Commission Decision setting up an Advisory Committee on Cereals


Avis juridique important

|

32003D0686

2003/686/EC: Council Decision of 22 September 2003 appointing a member of the Committee of the Regions

Official Journal L 250 , 02/10/2003 P. 0023 - 0023

Council Decisionof 22 September 2003appointing a member of the Committee of the Regions(2003/686/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the German Government,Whereas:(1) On 22 January 2002 the Council adopted Decision 2002/60/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions(1).(2) The seat of a member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Jürgen GNAUCK, of which the Council was notified on 8 July 2003,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Sole ArticleMr Hans KAISER, Minister for Federal and European Affairs in the Prime Minister's Office and Commissioner for the Prime Minister's Office of Thuringia to the Federation, is hereby appointed a member of the Committee of the Regions in place of Mr Jürgen GNAUCK for the remainder of his term of office, which ends on 25 January 2006.Done at Brussels, 22 September 2003.For the CouncilThe PresidentF. Frattini(1) OJ L 24, 26.1.2002, p. 38.


title: 2007/539/EC: Commission Decision of 4 July 2007 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain camera systems originating in Japan

text:
               31.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 198/32

      COMMISSION DECISION

   of 4 July 2007
   terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain camera systems originating in Japan
   (2007/539/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 Article 9 thereof,
   After consulting the Advisory Committee,
   Whereas:
   A.   PRESENT INVESTIGATION

               (1)

               On 4 April 2006, the Commission received a complaint concerning the alleged injurious dumping of imports of certain camera systems originating in Japan.

               (2)

               The complaint was lodged by Grass Valley Nederland BV acting on behalf of Community producers representing a major proportion of the total Community production of certain camera systems pursuant to Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation.

               (3)

               The complaint contained prima facie evidence of the existence of dumping and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding.

               (4)

               The Commission, by a notice (notice of initiation) published in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (2), accordingly initiated an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of certain camera systems, currently falling within CN codes ex 8525 80 19, ex 8528 49 35, ex 8528 49 91, ex 8528 59 90, ex 8529 90 92, ex 8529 90 97, ex 8537 10 91, ex 8537 10 99 and 8543 70 90 (CN codes since 1 January 2007) and originating in Japan.

               (5)

               The notice of initiation defined the product certain camera systems originating in Japan consisting of:

                           (a)

                           a camera head:

                                       (i)

                                       with integrated viewfinder, viewfinder connection or capability;

                                       (ii)

                                       with integrated optical block, front module or similar device (see description below), connection or capability;

                                       (iii)

                                       either in one piece with the camera head and the camera adaptor in one housing, or separate;

                           (b)

                           a camera adaptor. This may or may not be integrated in the camera head;

                           (c)

                           an optical block, front module or similar device with one or more image sensors where the effective diagonal size of the light sensitive scanning area is equal to or larger than 6 mm. This may or may not be integrated in the camera head;

                           (d)

                           a camera viewfinder. This may or may not be integrated in the camera head;

                           (e)

                           a Base station or Camera Control Unit (CCU) connected to the camera by a cable or other means such as a wireless connection;

                           (f)

                           an Operational Control Panel (OCP) or equivalent device for camera control (i.e. for colour adjustment lens opening or iris) of single cameras;

                           (g)

                           a Master Control Panel (MCP) or Master set-up unit (MSU) for the overview and for adjustment of several remote cameras;

                           (h)

                           a box lens adaptation unit such as a Large Lens Adapter or SuperXpander that enables portable camera systems to be used with box-type lenses.

                     Imported either together or separately, and originating in Japan.
               It is not always required that the camera systems consist of all the above components.
               The abovementioned different components (not camera head) of a camera system cannot function separately and cannot be used outside the camera system of a particular producer.
               Lenses and recorders which are not in the same housing with a camera head are not covered by the product.
               The product concerned is susceptible for use in broadcast, news gathering, digital cinematography or professional applications. Professional applications include (but are not limited to) the use of these systems for creating educational, entertainment, promotional and documentary video material, both for internal and external distribution.

               (6)

               The product covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 (3), i.e. television camera systems originating in Japan, currently falling within CN codes ex 8525 80 19, ex 8528 49 35, ex 8528 49 91, ex 8528 59 90, ex 8529 90 92, ex 8529 90 97, ex 8537 10 91, ex 8537 10 99 and 8543 70 90 (CN codes since 1 January 2007) falls entirely within the above product definition. In December 2006, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1910/2006 (4) confirmed these measures further to an expiry review in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation (the original measures). The original measures are dealt with in a parallel Council Regulation (EC) No 906/2007 (5).

               (7)

               The Commission officially advised the exporting producers, importers and associations of importers or exporters known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting country, users, consumer organisations and the complainant Community producers of the initiation of the investigation. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation and questionnaires were sent to all parties concerned.

         B.   WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING

               (8)

               By a letter of 12 April 2007 addressed to the Commission, Grass Valley Nederland B.V. formally withdrew its complaint.

               (9)

               In accordance with Article 9(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.

               (10)

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

               (11)

               The Commission therefore concludes that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of certain camera systems originating in Japan should be terminated without the imposition of anti-dumping measures.

               (12)

               The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Advisory Committee,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Sole Article
   The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of certain camera systems originating in Japan is hereby terminated.

      Done at Brussels, 4 July 2007.

            For the Commission

         Peter MANDELSON

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17).

      (2)  OJ C 117, 18.5.2006, p. 8.

      (3)  OJ L 244, 29.9.2000, p. 38. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1909/2006 (OJ L 365, 21.12.2006, p. 1).

      (4)  OJ L 365, 21.12.2006, p. 7.

      (5)  See page 1 of this Official Journal.


title: Commission Decision of 17 December 2009 authorising a health claim on the effect of water-soluble tomato concentrate on platelet aggregation and granting the protection of proprietary data under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2009) 10113) (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
               18.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 336/55

      COMMISSION DECISION

   of 17 December 2009
   authorising a health claim on the effect of water-soluble tomato concentrate on platelet aggregation and granting the protection of proprietary data under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council
   (notified under document C(2009) 10113)
   (Only the English text is authentic)
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2009/980/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (1), and in particular Article 18(4) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 health claims made on food are prohibited unless they are authorised by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation and included in a list of permitted claims.

               (2)

               Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 also provides that applications for authorisations of health claims may be submitted by food business operators to the national competent authority of a Member State. The national competent authority is to forward valid applications to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’.

               (3)

               Following receipt of an application the Authority is to inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission and to deliver an opinion on a health claim concerned.

               (4)

               The Commission is to decide on the authorisation of health claims taking into account the opinion delivered by the Authority.

               (5)

               In order to stimulate innovation, health claims which are based on newly developed scientific evidence and/or which include a request for the protection of proprietary data shall undergo an accelerated type of authorisation. Where at the applicant’s request for the protection of proprietary data, the Commission proposes to restrict the use of such data in favour of the applicant, such restriction shall, in accordance with Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 expire after 5 years.

               (6)

               Following an application from Provexis Natural Products Ltd, submitted on 7 January 2009 pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Authority was required to deliver an opinion on a health claim related to the effects of water-soluble tomato concentrate (WSTC) I and II on the blood platelet activity in healthy people (Question No EFSA-Q-2009-00229) (2). The claim proposed by the applicant was worded as follows: ‘Helps to maintain a healthy blood flow and benefits circulation’.

               (7)

               On 28 May 2009, the Commission and the Member States received the scientific opinion from the Authority which concluded that on the basis of the data presented, a cause and effect relationship had been established between the consumption of WSTC I and II and helping to maintain normal platelet aggregation. Subject to a revised wording, taking into account in particular the requirement referred to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the claim should be considered as complying with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and it should be included in the Community list of permitted claims.

               (8)

               One of the objectives of the Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 is to ensure that health claims are truthful, clear and reliable and useful to the consumer, and that wording and presentation are taken into account in that respect. Therefore, where the wording of claims used by the applicant has the same meaning for consumers as that of an authorised health claim, because they demonstrate the same relationship that exists between a food category, a food or one of its constituents and health, they should be subject to the same conditions of use, as indicated in the Annex to the present Decision.

               (9)

               The Authority indicated in its opinion that its conclusions could not have been reached without considering the nine studies claimed by the applicant as proprietary.

               (10)

               Following the receipt of the Authority’s opinion, the Commission went back to the applicant for further clarification on the justification provided regarding the nine studies claimed as proprietary and in particular regarding the ‘exclusive right of reference’ as referred to in Article 21(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. All the justifiable information provided by the applicant has been assessed. For the seven unpublished studies it is considered that the requirements laid down in Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 are fulfilled. Accordingly, the scientific data and other information included in the seven studies may not be used for the benefit of a subsequent applicant for a period of 5 years from the date of authorisation, under the conditions laid down in Article 21(1) of that Regulation. For the two studies, which had been published prior to the submission of the application for authorisation of the health claim (3), it is considered that as the studies have been published and made available to the public domain, their protection is not justified in the light of the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 among which to protect the investment made by innovators in gathering the information and data supporting an application under that Regulation and accordingly it should not be granted.

               (11)

               The comments from the applicant received by the Commission, pursuant to Article 16(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, have been considered when setting the measures provided for in this Decision.

               (12)

               The Member States have been consulted,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The health claim set out in the Annex to this Decision shall be included in the Community list of permitted claims as provided for in Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.
   Article 2
   The scientific data and other information included in the studies identified in the Annex to this Decision shall be restricted for use for the benefit of the applicant for a period of 5 years from the date of authorisation under the conditions laid down in Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.
   Article 3
   This Decision is addressed to Provexis Natural Products Ltd, Thames Court, 1 Victoria Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1YB, United Kingdom.

      Done at Brussels, 17 December 2009.

            For the Commission

         Androulla VASSILIOU

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 404, 30.12.2006, p. 9.

      (2)  The EFSA Journal (2009) 1101, pp. 1-15.

      (3)  O’Kennedy, N., Crosbie, L., Whelam, S., Luther, V., Horgan, G., Broom, J.I., Webb, D.J., Duttaroy, A.K., Effects of tomato extract on platelet function: a double-blinded crossover study in healthy humans, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2006, Vol. 84, pp. 561-569 and O’Kennedy N., Crosbie, L., van Lieshout, M., Broom, J.I., Webb, D.J., Duttaroy, A.K., Effects of antiplatelet components of tomato extract on platelet function in vitro and ex vivo: a time-course cannulation study in healthy humans. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2006, Vol. 84, pp. 570-579.

      ANNEX

                  Applicant — Address

                  Nutrient, substance, food or food category

                  Claim

                  Conditions of use of the claim

                  Conditions and/or restrictions of use of the food and/or additional statement or warning

                  Proprietary data restricted for use for the benefit of the applicant

                  EFSA opinion reference

                  Provexis Natural Products Ltd, Thames Court, 1 Victoria Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1YB, United Kingdom

                  Water-Soluble Tomato Concentrate (WSTC) I and II

                  Water-Soluble Tomato Concentrate (WSTC) I and II helps maintain normal platelet aggregation, which contributes to healthy blood flow

                  Information to the consumer that the beneficial effect is obtained with a daily consumption of 3g WSTC I or 150 mg WSTC II in up to 250 ml of either fruit juices, flavoured drinks or yogurt drinks (unless heavily pasteurised)

                              1.

                              O’Kennedy, N., Crosbie, L., van Lieshout M., Broom J.I., Webb, D.J., Duttaroy, A.K., 2003a. Persistence of the antiplatelet effect of a single dose of WSTC equivalent to 2 fresh tomatoes over a 24-hour timecourse. REC No 02/0269

                              2.

                              O’Kennedy et al. 2003b. A 42-day randomised, controlled and double-blinded crossover study to evaluate effects of daily WSTC consumption on platelet function, coagulation and some baseline CVD risk markers. REC No 03/0177.

                              3.

                              O’Kennedy et al. 2005. Effects of overconsuming Sirco®, a one-a-day fruit juice drink containing 12g/L WSTC, on platelet function in healthy subjects. REC No 05/S0802/77.

                              4.

                              O’Kennedy et al. 2006c. A pilot study to compare the antiplatelet effects of WSTC in healthy subjects, after consumption in two different food matrices. REC No 06/S0802/60.

                              5.

                              O’Kennedy et al. 2007. A randomised, controlled and double-blinded crossover study to compare the antiplatelet effects of three different formats of WSTC in healthy humans. REC No 07/S0801/13.

                              6.

                              Song, V., Sheddon, A., Horgan, G. and O’Kennedy, N. Anticoagulatory and anti-inflammatory activities of WSTC in platelets and endothelial cells. Manuscript for submission; 2008.

                              7.

                              Zhang, F., Song, V., Neascu, M., Crosbie, L., Duncan, G., Horgan, G., de Roos, B. and O’Kennedy, N. Flow cytometric and proteomic studies examining the effects of WSTC on platelet function in vitro. Unpublished, 2007/2008.

                  Q-2009-00229


title: 2009/194/EC: Decision of the European Parliament of 22 April 2008 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2006, section VII — Committee of the Regions

text:
               31.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 88/83

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 22 April 2008
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2006, section VII — Committee of the Regions
   (2009/194/EC)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
   having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 2006 (1),
   having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Communities for the financial year 2006 — Volume I (C6-0368/2007) (2),
   having regard to the Committee of the Regions' annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2006,
   having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on implementation of the budget for the financial year 2006 and the Court of Auditors' special reports, together with the audited institutions' replies (3),
   having regard to the statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors pursuant to Article 248 of the EC Treaty (4),
   having regard to Articles 272(10), 274, 275 and 276 of the EC Treaty,
   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 (5), and in particular Articles 50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 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 (A6-0095/2008),

               1.

               Grants the Secretary-General of the Committee of the Regions discharge in respect of the implementation of the Committee of the Regions 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 Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor, 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 L 78, 15.3.2006.

      (2)  OJ C 274, 15.11.2007, p. 1.

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

      (4)  OJ C 274, 15.11.2007, p. 130.

      (5)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.
    ---documentbreak---

               31.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 88/84

         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 European Union general budget for the financial year 2006, section VII — Committee of the Regions
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
   having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 2006 (1),
   having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Communities for the financial year 2006 — Volume I (C6-0368/2007) (2),
   having regard to the Committee of the Regions' annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2006,
   having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on implementation of the budget for the financial year 2006 and the Court of Auditors' special reports, together with the audited institutions' replies (3),
   having regard to the statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors pursuant to Article 248 of the EC Treaty (4),
   having regard to Articles 272(10), 274, 275 and 276 of the EC Treaty,
   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 (5), and in particular Articles 50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 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 (A6-0095/2008),

               1.

               Notes that in 2006 the Committee of the Regions (CoR) had available commitment appropriations amounting to a total of EUR 74 391 953,27 (2005: EUR 69 570 456,32), with a utilisation rate of 97,94 %;

               2.

               Notes that, following the introduction of accrual accounting with effect from 1 January 2005, the CoR's financial statements disclose a negative economic out-turn for the financial year 2006 (EUR 8 306 761) and identical amounts of assets and liabilities (EUR 101 124 165);

               3.

               Welcomes the signature in December 2007 of a new Administrative Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and the CoR for the period 2008 to 2014; is convinced that cooperation between the two institutions will be financially advantageous for the European taxpayers;

               4.

               Welcomes the clear commitment of the two committees to the aim of harmonising their internal control standards, based on best practices, as well as all other relevant financial procedures relating to the Joint Services;

               5.

               Notes that the new agreement keeps the most important areas (infrastructures, IT and telecommunications as well as translation, including the production of documents) within the Joint Services' remit, while a limited number of services are de-coupled, such as internal services, socio-medical service, the library and prepress;

               6.

               Insists however that this de-coupling should be budget neutral and, therefore, urges the two committees to make a joint analysis as part of the mid-term review in order to assess whether this shift of resources will have been beneficial to both; calls on the two committees to keep Parliament informed of the mini-cooperation agreements in the areas concerned by de-coupling;

               7.

               Points to the remark made by the ECA at point 10.19 of its Annual Report that some management and control weaknesses appeared in relation to public procurement; notes with concern the high percentage of negotiated procedures, instead of calls for tenders, within the whole expenditure for procurement; welcomes however the information provided by the Joint Services according to which, for most of the building-related services that were previously awarded after negotiated procedures, new contracts have been signed after calls for tender or call for tender procedures are on-going;

               8.

               Welcomes in this context the creation within the Joint Services of a Contracts Unit providing assistance to all operational departments in the Joint Services in the area of public procurement; notes that under the new agreement the verification service of the Joint Services has been transferred to each committee's own services;

               9.

               Notes that, according to the Joint Services' answers to the rapporteur's questionnaire, with the occupation of the Remorqueur and Van Maerlant buildings in 2007, 92 % of the Committees' total office space is now occupied and their needs for space have been satisfied for the coming years;

               10.

               Notes in relation to the renovation of the Montoyer entrance hall, that the EESC Internal Auditor concluded in its report that ‘he did not find elements that would suggest the settlement of the penalties for late delivery for the Montoyer hall renovation was not defendable’; points out that this report was sent to OLAF and that this has not resulted in any follow-up of which the EESC or the CoR is aware;

               11.

               Notes that the verification service was transferred in 2006 from the Budget and Finance unit to the General Administration unit, with a view to further emphasising the principle of the separation of functions and the independence of that service; further notes that the CoR considers that it has carried out a satisfactory number of ex-post controls in 2006 and that it requested all its services to verify 5 % of all files in 2007; welcomes the fact that the CoR has significantly increased its resources and capacities in its financial verification service;

               12.

               Considers it crucial that the controls carried out by, for example, authorising officers, verifiers and auditors, are rigorous enough; underlines in this context the importance of a sufficient number of random checks in all sectors, in addition to those few strategic ones that present a higher risk;

               13.

               Points to the remark made by the ECA at point 10.23 of its Annual Report that in the context of an ex-post verification procedure, the CoR's administration found that, in the case of one national delegation, the amounts refunded to members for travel expenditure (air tickets) on the basis of hand-written travel agency invoices were on average 83 % higher than the price actually charged by the airline for the ticket used;

               14.

               Observes that, following this, the CoR's administration carried out a broad investigation into the matter, which was completed in July 2007 and whose results did not demonstrate, in the ECA's opinion, that the amounts paid for administrative costs were justified;

               15.

               Notes with satisfaction that the CoR decided to make further reimbursements subject to compliance with a number of conditions and suspended all reimbursements based on travel documents purchased under the previous arrangements; welcomes that, as a precautionary measure, the CoR also informed OLAF about the evolution of ex-post verifications and the measures adopted by the CoR's administration;

               16.

               Notes that the internal audit on salary transfers, which was completed in 2006 and which included an in-depth review of all existing transfers, revealed that ‘[w]eaknesses existed concerning the principle of separation of functions in this area (initiating functions and internal verification) and the control environment should have been given greater priority in view of the risks concerned’; further notes that a follow-up to the Internal Auditor's recommendations was carried out in February 2007; urges the CoR's administration to ensure the full implementation of all audit recommendations;

               17.

               Notes that, following an investigation, OLAF established with regard to eight transfers that they were not in compliance with statutory conditions and recommended recovering the amounts overpaid from the officials concerned; notes with satisfaction that all recoveries had been completed by early 2007; further notes that with regard to six staff members, OLAF recommended the opening of disciplinary proceedings, and for five of them it also submitted files to the Belgian authorities;

               18.

               Observes that, following a request by the Belgian authorities, the CoR Appointing Authority lifted the immunity of the officials concerned on 6 July 2007 to enable them to be interviewed by the authorities; further notes that to date, no information has been received by the CoR's administration as to whether the Belgian authorities intend to follow-up those files;

               19.

               Notes with satisfaction that an administrative enquiry was launched by the CoR's Secretary General and carried out by a former deputy Director-General of the Commission; points out that in two of the five cases where the files were submitted to the authorities, the CoR Appointing Authority decided to open disciplinary proceedings before the Disciplinary Board; understands that in accordance with the Staff Regulations, a final decision can be taken in these cases only after a final judgment has been handed down by the Belgian court;

               20.

               Notes that in the three other cases, the Appointing Authority will take its decision on the opening of disciplinary proceedings as soon as it has received the necessary information as to the follow-up the Belgian authorities intend to give to those files; further notes that in a further case, in which OLAF has not submitted the file to the Belgian authorities, the Appointing Authority decided, in line with the recommendations of the administrative enquiry, to address a warning to the official concerned; reiterates its demand for a strict prosecution of all cases where fraudulent behaviour can be proved;

               21.

               Asks the CoR to consider proportionate disciplinary measures if the outcome of the cases pending before the competent courts requires them;

               22.

               Notes with satisfaction that there are no more specific problems for the CoR as regards recruitment and that it takes up almost its full quota as negotiated with the other institutions.

      (1)  OJ L 78, 15.3.2006.

      (2)  OJ C 274, 15.11.2007, p. 1.

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

      (4)  OJ C 274, 15.11.2007, p. 130.

      (5)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.