CouncilThe PresidentG. SHAW(1) OJ N° C 151, 17. 6. 1986, p. 4. (2) OJ N° C 227, 8. 9 .1986,


title: 2011/59/EU: Council Decision of 25 October 2010 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of an Agreement in the form of a Protocol between the European Union and the Arab Republic of Egypt establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part

text:
               1.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 27/2

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 25 October 2010
   on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of an Agreement in the form of a Protocol between the European Union and the Arab Republic of Egypt establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part
   (2011/59/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 24 February 2006 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with partners in the Mediterranean region in order to establish a dispute settlement mechanism related to trade provisions.

               (2)

               Negotiations have been conducted by the Commission in consultation with the committee appointed under Article 207 of the Treaty and within the framework of the negotiating directives issued by the Council.

               (3)

               These negotiations have been concluded and an Agreement in the form of a Protocol (‘the Protocol’) between the European Union and the Arab Republic of Egypt establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part (1) was initialled on 27 April 2010.

               (4)

               The Protocol should be signed,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The signing of the Agreement in the form of a Protocol between the European Union and the Arab Republic of Egypt establishing a dispute settlement mechanism applicable to disputes under the trade provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part (‘the Protocol’) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Protocol (2).
   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, subject to its conclusion.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Luxembourg, 25 October 2010.

            For the Council

            The President

         C. ASHTON

      (1)  OJ L 304, 30.9.2004, p. 39.

      (2)  The text of the Protocol will be published with the Decision on its conclusion.