title: 2009/197/EC: Decision of the European Parliament of 22 April 2008 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2006

text:
               31.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 88/93

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 22 April 2008
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2006
   (2009/197/EC)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
   having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2006 (1),
   having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2006, together with the Foundation's replies (2),
   having regard to the Council's recommendation of 12 February 2008 (5843/2008 — C6-0084/2008),
   having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 276 thereof,
   having regard to the Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3), and in particular Article 185 thereof,
   having regard to Regulation (EEC) No 1365/75 of the Council of 26 May 1975 on the creation of a European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions (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 (5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,
   having regard to Rule 71 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,
   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A6-0111/2008),

               1.

               Grants the Director of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions discharge in respect of the implementation of the Foundation's budget for the financial year 2006;

               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 Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 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

         Hans-Gert PÖTTERING

            The Secretary-General

         Harald RØMER

      (1)  OJ C 261, 31.10.2007, p. 60.

      (2)  OJ C 309, 19.12.2007, p. 116.

      (3)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 139, 30.5.1975, p. 1.

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

               31.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 88/94

         RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 22 April 2008
   with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2006
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
   having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2006 (1),
   having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2006, together with the Foundation's replies (2),
   having regard to the Council's recommendation of 12 February 2008 (5843/2008 — C6-0084/2008),
   having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 276 thereof,
   having regard to the Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3), and in particular Article 185 thereof,
   having regard to Regulation (EEC) No 1365/75 of the Council of 26 May 1975 on the creation of a European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions (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 (5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,
   having regard to Rule 71 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,
   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A6-0111/2008),

               A.

               whereas the Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurance that the annual accounts for the financial year 2006 are reliable, and the underlying transactions are legal and regular,

               B.

               whereas on 24 April 2007 Parliament granted the Director of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions discharge in respect of the implementation of the Foundation's budget for the financial year 2005 (6), and in its resolution accompanying the discharge decision inter alia:

                           —

                           invited the Foundation to pay greater attention to carry-overs in 2005 with respect to commitments for administrative expenditure (Title II) and operating activities (Title III), which remained high at 37 % and 44 % respectively,

                           —

                           invited the Foundation to present a work programme which expresses its contribution in operational and measurable terms,

                           —

                           expressed concern that there was in 2005 no comprehensive document analysing the risks arising from the financial and operational aspects of the Foundation's activities, nor a validation of procedures introduced by the Authorising Officers in order to ensure the accuracy and exhaustiveness of the financial information they sent to the Accounting Officer, except as regards data-processing aspects;

         General points which relate to horizontal issues affecting the EU agencies and which therefore also have a bearing on the discharge procedure for each individual agency

               1.

               Notes that the budgets of the 24 agencies and other satellite bodies audited by the Court of Auditors totalled EUR 1 080,5 million in 2006 (the biggest being that of the European Agency for Reconstruction at EUR 271 million and the smallest being that of the European Police College (CEPOL) at EUR 5 million);

               2.

               Points out that the range of external EU bodies subject to audit and discharge now includes not only traditional regulatory agencies but also executive agencies set up to implement specific programmes, and will in the near future also extend to joint undertakings set up as public-private partnerships (joint technology initiatives);

               3.

               Observes as regards the Parliament that the number of agencies subject to the discharge procedure has evolved as follows: financial year 2000: 8; 2001: 10; 2002: 11; 2003: 14; 2004: 14; 2005: 16; 2006: 20 regulatory agencies and 2 executive agencies (not including 2 agencies which are audited by the Court of Auditors but subject to an internal discharge process);

               4.

               Concludes therefore that the auditing/discharge process has become cumbersome and disproportionate compared to the relative size of the agencies'/satellite bodies' budgets; instructs its competent committee to undertake a wide-ranging review of the discharge process as regards agencies and satellite bodies with a view to devising a simpler and more rational approach, bearing in mind the ever-growing number of bodies each requiring a separate discharge report in future years;

         Fundamental considerations

               5.

               Requests that the Commission provide clear explanations regarding the following elements before the creation of a new agency or reform of an existing agency: agency type, objectives of the agency, internal governance structure, products, services, key procedures, target group, clients and stakeholders of the agency, formal relationship with external actors, budget responsibility, financial planning, and personnel and staffing policy;

               6.

               Requests that each agency be governed by a yearly performance agreement which is formulated by the agency and the responsible DG and which should contain the main objectives for the coming year, a financial framework and clear indicators to measure performance;

               7.

               Requests that the performance of the agencies be regularly (and on an ad-hoc basis) audited by the Court of Auditors or another independent auditor; considers that this should not be limited to traditional elements of financial management and the proper use of public money, but should also cover administrative efficiency and effectiveness and should include a rating of the financial management of each agency;

               8.

               Takes the view that in the case of agencies which are continually overestimating their respective budget needs, technical abatement should be made on the basis of vacant posts; is of the opinion that this will lead in the long run to less assigned revenue for the agencies and therefore also to lower administrative costs;

               9.

               Notes that it is a serious problem that a number of agencies is criticised for not following rules on public procurement, the Financial Regulation, the Staff Regulations, etc.; considers that the principal reason for this is that most regulations and the Financial Regulation are designed for bigger institutions and that most of the small agencies do not have the critical mass to be able to cope with these regulatory requirements; therefore asks the Commission to look for a rapid solution in order to enhance the effectiveness by grouping the administrative functions of various agencies together, in order to achieve this critical mass (taking into consideration the necessary changes in the basic regulations governing the agencies and their budgetary independence), or urgently to draft specific rules for the agencies (in particular implementing rules for the agencies) which allow them to be in full compliance;

               10.

               Insists that the Commission, when drafting the Preliminary Draft Budget, take into consideration the results of budget implementation by the individual agencies in former years, in particular in year n-1, and revise the budget requested by the particular agency accordingly; invites its competent committee to respect this revision and, if not undertaken by the Commission, to revise itself the budget in question to a realistic level matching the absorption and implementation capacity of the agency in question;

               11.

               Recalls its decision on discharge in respect of the financial year 2005, in which it invited the Commission to present every five years a study on the added value of every existing agency; invites all relevant institutions in the case of a negative evaluation of the added value of an agency to take the necessary steps by reformulating the mandate of that agency or by closing it; notes that there has not been one single evaluation undertaken by the Commission in 2007; insists that the Commission should present at least five such evaluations before the decision on discharge in respect of the financial year 2007, starting with the oldest agencies;

               12.

               Is of opinion that recommendations of the Court of Auditors should be promptly implemented and the level of subsidies paid to the agencies should be aligned with their real cash requirements; considers further that the amendments to the general Financial Regulation should be incorporated into the agencies' framework financial regulation and into their various specific financial regulations;

         Presentation of reporting data

               13.

               Notes that there is no standard approach among the agencies with regard to the presentation of their activities during the financial year in question and of their accounts and reports on budgetary and financial management, nor to the question as to whether a declaration of assurance should be drawn up by the agency's director; observes that not all agencies clearly distinguish between (a) presenting the agency's work to the public and (b) technical reporting on budgetary and financial management;

               14.

               Notes that while the Commission's standing instructions for the preparation of activity reports do not expressly require the agency to draw up a declaration of assurance, many directors have nonetheless done so for 2006, in one case including an important reservation;

               15.

               Recalls paragraph 23 of its Resolution of 12 April 2005 (7), inviting the directors of the agencies from now on to accompany their annual activity report, which is presented together with financial and management information, with a declaration of assurance concerning the legality and regularity of operations, similar to the declarations signed by the Directors General of the Commission;

               16.

               Asks the Commission to amend its standing instructions to the agencies accordingly;

               17.

               Suggests in addition that the Commission should work with the agencies towards producing a harmonised model applicable to all agencies and satellite bodies clearly distinguishing between:

                           —

                           an annual report intended for a general readership on the body's operations, work and achievements,

                           —

                           financial statements and a report on implementation of the budget,

                           —

                           an activity report along the lines of the activity reports of the Directors-General of the Commission,

                           —

                           a declaration of assurance signed by the body's director, together with any reservations or observations which he considers it appropriate to draw to the attention of the discharge authority;

         General findings by the Court of Auditors

               18.

               Notes the Court's finding (Annual Report, paragraph 10.29 (8)) that the disbursement of subsidies paid by the Commission from the Community budget is not based on sufficiently justified estimates of the agencies' cash requirements and that this, combined with the size of carry-overs, leads them to hold sizeable cash balances; notes further the Court's recommendation that the level of subsidies paid to the agencies should be in line with their real cash requirements;

               19.

               Notes that at the end of 2006 14 agencies had still to implement the ABAC accounting system (Annual Report, footnote to paragraph 10.31);

               20.

               Notes the Court's remark (Annual Report, paragraph 1.25) concerning accrued charges for untaken leave which are accounted for by some agencies; points out that the Court of Auditors has qualified its statement of assurance in the case of three agencies (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop), CEPOL and the European Railway Agency) for the financial year 2006 (2005: Cedefop, European Food Safety Authority, European Agency for Reconstruction);

         Internal audit

               21.

               Recalls that in accordance with Article 185(3) of the Financial Regulation the Internal Auditor of the Commission is also the internal auditor of the regulatory agencies receiving grants charged to the EU budget; points out that the Internal Auditor reports to each agency's management board and director;

               22.

               Draws attention to the reservation entered in the Internal Auditor's Annual Activity Report for 2006 as follows:

         ‘The Internal Auditor of the Commission is not in a position to properly fulfil his obligation assigned by Article 185 of the Financial Regulation as internal auditor of the Community bodies due to a lack of staff resources.’;

               23.

               Notes, however, the Internal Auditor's remark in his activity report for 2006 that as from 2007, with the additional staff resources granted by the Commission to the Internal Audit Service (IAS), all regulatory agencies in operation will be subject to internal audit work on an annual basis;

               24.

               Notes the ever-growing number of regulatory and executive agencies and joint undertakings required to be audited by the IAS under Article 185 Financial Regulation; asks the Commission to inform its competent committee as to whether the staff resources at the IAS's disposal will be sufficient to conduct an annual audit of all such bodies in the coming years;

               25.

               Observes that Article 72(5) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 requires each agency to send each year to the discharge authority and the Commission a report drawn up by its director summarising the number and type of internal audits conducted by the internal auditor, the recommendations made and the action taken on these recommendations; asks the agencies to indicate whether this is done and, if so, how;

               26.

               Takes note, as regards internal audit capability, especially in relation to the smaller agencies, of a proposal made by the Internal Auditor before Parliament's competent committee on 14 September 2006 that smaller agencies should be authorised to buy in internal audit services from the private sector;

         Evaluation of agencies

               27.

               Recalls the joint statement by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission (9) negotiated at the conciliation before the Ecofin budget Council of 13 July 2007 calling for (i) a list of agencies which the Commission intends to assess; and (ii) a list of the agencies already assessed, together with a summary of the major findings;

         Disciplinary procedures

               28.

               Notes that, because of their size, individual agencies have difficulty in setting up ad-hoc disciplinary boards composed of staff at the appropriate career grade and that the Commission's IDOC (Investigation and Disciplinary Office) is not competent for agencies; calls on the agencies to consider an inter-agency disciplinary board;

         Draft Interinstitutional Agreement

               29.

               Recalls the draft Interinstitutional Agreement on the operating framework for the European regulatory agencies presented by the Commission (COM(2005) 59), which was intended to create a horizontal framework for the creation, structure, operation, evaluation and control of the European regulatory agencies; notes that the draft represents a useful initiative in the effort to rationalise the creation and running of agencies; notes the statement in the Commission's 2006 synthesis report (paragraph 3.1, COM(2007) 274) that although progress in negotiations stalled after publication of the draft, discussions on substance were relaunched in the Council at the end of 2006; regrets that it has not been possible to make further progress towards adoption;

               30.

               Welcomes therefore the Commission's commitment to bring forward a communication on the future of the regulatory agencies during the course of 2008;

         Self-financed agencies

               31.

               Recalls that for the two self-financing agencies, discharge is given to the director by the administrative board; notes that both have significant accumulated surpluses from fee income carried over from previous years figures, as follows:

                           —

                           Office for Harmonization of the Internal Market cash and cash equivalents: EUR 281 million (10),

                           —

                           Community Plant Variety Office cash and cash equivalents: EUR 18 million (11);

         Specific points

               32.

               Notes that for the financial year 2006 the Court of Auditors once again found high carry-over rates (43 % for administrative expenditure (Title II) and 45 % for operating activities (Title III));

               33.

               Draws attention to the fact that, although the Court of Auditors confirmed that in the financial year 2006 the Foundation complied in all essential respects with the provisions relating to reliability, there were a number of failings, not least as regards the budget annuality rule, the award of two contracts, the fact that amounts to be disbursed in full in 2007 were budgeted for in 2006, and the failure to observe the selection criteria applying to officials, thus raising the suspicion that transparency and non-discrimination may not have been guaranteed while procedures were taking place;

               34.

               Notes the Court's criticism that, in relation to recruitment procedures, the selection criteria were neither decided by selection boards at the outset nor defined in conformity with the vacancy notice, and the Foundation's reply that all vacancy notices now include a clear indication of whether success in tests is a precondition for success in the competition;

               35.

               Notes that the Foundation's balance sheet includes land and buildings valued at EUR 1,8 million (although the 1992 construction cost was EUR 7,2 million) and an accumulated surplus of EUR 4,09 million;

               36.

               Notes from the Foundation's Annual Report for 2006 that in 2006 the Foundation set up a project management system to improve organisational efficiency through greater transparency and better coordination in the use of resources, and that a performance monitoring system was also implemented to further increase efficiency; in addition, the procurement system was expanded to provide greater flexibility;

               37.

               Notes further that, in 2006, the Foundation launched an ex-post evaluation of the 2001-2004 work programme, in conjunction with an interim evaluation of selected aspects of the Foundation's ongoing work, with a view to determining the organisation's impact, added value and effectiveness; asks to be informed of the results of the evaluation.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 31.10.2007, p. 60.

      (2)  OJ C 309, 19.12.2007, p. 116.

      (3)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 139, 30.5.1975, p. 1.

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

      (6)  OJ L 187, 15.7.2008, p. 85.

      (7)  Resolution of the European Parliament containing the comments accompanying the decision on the discharge to the Director of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2003 (OJ L 196, 27.7.2005, p. 75).

      (8)  OJ C 273, 15.11.2007, p. 1.

      (9)  Council document DS 605/1/07 Rev1.

      (10)  Source: report on the annual accounts of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market for the financial year 2006, together with the Office's replies (OJ C 309, 19.12.2007, p. 141).

      (11)  Source: report on the annual accounts of the Community Plant Variety Office for the financial year 2006, together with the Office's replies (OJ C 309, 19.12.2007, p. 135).


title: 2010/322/CFSP: Council Decision 2010/322/CFSP of 8 June 2010 amending and extending Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO

text:
               11.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 145/13

         COUNCIL DECISION 2010/322/CFSP
   of 8 June 2010
   amending and extending Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (1), EULEX KOSOVO
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 43(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 4 February 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP (2). That Joint Action applies until 14 June 2010.

               (2)

               On 9 June 2009, the Council adopted Joint Action 2009/445/CFSP (3), which amended Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP by increasing the financial reference amount to cover the Mission’s expenditure until the expiry of Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP.

               (3)

               On 28 May 2010, the Political and Security Committee recommended the extension of Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP for a period of two years and the extension of the financial reference amount of EUR 265 000 000 until 14 October 2010.

               (4)

               The command and control structure of EULEX KOSOVO should be without prejudice to the contractual responsibilities of the Head of Mission towards the European Commission for implementing the budget.

               (5)

               EULEX KOSOVO will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could harm the objectives of the common foreign and security policy as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty.

               (6)

               Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:

               1.

               Article 7(2) is replaced by the following:
               ‘2.   The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and the overall authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), shall exercise command and control of EULEX KOSOVO at the strategic level.’;

               2.

               Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 in Article 9 are replaced by the following:
               ‘3.   International civilian staff and local staff may also be recruited by EULEX KOSOVO, as required, on a contractual basis, if the functions required are not provided by personnel seconded by Member States. Exceptionally, in duly justified cases, where no qualified applications from Member States are available, nationals from participating third States may be recruited on a contractual basis, as appropriate.
               4.   All staff shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the Mission. All staff shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council’s security regulations (4).

               3.

               Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 in Article 11 are replaced by the following:
               ‘2.   Under the responsibility of the Council and the HR, the PSC shall exercise political control and strategic direction of EULEX KOSOVO.
               3.   As also laid down in Article 7, the Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the PSC and the overall authority of the HR, shall be the commander of EULEX KOSOVO at strategic level and, as such, shall issue the Head of Mission with instructions and provide him with advice and technical support.
               4.   The Civilian Operation Commander shall report to the Council through the HR.’;

               4.

               Paragraphs 1 and 2 in Article 12 are replaced by the following:
               ‘1.   The PSC shall exercise, under the responsibility of the Council and the HR, political control and strategic direction of EULEX KOSOVO.
               2.   The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions for this purpose, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 of the Treaty. This authorisation shall include the powers to amend the OPLAN and the chain of command. It shall also include powers to take subsequent decisions regarding the appointment of the Head of Mission. The Council, on the recommendation of the HR, shall decide on the objectives and termination of EULEX KOSOVO.’;

               5.

               Article 13(4) is replaced by the following:
               ‘4.   Detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third States shall be laid down in an agreement to be concluded in accordance with Article 37 of the Treaty and Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Where the EU and a third State conclude an agreement establishing a framework for the participation of such third State in the EU crisis management operations, the provisions of such agreement shall apply in the context of EULEX KOSOVO.’;

               6.

               Paragraphs 1 and 2 in Article 16 are replaced by the following:
               ‘1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure of EULEX KOSOVO until 14 October 2010 shall be EUR 265 000 000.
               The financial reference amount for the subsequent periods for EULEX KOSOVO shall be decided by the Council.
               2.   All expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable to the general budget of the EU.’;

               7.

               Article 17 is deleted;

               8.

               Article 18 is replaced by the following:
               ‘Article 18
               Release of classified information
               1.   The HR shall be authorised to release to the United Nations, NATO/KFOR and to other third parties associated with this Joint Action, EU classified information and documents generated for the purposes of EULEX KOSOVO up to the level of the relevant classification respectively for each of them, in accordance with Decision 2001/264/EC. Local technical arrangements shall be drawn up to facilitate this.
               2.   In the event of a specific and immediate operational need, the HR shall also be authorised to release to the competent local authorities EU classified information and documents up to the level “RESTREINT UE” generated for the purposes of EULEX KOSOVO, in accordance with Decision 2001/264/EC. In all other cases, such information and documents shall be released to the competent local authorities in accordance with the procedures appropriate to those authorities’ level of cooperation with the EU.
               3.   The HR shall be authorised to release to the United Nations, NATO/KFOR, to other third parties associated with this Joint Action and to the relevant local authorities, EU non-classified documents related to the deliberations of the Council with regard to EULEX KOSOVO covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure (5).

               9.

               Article 19 is replaced by the following:
               ‘Article 19
               Review
               The Council shall evaluate, not later than 6 months before the expiry of this Joint Action whether EULEX KOSOVO should be extended.’;

               10.

               Article 20, second subparagraph, is replaced by the following:
               ‘It shall expire on 14 June 2012.’

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

      Done at Luxembourg, 8 June 2010.

            For the Council

            The President

         E. SALGADO

      (1)  Under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999).

      (2)  OJ L 42, 16.2.2008, p. 92.

      (3)  OJ L 148, 11.6.2009, p. 33.

      (4)  OJ L 101, 11.4.2001, p. 1.’;

      (5)  Council Decision 2009/937/EU of 1 December 2009 adopting the Council’s Rules of Procedure (OJ L 325, 11.12.2009, p. 35).’;


title: Council Decision 2013/660/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2012/389/CFSP on the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 306/17

         COUNCIL DECISION 2013/660/CFSP
   of 15 November 2013
   amending Decision 2012/389/CFSP on the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Articles 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 16 July 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/389/CFSP (1). That Decision expires on 15 July 2014.

               (2)

               On 9 July 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/367/CFSP (2) which amended Decision 2012/389/CFSP and extended the period covered by the financial reference amount until 15 November 2013.

               (3)

               Decision 2012/389/CFSP should be amended in order to provide for a new financial reference amount for the period from 16 November 2013 until 15 July 2014.

               (4)

               EUCAP NESTOR will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union’s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Article 13(1) of Decision 2012/389/CFSP is replaced by the following:

      ‘1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUCAP NESTOR from 16 July 2012 to 15 November 2013 shall be EUR 22 880 000.
      The financial reference amount to cover the expenditure related to EUCAP NESTOR for the period from 16 November 2013 to 15 July 2014 shall be EUR 11 950 000.’.

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

      Done at Brussels, 15 November 2013.

            For the Council

            The President

         R. ŠADŽIUS

      (1)  Council Decision 2012/389/CFSP of 16 July 2012 on the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR) (OJ L 187, 17.7.2012, p. 40).

      (2)  Council Decision 2013/367/CFSP of 9 July 2013 amending Decision 2012/389/CFSP on the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR) (OJ L 189, 10.7.2013, p. 12).


title: 2005/399/EC, Euratom: Council Decision of 23 May 2005 appointing a Spanish member of the European Economic and Social Committee

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 135/19

      COUNCIL DECISION

   of 23 May 2005
   appointing a Spanish member of the European Economic and Social Committee
   (2005/399/EC, Euratom)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 259 thereof,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 167 thereof,
   Having regard to the Council Decision 2002/758/EC, Euratom of 17 September 2002 appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2002 to 20 September 2006 (1),
   Having regard to the nomination submitted by the Spanish Government,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Commission,
   Whereas:
   Whereas a member’s seat on that Committee has fallen vacant following the resignation of Mr Fernando MORALEDA QUÍLEZ, of which the Council was informed on 3 June 2004,
   HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Sole Article
   Mr Marcos ALARCÓN ALARCÓN is hereby appointed a member of the European Economic and Social Committee in place of Mr Fernando QUÍLEZ for the remainder of the latter’s term of office, which runs until 20 September 2006.

      Done at Brussels, 23 May 2005.

            For the Council

            The President

         J.-L. SCHILTZ

      (1)  OJ L 253, 21.9.2002, p. 9.


Avis juridique important

|

31999D0873

1999/873/EC: Council Decision of 17 December 1999 on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Republic of Tunisia on the arrangements for the import into the Community of untreated olive oil originating in Tunisia

Official Journal L 340 , 31/12/1999 P. 0106 - 0106

COUNCIL DECISIONof 17 December 1999on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Republic of Tunisia on the arrangements for the import into the Community of untreated olive oil originating in Tunisia(1999/873/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 in conjunction with the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,Whereas(1) An Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters has been negotiated between the European Community and the Republic of Tunisia in order to extend for the period 1 January to 31 December 2000 the arrangements for the import into the Community of untreated olive oil originating in Tunisia as provided for in Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia of the other part(1);(2) That Agreement should be approved on behalf of the Community,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Republic of Tunisia on the arrangements for the import into the Community of untreated olive oil originating in Tunisia is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.The text of the Agreement is annexed to this Decision.Article 2The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community.Done at Brussels, 17 December 1999.For the CouncilThe PresidentK. HEMILÄ(1) OJ L 97, 30.3.1998, p. 1.


Avis juridique important

|

31995D0067

95/67/EC: Council Decision of 6 March 1995 on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters amending the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Yemen Arab Republic

Official Journal L 057 , 15/03/1995 P. 0077 - 0077

COUNCIL DECISION of 6 March 1995 on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters amending the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Yemen Arab Republic (95/67/EC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 113 and 130 Y in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 228 (2) and Article 228 (3) thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),Whereas, pursuant to Article 130 of the Treaty, Community policy in the sphere of development cooperation should foster the sustainable economic and social development of the developing countries, their smooth and gradual integration into the world economy and the campaign against poverty in those countries;Whereas, as a result of the unification of the Yemen Arab Republic and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen to form the Republic of Yemen, it is necessary to modify the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Yemen Arab Republic (3);Whereas negotiations to this effect have been conducted with the Republic of Yemen and have resulted in an Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters which it is in the Community's interests to approve,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1 The Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters amending the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Yemen Arab Republic is hereby approved on behalf of the European Community.The text of the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters is attached to this Decision.Article 2 The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the persons empowered to sign the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters referred to in Article 1 in order to bind the Community.Done at Brussels, 6 March 1995.For the CouncilThe PresidentA. JUPPÉ(1) OJ No C 310, 16. 11. 1993, p. 19.(2) OJ No C 128, 9. 5. 1994, p. 525.(3) OJ No L 26, 31. 1. 1985, p. 2.


title: Council Decision of 9 June 2016 appointing a member and an alternate member of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems for Slovakia

text:
               14.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/3

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 9 June 2016
   appointing a member and an alternate member of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems for Slovakia
   (2016/C 212/04)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1), and in particular Article 75 thereof,
   Having regard to the lists of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               By its Decision of 13 October 2015 (2), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems for the period from 20 October 2015 to 19 October 2020.

               (2)

               The Government of Slovakia has submitted further nominations for two posts to be filled,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The following are hereby appointed member and alternate member of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems for the period from 20 October 2015 to 19 October 2020:
   I.   REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYERS' ORGANISATIONS

               Country

               Member

               Alternate

               Slovakia

               Ms Miriam ŠPÁNIKOVÁ

               Mr Peter MOLNÁR

         Article 2
   The Council will appoint the members and the 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, 9 June 2016.

            For the Council

            The President

         G.A. VAN DER STEUR

      (1)  OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Decision of 13 October 2015 appointing the members and alternates of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems (OJ C 341, 16.10.2015, p. 4).


Important legal notice

|

32004D0240

2004/240/EC: Council Decision of 8 March 2004 amending Decision 2003/479/EC concerning the rules applicable to national experts and military staff on secondment to the General Secretariat of the Council

Official Journal L 074 , 12/03/2004 P. 0017 - 0018

Council Decisionof 8 March 2004amending Decision 2003/479/EC concerning the rules applicable to national experts and military staff on secondment to the General Secretariat of the Council(2004/240/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28(1) thereof,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 207(2) thereof,Having regard to Decision 2003/479/EC,Whereas:(1) Article 15(7) of Decision 2003/479/EC provides that the daily and monthly allowances shall be adjusted each year without retroactive effect on the basis of the adaptation of the basic salaries of Community officials in Brussels and Luxembourg.(2) The Council, through Regulations (EC, Euratom) No 2148/03 of 5 December 2003 correcting with effect from 1 July 2002 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Communities(1) and (EC, Euratom) No 2182/03 of 8 December 2003 adjusting with effect from 1 January 2004 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Communities and the weightings applied thereto(2), has adopted an adjustment of 3,4 % and 1 % respectively of the remuneration and pensions of Community officials,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1Article 15 of Decision 2003/479/EC is hereby amended as follows:1. paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:"1. A SNE shall be entitled to a daily subsistence allowance throughout the period of secondment. Where the distance between the place of residence and the place of secondment is 150 km or less, the daily allowance shall be EUR 27,96. Where the distance is more than 150 km, the daily allowance shall be EUR 111,83.";2. paragraph 2 shall be replaced by the following:"2. If the SNE has not received removal expenses from either the GSC or from the employer, an additional monthly allowance shall be paid as shown in the table below:>TABLE>This allowance shall be paid monthly in arrears.";3. paragraph 4 shall be replaced by the following:"4. SNEs who during the three years ending six months before the secondment habitually resided or pursued their principal professional activity at a location situated at a distance of 150 km or less from the place of secondment shall receive a daily subsistence allowance of EUR 27,96. For the purpose of this provision, circumstances arising from work done by SNEs for a State other than that of the place of secondment or for an international organisation shall not be taken into account."Article 2This Decision shall take effect on the first day of the month following its adoption.Done at Brussels, 8 March 2004.For the CouncilThe PresidentD. Ahern(1) OJ L 323, 10.12.2003, p. 1.(2) OJ L 327, 16.12.2003, p. 3.


title: 2009/452/EC: Commission Decision of 11 June 2009 terminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of sodium metal originating in the United States of America

text:
               12.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 149/74

      COMMISSION DECISION

   of 11 June 2009
   terminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of sodium metal originating in the United States of America
   (2009/452/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 14 thereof,
   After consulting the Advisory Committee,
   Whereas:
   1.   PROCEDURE

   1.1.   Initiation

               (1)

               On 23 July 2008 the Commission initiated, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (2) (‘notice of initiation’), an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports into the Community of sodium, in bulk, originating in the United States of America (‘USA’), normally declared within CN code ex 2805 11 00 (‘the product concerned’).

               (2)

               The proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 10 June 2008 by the sole Community producer Métaux Spéciaux (MSSA SAS) (‘the complainant’).

               (3)

               On 23 July 2008 the Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of the same product originating in the USA (3). This investigation has been terminated by means of Commission Decision 2009/453/EC (4).

         1.2.   Parties concerned and verification visits

               (4)

               Prior to the initiation of the proceeding and in accordance with Article 10(9) of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97, the Commission notified the representatives of the USA that it had received a properly documented complaint alleging that subsidised imports of sodium, in bulk, originating in the USA were causing material injury to the Community industry. The representatives of the USA were invited for consultations with the aim of clarifying the situation as regards the contents of the complaint and arriving at a mutually agreed solution. The representatives of the USA accepted the offer of consultations and consultations were subsequently held on 11 July 2008. During the consultations, no mutually agreed solution could be arrived at. However, due note was taken of comments made by the representatives of the USA in regard to the allegations contained in the complaint, concerning the countervailability of the alleged subsidy.

               (5)

               The Commission officially advised the complainant, the sole known exporter/producer in the USA, the importers and users known to be concerned, and the representatives of the USA of the initiation of the proceeding. The interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.

               (6)

               The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and received replies from the representatives of the USA, from the sole exporting producer in the USA (‘the cooperating exporting producer’), from the complainant and three Community users.

               (7)

               The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the determination of subsidisation, resulting injury and Community interest.

               (8)

               Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following representative of the USA:

                           —

                           New York Power Authority (NYPA), White Plains, New York.

               (9)

               Verification visits were also carried out at the premises of the following companies:

                              Community producer:

                                       —

                                       Métaux Spéciaux (MSSA SAS), Saint-Marcel, France.

                              Exporting producer in the USA:

                                       —

                                       DuPont Reactive Metals (DuPont), Niagara Falls, New York, and E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, Wilmington, Delaware.

                              Community users:

                                       —

                                       Rohm and Haas Europe SARL, Morges, Switzerland,

                                       —

                                       Evonik Degussa GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany.

         1.3.   Investigation period and period considered

               (10)

               The investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2005 to the end of the investigation period (‘period considered’).

         2.   WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING

               (11)

               By a letter dated 1 April 2009 addressed to the Commission, the complainant formally withdrew its complaint. According to the complainant this withdrawal was prompted by changed circumstances.

               (12)

               In accordance with Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation, the proceeding may be terminated where the complaint is withdrawn unless such termination would not be in the Community interest.

               (13)

               The Commission considered that the present proceeding should be terminated since the investigation had not brought to light any consideration showing that such termination would not be in the Community interest. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment. However, no comments were received indicating that such termination would not be in the Community interest.

               (14)

               The Commission therefore concludes that the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports into the Community of sodium, in bulk, originating in the USA should be terminated without the imposition of countervailing measures,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Sole Article
   The anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of sodium, in bulk, falling within CN code ex 2805 11 00, originating in the United States of America, is hereby terminated.

      Done at Brussels, 11 June 2009.

            For the Commission

         Catherine ASHTON

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ C 186, 23.7.2008, p. 35.

      (3)  OJ C 186, 23.7.2008, p. 32.

      (4)  See page 76 of this Official Journal.


Avis juridique important

|

31984D0560

84/560/EEC: Council Decision of 22 November 1984 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Economic Community and the Government of Australia on the Arrangement between Australia and the Community concerning cheese

Official Journal L 308 , 27/11/1984 P. 0054 - 0054 Finnish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 11 P. 0157  Spanish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 21 P. 0086  Swedish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 11 P. 0157  Portuguese special edition Chapter 11 Volume 21 P. 0086

*****COUNCIL  DECISION  of 22 November 1984  concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Economic Community and the Government of Australia on the Arrangement between Australia and the Community concerning cheese  (84/560/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 during the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) trade negotiations, the Community concluded an Arrangement with Australia concerning cheese (1);  Whereas if the objectives of the Arrangement are to be attained, some of its provisions should be amended;  Whereas the Commission has initiated negotiations with Australia on this matter and reached a satisfactory agreement with that country,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  The Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Economic Community and the Government of Australia on the Arrangement between Australia and the Community concerning cheese 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 in order to bind the Community.  Done at Brussels, 22 November 1984.  For the Council  The President  J. BRUTON  (1) OJ No L 71, 17. 3. 1980, p. 154.


title: 2009/708/EC: Commission Decision of 19 August 2009 repealing Decision 2007/424/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain prepared or preserved sweet corn in kernels originating in Thailand

text:
               18.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 246/29

      COMMISSION DECISION

   of 19 August 2009
   repealing Decision 2007/424/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain prepared or preserved sweet corn in kernels originating in Thailand
   (2009/708/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the ‘basic Regulation’), and in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof,
   After consulting the Advisory Committee,
   Whereas:
   A.   EXISTING MEASURES

               (1)

               In June 2007, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 (2), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweet corn in kernels originating in Thailand (‘the product concerned’). Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2008 (3) amended Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 with regard to the duty imposed on one company and on ‘all other companies’.

               (2)

               The Commission, by Decision 2007/424/EC (4), accepted price undertakings offered by two exporting producers, namely Sun Sweet Co., Ltd (‘Sun Sweet’) and Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd (‘Malee’).

         B.   BREACHES OF THE UNDERTAKING

   1.   Obligations stipulated in the undertaking

               (3)

               With regard to Sun Sweet, it is noted that in the framework of the undertaking, the company agreed to respect a number of obligations, such as, inter alia, not to issue undertaking invoices within 1 calendar year to customers in the Community to which they sell other products, in order to reduce the risk of cross-compensation.

               (4)

               Moreover, and without prejudice to the abovementioned clause, the company agreed that it will not have the option of making some sales under the terms of the undertaking und others with payment of the anti-dumping duties as long as the quantitative ceiling is not reached.

               (5)

               The company also agreed not to circumvent the undertaking by, inter alia, taking part in a trading system leading to a risk of circumvention.

               (6)

               The terms of the undertaking also oblige the company to provide the Commission with regular and detailed information in the form of a quarterly report of its sales of the product concerned to the European Community.

               (7)

               For the purpose of ensuring compliance with the undertaking, the company also undertook to allow on-spot verification visits at its premises in order to verify the accuracy and veracity of data submitted in the said quarterly reports and to provide all information considered necessary by the Commission.

               (8)

               In addition, the acceptance of the undertaking by the European Commission is based on trust and any action which would harm the relationship of trust established with the European Commission shall justify the immediate withdrawal of the undertaking.

               (9)

               Furthermore, any changes in circumstances occurring during the period of implementation of the undertaking from those circumstances prevailing at the time of acceptance of the undertaking which were relevant to the decision to accept the undertaking may give rise to the withdrawal of the undertaking by the European Commission.

         2.   Verification visit

               (10)

               In this regard and in parallel to the visit carried out in the framework of the partial interim review limited to the form of the measure initiated on 16 September 2008 (5), a verification visit was carried out at the premises of Sun Sweet.

               (11)

               The verification visit established a number of breaches of the undertaking.

         (a)   Change in the pattern of trade

               (12)

               The verification visit revealed that the company changed the pattern of trade to the European Community after imposition of anti-dumping measures, at least with regard to one customer, representing a substantial part of the company’s turnover of the product concerned. During the original investigation period (original IP), the company delivered the product concerned to that customer to Germany only. In 2008, the company delivered more than one third of its sales of the product concerned to this customer to Russia.

               (13)

               Such a change in the pattern of trade does affect the undertaking in so far as it constitutes a serious risk of cross-compensation, i.e. shipments to Russia may be sold at artificially low prices in order to compensate for the minimum prices to be respected for sales to the Community.

               (14)

               Furthermore, and of equal importance is that it had to be concluded that due to the change in the pattern of trade during the application of the undertaking, the current circumstances are different from those prevailing at the time of acceptance of the undertaking which were relevant to the decision to accept the undertaking. It is standing practice of the Commission not to accept undertakings if the risk of cross-compensation is too high.

         (b)   Sales of the product concerned together with other products

               (15)

               The verification established that the company also violated the cross-compensation clause of the undertaking by issuing undertaking invoices for sales of the product covered to one customer in the Community to which other products were sold in the same calendar year.

         (c)   Sales outside the undertaking before reaching the quantitative ceiling

               (16)

               Moreover, it has been found that the company chose to sell the product covered by the undertaking to at least three customers outside the terms of the undertaking before the quantitative ceiling was reached. On some of those normal commercial invoices the phrase ‘goods subject to undertaking as detailed in the Official Journal of the European Union’ appeared. This phrase is misleading and may have caused customs authorities not to collect anti-dumping duties for those imports.

               (17)

               In addition, some of those sales were not reported in the quarterly reports.

         (d)   Numerous errors in the undertaking reports

               (18)

               Despite the fact that the company has been advised in February 2008 that the undertaking reports were not correct, in particular with regard to quantities, exchange rates and invoice values reported, it was found that the reports still contain numerous errors, which impeded a proper monitoring of the undertaking.

         3.   Reasons to withdraw acceptance of the undertaking

               (19)

               In view of the above, the following is concluded:

               (20)

               A change in the pattern of trade since the imposition of measures has led to a significant risk of cross-compensation which no longer allows the Commission to effectively monitor the undertaking. This change in the pattern of trade is considered as a relevant change in circumstances compared to those prevailing at the time of acceptance of the undertaking.

               (21)

               A breach of the cross-compensation clauses of the undertaking occurred since the company sold both, the product covered by the undertaking and other products to the same client in the same calendar year but continued to issue undertaking invoices for the product covered.

               (22)

               The sales made to certain customers outside the undertaking before the quantitative ceiling was reached constitute another breach of the undertaking.

               (23)

               In addition, the company failed to submit quarterly reports which are complete, exhaustive and correct in all particulars.

               (24)

               Although the verification did not reveal that sales were made below the minimum import price, the numerous other breaches of the undertaking mentioned above do not allow the Commission to effectively monitor the undertaking and have undermined the relationship of trust which formed the basis for the acceptance of the undertaking.

         4.   Written submissions

               (25)

               With regard to the change in the pattern of trade and the increasing risk of circumvention resulting from such a change, the company submitted that it had no intention to violate the undertaking and that it did not change the pattern of trade in order to circumvent the terms of the undertaking. It was further added that no cross-compensation had taken place.

               (26)

               In response to this argument, it should be mentioned that there was indeed no evidence for an intentional violation of the price undertaking. However, the change in the pattern of trade as such constitutes a serious risk of cross-compensation, regardless of the underlying reason. It is long-standing practice of the Commission not to accept price undertakings if the risk of cross-compensation is too high. Consequently, if such a change in the pattern of trade occurs during the period of application of an undertaking, the change in itself is sufficient for the Commission to withdraw the undertaking, because it renders proper monitoring of the undertaking impractical, regardless of whether or not cross-compensation actually took place.

               (27)

               Accordingly, the arguments presented by the company in this respect do not alter the Commission’s view that the change in the pattern of trade had led to a significant risk of cross-compensation.

               (28)

               The company further submitted that it misunderstood the terms of the undertaking when selling the product concerned together with other products and when selling outside the undertaking before reaching the quantitative ceiling. It also underlined that it concerned only a small quantity and that those practices were immediately ceased.

               (29)

               Additionally, the company argued that the errors in the undertaking reports were of limited importance and mainly due to typing errors which the company tried to correct as much as possible during the verification visit. A withdrawal of the undertaking would not give the company a chance to improve the reporting practice and to correct the shortcomings identified during the verification. The company also brought forward the argument that the Commission has sent each quarter an e-mail confirming that no error was found in the electronically submitted version of the report and underlined that the main clause of the undertaking, the respect of the minimum price, has never been violated.

               (30)

               In response to those submissions, it has to be stressed that already in 2007, the Commission exceptionally provided all companies that offered an undertaking with detailed information and training regarding the functioning of undertakings and the obligations of the companies.

               (31)

               Furthermore, it should be emphasised that the respect of the minimum price is indeed a core element of a price undertaking, but not the only one. It is equally important to respect the other obligations as well, including the obligation to provide regular sales reports that are complete, exhaustive and correct in all particulars in order to allow proper monitoring by the Commission. The confirmation e-mail the company referred to is an automatically generated message which confirms that the structure of the report is in accordance with the technical specifications outlined in the Annex to the undertaking text. As also explicitly mentioned in the same Annex, it does not confirm correctness in substance.

               (32)

               Therefore, the arguments presented by the company in this respect do not alter the Commission’s view that the numerous breaches of the undertaking render the undertaking unworkable and are sufficient to withdraw acceptance of the undertaking.

         C.   PRACTICABILITY

               (33)

               With regard to both undertaking offers accepted, it has also to be noted that the partial interim review limited to the form of the measures revealed that the undertakings in their current form, i.e. with a fixed minimum price are no longer appropriate to counteract the injurious effect of dumping, and that there is no possibility of indexing the minimum import prices in order to address the problem (6).

         D.   WITHDRAWAL OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE UNDERTAKINGS

               (34)

               In view of the above, and in accordance with the relevant clauses of the undertakings in question, which authorise the Commission to unilaterally withdraw acceptance of the undertakings, the Commission has decided to withdraw the acceptance of both undertakings.

         E.   REPEAL OF DECISION 2007/424/EC

               (35)

               In view of the above, Decision 2007/424/EC accepting undertakings from Sun Sweet Co., Ltd. and Malee Sampran Public Co., Ltd should be repealed. Accordingly, the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 on imports of the product concerned from those companies should apply,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   Decision 2007/424/EC is hereby repealed.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 19 August 2009.

            For the Commission

         Catherine ASHTON

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 159, 20.6.2007, p. 14.

      (3)  OJ L 260, 30.9.2008, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 159, 20.6.2007, p. 42.

      (5)  OJ C 237, 16.9.2008, p. 18.

      (6)  Council Regulation (EC) No 847/2009 (see page 1 of this Official Journal).


title: Decision (EU) 2017/936 of the European Central Bank of 23 May 2017 nominating heads of work units to adopt delegated fit and proper decisions (ECB/2017/16)

text:
               1.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 141/26

         DECISION (EU) 2017/936 OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
   of 23 May 2017
   nominating heads of work units to adopt delegated fit and proper decisions (ECB/2017/16)
   THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank and in particular Article 11.6 thereof,
   Having regard to Decision (EU) 2017/933 of the European Central Bank of 16 November 2016 on a general framework for delegating decision-making powers for legal instruments related to supervisory tasks (ECB/2016/40) (1), and in particular Articles 4 and 5 thereof,
   Having regard to Decision (EU) 2017/935 of the European Central Bank of 16 November 2016 on delegation of the power to adopt fit and proper decisions and the assessment of fit and proper requirements (ECB/2016/42) (2), and in particular Article 2 thereof,
   Having regard to Decision ECB/2004/2 of 19 February 2004 adopting the Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank (3), and in particular Article 10 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               To address the considerable number of decisions that the European Central Bank (ECB) is to adopt for the performance of its supervisory tasks, a procedure for the adoption of specific delegated decisions has been established.

               (2)

               A delegation decision is effective upon the adoption of a decision by the Executive Board nominating one or more heads of work units to take decisions on the basis of a delegation decision.

               (3)

               The importance of the delegation decision and the number of addressees to whom delegated decisions need to be sent should be taken into account by the Executive Board in nominating heads of work units.

               (4)

               The Chair of the Supervisory Board has been consulted on the heads of work units to whom the power to adopt fit and proper decisions should be delegated,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Delegated fit and proper decisions
   Delegated decisions pursuant to Article 2 of Decision (EU) 2017/935 (ECB/2016/42) shall be adopted by the Deputy Director General of Directorate General Microprudential Supervision IV responsible for fit and proper decisions, or if the Deputy Director General is unavailable the Head of the Authorisation Division, and one of the following heads of work units:

               (a)

               the Director General of Directorate General Microprudential Supervision I, if supervision of the relevant supervised entity or group is carried out by Directorate General Microprudential Supervision I;

               (b)

               the Director General of Directorate General Microprudential Supervision II, if supervision of the relevant supervised entity or group is carried out by Directorate General Microprudential Supervision II; or

               (c)

               if a Director General is unavailable, their Deputy Director General.

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

      Done at Frankfurt am Main, 23 May 2017.

            The President of the ECB

         Mario DRAGHI

      (1)  See page 14 of this Official Journal.

      (2)  See page 21 of this Official Journal.

      (3)  OJ L 80, 18.3.2004, p. 33.