Avis juridique important

|

31983D0402

83/402/EEC: Commission Decision of 29 July 1983 on the list of establishments in New Zealand approved for the purposes of importing fresh meat into the Community

Official Journal L 233 , 24/08/1983 P. 0024 - 0028 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 16 P. 0197  Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 28 P. 0193  Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 16 P. 0197  Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 28 P. 0193

*****COMMISSION  DECISION  of 29 July 1983  on the list of establishments in New Zealand approved for the purposes of importing fresh meat into the Community  (83/402/EEC)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine animals, swine and fresh meat from third countries (1), as last amended by Directive 83/91/EEC (2), and in particular Articles 4 (1) and 18 (1) (a) and (b) thereof,  Whereas establishments in third countries cannot be authorized to export fresh meat to the Community unless they satisfy the general and special conditions laid down in Directive 72/462/EEC;  Whereas New Zealand has forwarded, in accordance with Article 4 (3) of Directive 72/462/EEC, a list of the establishments authorized to export to the Community;  Whereas Community on-the-spot visits have shown that the hygiene standards of many of these establishments are sufficient and they may therefore be entered on a first list, established according to Article 4 (1) of the said Directive, of establishments from which importation of fresh meat may be authorized;  Whereas the case of the other establishments proposed by New Zealand has to be re-examined on the basis of additional information regarding their hygiene standards and their ability to adapt quickly to the Community legislation;  Whereas, in the meantime and so as to avoid any abrupt interruption of existing trade flows, these establishments may be authorized temporarily to continue their exports of fresh meat to those Member States prepared to accept them;  Whereas it will therefore be necessary to re-examine and, if necessary, amend this Decision in the light of measures taken to this end and improvements made;  Whereas import of fresh meat from establishments appearing on the list annexed to this Decision remains subject to provisions laid down elsewhere and to the general provisions of the Treaty; whereas, in particular, import from third countries and re-export to other Member States of certain categories of meat, such as meat weighing less than three kilograms, or meat containing residues of certain substances which are not yet covered by Community rules or by rules which need to be further harmonized, remain subject to the health legislation of the importing Member State, while respecting the general provisions of the Treaty;  Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,  HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:  Article 1  1. The establishments in New Zealand listed in the Annex are hereby approved for the import of fresh meat into the Community pursuant to the said Annex.  2. Imports from the establishments referred to in paragraph 1 shall remain subject to the Community veterinary provisions laid down elsewhere.  Article 2  1. Member States shall prohibit imports of fresh meat coming from establishments other than those listed in the Annex.  2. However, Member States may continue to authorize until 30 April 1984 imports of fresh meat coming from establishments which are not listed in the Annex but which have been officially approved and proposed by the authorities of New Zealand as of 30 March 1983 pursuant to Article 4 (3) of Directive 72/462/EEC, unless a decision is taken to the contrary, in accordance with Article 4 (1) of the abovementioned Directive, before 1 May 1984.  The Commission shall forward the list of these establishments to the Member States.  Article 3  This Decision shall apply from 1 October 1983.  Article 4  This Decision shall be reviewed and if necessary amended before 1 February 1984.  Article 5  This Decision is addressed to the Member States.  Done at Brussels, 29 July 1983.  For the Commission  Poul DALSAGER  Member of the Commission  (1) OJ No L 302, 31. 12. 1972, p. 28.  (2) OJ No L 59, 5. 3. 1983, p. 34.  ANNEX  LIST OF ESTABLISHMENTS  1.2.3 //   //   //   // Approval No  // Establishment  // Address  //  1,3 // I. BOVINE MEAT  // A. Slaughterhouses and cutting premises  //   //  1.2.3 //   //   //   // ME 14  // Waitaki-NZ Refrigerating Ltd  // Christchurch  // ME 15  // The Canterbury Frozen Meat Co. Ltd  // Belfast  // ME 21  // Southland Frozen Meat Ltd  // Mataura  // ME 22  // Southland Frozen Meat Ltd  // Makarewa  // ME 24  // Hellaby Shortland Ltd  // Otahuhu  // ME 26  // Waitaki-NZ Refrigerating Ltd  // Balclutha  // ME 34  // The Canterbury Frozen Meat Co. Ltd  // Pareora  // ME 50  // Alliance Freezing Co. (Southland) Ltd  // Invercargill  // ME 56  // Auckland Farmers Freezing Co-op Ltd, Rangiuru  // Te Puke  // ME 63  // Farmers Meat Export Ltd  // Whangarei  // ME 66  // Phoenix Meat Co. Ltd, Kokiri  // Greymouth  // ME 69  // Ashley Meat Export Ltd  // Christchurch  //  1,3 // B. Cutting premises  //   //  1.2.3 //   //   //   // MPH 50  // Crown Meats Ltd  // Feilding  // MPH 52  // Dawn Meat (NZ) Ltd  // Hastings  // MPH 53  // W. Richmond Ltd  // Hastings  // MPH 56  // W. Richmond Ltd  // Hastings  // MPH 63  // Primex Meats Ltd  // Wellington  // MPH 69  // Dawn Meat (NZ) Ltd  // Hastings  // MPH 72  // Kellax Foods Ltd  // Auckland  //  1,3 // II. SHEEPMEAT A. Slaughterhouses and cutting premises  //   // 1.2.3 //   //   //   // ME 1 (1)  // Borthwick CWS Ltd  // Masterton  // ME 6  // Borthwick CWS Ltd  // Longburn  // ME 8 (1)  // Gisborne Refrigerating Co. Ltd  // Gisborne  // ME 14  // Waitaki-NZ Refrigerating Ltd  // Christchurch  // ME 17  // Waitaki-NZ Refrigerating Ltd  // Timaru  // ME 20  // Ocean Beach Freezing Co. Ltd  // Ocean Beach  // ME 21  // Southland Frozen Meat Ltd  // Mataura  // ME 22  // Southland Frozen Meat Ltd  // Makarewa  // ME 26  // Waitaki-NZ Refrigerating Ltd  // Balclutha  // ME 34  // The Canterbury Frozen Meat Co. Ltd  // Pareora  // ME 37  // Canterbury Frozen Meat Co. (Canterbury) Ltd  // Belfast  // ME 50  // Alliance Freezing Co. (Southland) Ltd  // Invercargill  // ME 56  // Auckland Farmers Freezing Co-op Ltd, Rangiuru  // Te Puke  // ME 58  // Hawkes Bay Farmers' Meat Co. Ltd  // Takapau  // ME 60  // Pacific Freezing NZ Ltd  // Dannevirke  // ME 65  // AML Meats Ltd  // Gisborne  // ME 69  // Ashley Meat Export Ltd  // Christchurch  //  1,3 // (1) Offal excluded.  // 1.2.3 //   //   //   // Approval No  // Establishment  // Address  //  1,3 // B. Slaughterhouses  //   //  1.2.3 //  //   //   // ME 16  // The Canterbury Frozen Meat Co. Ltd  // Ashburton  // ME 41  // NCF Kaiapoi Ltd  // Kaiapoi  // 1,3 // C. Cutting premises  //   //  1.2.3 //   //   //  // MPH 39  // Defiance Processors Ltd  // Dunedin  // MPH 42  // Fresha Products Ltd  // New Plymouth  // MPH 45  // Canterbury Frozen Meat Co. Ltd  // Harewood  // MPH 50  // Crown Meats Ltd  // Feilding  // MPH 52  // Dawn Meat (NZ) Ltd  // Hastings  // MPH 53  // W. Richmond Ltd  // Hastings  // MPH 54  // Ashley Meat Export Ltd  // Christchurch  // MPH 56  // W. Richmond Ltd  // Hastings  // MPH 57  // NZ Primary Processors Ltd  // Mt Maunganui  // MPH 63  // Primex Meats Ltd  // Wellington  // MPH 69  // Dawn Meat (NZ) Ltd  // Hastings  // MPH 72  // Kellax Foods Ltd  // Auckland  // MPH 74  // Canterbury Meat Packers Ltd  // Ashburton  //  1,3 // III. COLD STORES  //   //  1.2.3 //   //   //   // S 1  // Timary Harbour Board Cool Store  // Timaru  // S 2  // Auckland Farmer's Freezing Co-op Ltd  // Whangarei  // S 10  // Otago Dairy Producers Cool Storage Ltd  // Dunedin  // S 11  // South Canterbury Co-op Cool Storage Ltd  // Timaru  // S 17  // Cool Hire Storage Ltd  // Dunedin  // S 25  // Dawn Meat (NZ) Ltd  // Hastings  // S 28  // Cool Stores (NZ) Ltd  // Auckland  // S 30  // N. O. Pierson Ltd  // Christchurch  // S 31  // Pacific Cold Storage Co. Ltd  // Mt Maunganui  // S 32  // Taranaki Producers Freezing Ltd  // New Plymouth  // S 33  // Christchurch Airport Authorities  // Christchurch  // S 34  // Coolpak Prebbleton Ltd, Prebbleton  // Christchurch  // S 35  // Nelson Cold Storage Co-op  // Nelson  // S 36  // Cold Storage (Bay of Plenty) Ltd  // Te Puke  // S 39  // Christchurch Cool Stores Ltd  // Christchurch  // S 40  // Southland Harbour Board  // Bluff  // S 41  // Eljays Ice Box  // Feilding  // S 42  // Wellington Cold Storage Co.  // Tawa  // S 45  // Wairarapa Cold Storage  // Greytown  // S 47  // Polar Cold Storage, Hornby  // Christchurch  // S 49  // Chill Air Ltd  // Auckland International Airport  // S 51  // Kiwi Fruit Cool Store Co-op  // Gisborne  // S 53  // Otaki Cold Store  // Otaki  // S 55  // Airport Cold Storage Ltd  // Wellington  // S 57  // Air New Zealand  // Auckland Airport  // S 58  // Cool & Cold Storage Associated Ltd  // Te Puke  // S 59  // Richmond Cool Stores (1963) Ltd, Manchester Street  // Hastings  // S 60  // Export Cool Storage  // Mt Maunganui  // S 61  // Coolpak Cool Stores Ltd  // Timaru 1.2.3 //   //   //   // Approval No  // Establishment  // Address  //   //   //   // S 63  // Mogal Cool Stores Ltd  // Christchurch Airport  // S 66  // Mogal Cool Stores Ltd  // Auckland Airport  // S 68  // Freezer Flow, Mt Wellington  // Auckland  // S 70  // Freezer Stores Hawkes Bay Ltd  // Hastings  // S 72  // Motueka Coldstorage  // Motueka  // S 73  // LEP International, Mangere  // Auckland  // S 75  // Amaltal Coolstores & Exporters Ltd  // Nelson  // S 84  // Polar Cold Storage Ltd  // Dunedin  // S 86  // Tai-Tapu Dairy Co. Ltd  // Christchurch  // S 87  // Homebush Berryfruits  // Masterton  // S 88  // Hawkes Bay Export Cold Stores Ltd  // Napier  // S 89  // R. & W. Hellaby Ltd  // Mt Wellington  // S 90  // Waitaki-NZ Refrigerating Ltd  // Blenheim  // S 91  // Southland Frozen Meat Ltd  // Mataura  // S 92  // Food Freezing Partnership  // Havelock North  // S 93  // Air New Zealand  // Christchurch  // S 95  // McCallum Industries Ltd  // Patea  // S 96  // Townsend & Paul Ltd  // Napier  // S 97  // J. Wattie Canneries Ltd  // Gisborne  //   //   //NELSON  S 36  COLD STORAGE ( BAY OF PLENTY ) LTD  TE PUKE  S 39  CHRISTCHURCH COOL STORES LTD  CHRISTCHURCH  S 40  SOUTHLAND HARBOUR BOARD  BLUFF  S 41  ELJAYS ICE BOX  FEILDING  S 42  WELLINGTON COLD STORAGE CO .  TAWA  S 45  WAIRARAPA COLD STORAGE  GREYTOWN  S 47  POLAR COLD STORAGE, HORNBY  CHRISTCHURCH  S 49  CHILL AIR LTD  AUCKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT  S 51  KIWI FRUIT COOL STORE CO-OP  GISBORNE  S 53  OTAKI COLD STORE  OTAKI  S 55  AIRPORT COLD STORAGE LTD  WELLINGTON  S 57  AIR NEW ZEALAND  AUCKLAND AIRPORT  S 58  COOL & COLD STORAGE ASSOCIATED LTD  TE PUKE  S 59  RICHMOND COOL STORES ( 1963 ) LTD, MANCHESTER STREET  HASTINGS  S 60  EXPORT COOL STORAGE  MT MAUNGANUI  S 61  COOLPAK COOL STORES LTD  TIMARU  1.2.3 //  //  //  APPROVAL NO  ESTABLISHMENT  ADDRESS  //  //  //  S 63  MOGAL COOL STORES LTD  CHRISTCHURCH AIRPORT  S 66  MOGAL COOL STORES LTD  AUCKLAND AIRPORT  S 68  FREEZER FLOW, MT WELLINGTON  AUCKLAND  S 70  FREEZER STORES HAWKES BAY LTD  HASTINGS  S 72  MOTUEKA COLDSTORAGE  MOTUEKA  S 73  LEP INTERNATIONAL, MANGERE  AUCKLAND  S 75  AMALTAL COOLSTORES & EXPORTERS LTD  NELSON  S 84  POLAR COLD STORAGE LTD  DUNEDIN  S 86  TAI-TAPU DAIRY CO . LTD  CHRISTCHURCH  S 87  HOMEBUSH BERRYFRUITS  MASTERTON  S 88  HAWKES BAY EXPORT COLD STORES LTD  NAPIER  S 89  R . & W . HELLABY LTD  MT WELLINGTON  S 90  WAITAKI-NZ REFRIGERATING LTD  BLENHEIM  S 91  SOUTHLAND FROZEN MEAT LTD  MATAURA  S 92  FOOD FREEZING PARTNERSHIP  HAVELOCK NORTH  S 93  AIR NEW ZEALAND  CHRISTCHURCH  S 95  MCCALLUM INDUSTRIES LTD  PATEA  S 96  TOWNSEND & PAUL LTD  NAPIER  S 97  J . WATTIE CANNERIES LTD  GISBORNE  //  //  //


title: Decision (EU) 2017/1660 of the European Parliament of 27 April 2017 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Chemicals Agency for the financial year 2015

text:
               29.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 252/209

         DECISION (EU) 2017/1660 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 27 April 2017
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Chemicals Agency for the financial year 2015
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Chemicals Agency for the financial year 2015,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the European Chemicals Agency for the financial year 2015, together with the Agency's reply (1),

               —

               having regard to the statement of assurance (2) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2015, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

               having regard to the Council's recommendation of 21 February 2017 on discharge to be given to the Agency in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2015 (05873/2017 — C8-0068/2017),

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (4), and in particular Article 97 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1271/2013 of 30 September 2013 on the framework financial regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 208 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), and in particular Article 108 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex IV to its Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A8-0086/2017),

               1.

               Grants the Executive Director of the European Chemicals Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2015;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this decision, and the resolution forming an integral part of it, to the Executive Director of the European Chemicals Agency, 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

         Antonio TAJANI

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ C 449, 1.12.2016, p. 82.

      (2)  See footnote 1.

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

      (4)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ L 328, 7.12.2013, p. 42.


title: Council Decision (EU) 2015/702 of 13 July 2007 on the signing and provisional application of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union

text:
               1.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 113/1

         COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2015/702
   of 13 July 2007
   on the signing and provisional application of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 310, in conjunction with the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the 2003 Act of Accession, and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 10 February 2004, the Council authorised the Commission, on behalf of the Community and its Member States, to open negotiations with the Republic of Lebanon with a view to adjusting the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon, of the other part (1), to take account of the accession of the new Member States to the EU.

               (2)

               These negotiations have been concluded to the satisfaction of the Commission.

               (3)

               Article 9(2) of the Protocol negotiated with the Republic of Lebanon provides for the provisional application of the Protocol before its entry into force.

               (4)

               The Protocol should be signed on behalf of the Community and its Member States and applied on a provisional basis, subject to its conclusion at a later date.

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign, on behalf of the Community and its Member States, the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and Lebanon, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union.
   The text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   The Protocol shall be applied provisionally subject to its conclusion at a later date.

      Done at Brussels, 13 July 2007.

            For the Council

            The President

         E. A. SANTOS

      (1)  OJ L 143, 30.5.2006, p. 2.


Avis juridique important

|

31990D0193

90/193/EEC: Council Decision of 29 March 1990 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway establishing cooperation in the field of training in the context of the implementation of COMETT II (1990-1994)

Official Journal L 102 , 21/04/1990 P. 0031

COUNCIL DECISION of 29 March 1990 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway establishing cooperation in the field of training in the context of the implementation of Comett II  (1990-1994) (90/193/EEC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 235 thereof,  Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),  Having regard to the oppinion of the European Parliament (2),  Whereas, by Decision 89/27/EEC (3), the Council adopted the second phase of the programme for cooperation between universities and industry regarding training in the field of technology (Comett II) (1990-1994);  Whereas, by Decision of 22 May 1989, the Council adopted the opening of the Comett II programme to the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries and Article 1 of that Decision authorizes the Commission to negotiate - with those EFTA countries  which so wish - cooperation agreements in the field of training in technology in the context of the implementation of Comett II;  Whereas a cooperation Agreement with Norway enriches, by its very nature, the impact of Comett II actions throughout the Community and will strengthen the skill levels of human resources in Europe,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:    Article 1 The Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway establishing cooperation in the field of training in the context of the implementation of Comett II (1990-1994) 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 shall, on behalf of the Community, give the notification as provided for in Article 15 of the Agreement.   Done at Brussels, 29 March 1990.  For the Council The President J. P. WILSON   (1) OJ No C 239, 14. 9. 1988, p. 3. (2) OJ No C 96, 17. 4. 1990. (3) OJ No L 13, 17. 1. 1989, p. 28.


Avis juridique important

|

31995D0122

95/122/EC: Council Decision of 3 April 1995 appointing two members of the Committee of the Regions

Official Journal L 082 , 12/04/1995 P. 0026 - 0026

COUNCIL DECISION of 3 April 1995 appointing two members of the  Committee of the Regions (95/122/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 198  A  thereof, Having regard to the Council Decision of 26 January 1994 appointing members and alternate members  of the Committee of the Regions for the period 26 January 1994 to 25  January 1998  (1), Whereas two members' seats have become vacant on the Committee of the Regions following the  resignations of Mr Florian Gerster and Mr Juergen Gramke, which were notified to Council on 13  January and 13 February 1995; Having regard to the proposal from the German Government, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Sole Article Mr Karl-Heinz Klaer and Dr Rembert Behrendt are hereby appointed  members of the Committee of the Regions in place of Mr Florian Gerster and Mr Juergen Gramke for the  remainder of their term of office, which runs until 25 January 1998. Done at Luxembourg, 3 April 1995. For the Council The President J. TOUBON


Avis juridique important

|

31990D0240

90/240/EEC: Commission Decision of 22 May 1990 terminating the proceeding in connection with a review of anti-dumping measures regarding imports of fibre building-board (hardboard) originating in Finland, Argentina, Switzerland and Yugoslavia and repealing Decisions 86/35/EEC and 86/232/EEC accepting the undertakings given by the exporters concerned

Official Journal L 138 , 31/05/1990 P. 0044 - 0047

*****COMMISSION  DECISION  of 22 May 1990  terminating the proceeding in connection with a review of anti-dumping measures regarding imports of fibre building-board (hardboard) originating in Finland, Argentina, Switzerland and Yugoslavia and repealing Decisions 86/35/EEC and 86/232/EEC accepting the undertakings given by the exporters concerned  (90/240/EEC)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), and in particular Article 14 thereof,  After consultation within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the above Regulation,  Whereas:  A. PRODUCT  (1) The product concerned is fibreboard of a density exceeding 0,8 g/cm3 falling within CN codes 4411 11 00 and 4411 19 00.  B. PROCEDURE  (2) In June 1988 (2) following requests lodged by the European Confederation of Woodworking Industries, the Commission initiated, under Articles 14 and 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, a review proceeding of the anti-dumping measures concerning imports of hardboard originating in Czechoslovakia, Poland, USSR, Romania, Brazil and Sweden. In June 1989 (3), this proceeding was terminated and the anti-dumping measures were either allowed to expire or were repealed. The changed circumstances observed during the investigation carried out in connection with that proceeding led the Commission to consider that a review should also be carried out in respect of the rest of the countries, i.e. Finland, Argentina, Switzerland and Yugoslavia, for which anti-dumping measures concerning imports of hardboard into the Community were in force. This was done in order to ensure non-discrimination with regard to these countries.  (3) The Commission accordingly announced by a notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities (4) the initiation of a review of anti-dumping measures concerning imports into the Community of fibre building-board (hardboard) originating in Finland, Argentina, Switzerland and Yugoslavia, and commenced an investigation which covered, in respect of dumping, the period from 1 July 1988 to 31 May 1989.  (4) The Commission officially so advised the exporters and importers known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting countries and the Community producers, and gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to answer the questionnaires addressed to them, to make known their views in writing and to request hearings.  (5) Most of the Community producers, exporters in Finland, Switzerland and Argentina, one exporter in Yugoslavia and some importers returned the duly completed questionnaires to the Commission. The other two exporters in Yugoslavia respectively answered the questionnaire in part and failed to supply any information at all. The Commission therefore based its determinations on facts available in accordance with Article 7 (7) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88.  Some exporters and one importer made their views known in writing, and requested and were granted a hearing.  (6) The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessasry for the purposes of a preliminary determination and carried out investigations at the premises of the following importing companies in the Community:  - Ernst Zuern (Munich), Federal Republic of Germany,  - Johann Scharf GmbH (Bremen), Federal Republic of Germany,  - Steinbruegge and Berninghausen GmbH & Co (Bremen), Federal Republic of Germany,  - Resim SRL (Trieste), Italy.  The Commission considered it unnecessary to check on the spot the information received from Community producers as most of them had already been visited in connection with the review proceeding concerning imports of hardboard originating in Czechoslovakia, Poland, USSR, Romania, Brazil and Sweden. The results of these visits showed that the information submitted was highly accurate. In addition, since the end of 1988 there have been no indications of major changes in the economic situation of the Community's producers of hardboard.  C. INJURY OR THREAT OF INJURY  (i) Present situation  (7) The evidence available to the Commission shows that imports of hardboard originating in the four countries involved in the proceeding increased from 82 700 tonnes in 1986 to 89 900 tonnes in 1988 and reached 44 000 tonnes in the first five months of 1989. The development of these imports assessed in the light of the increase in Community consumption of hardboard over the same period was such that the combined market share held by imports from those exporting countries remained stable at about 7,5 %.  (8) In particular, imports from Finland, Switzerland and Yugoslavia taken together showed a decline of their market share from 7,6 % in 1986 to 7 % during the first five months of 1989. In terms of volume these imports increased by 16,8 % during that period which is distinctly slower than the rise in Community consumption.  (9) Imports originating in Argentina increased over the same period faster than Community consumption. It was found, however, that the impact of these imports on the Community industry is limited by their reduced market share which has remained below one per cent since 1986.  (10) Regarding prices of the imports from Finland, Switzerland and Yugoslavia, their comparison during the period under investigation with Community producers' prices of like products either did not show any margins of undercutting at all, or showed such margins to be negligible. As for the prices of imports from Argentina, margins of undercutting found did not significantly affect the Community industry due to the very small market share held by those imports.  (11) As far as the possible impact of the imports on the situation of the Community producers is concerned, account had to be taken of the following factors:  (a) Community production of hardboard during the first five months of 1989, extrapolated on an annual basis, increased by 22 % when compared to that in 1986. In the same period the overall Community production capacity increased by 25 % and capacity utilization by 18 %. These trends enabled the Community industry to achieve a rate of capacity utilization of 97 % on average during the first five months of 1989;  (b) the Community producers' closing stocks to production ratio was found to have been 11 % lower at the end of May 1989 than that at the end of December 1986;  (c) sales by Community producers of hardboard in the Community were in line with the increase of production between 1986 and the first five months of 1989;  (d) the development of production and sales of Community producers compared to that of Community consumption of hardboard shows a Community producers' market share which remained stable at about 61 % during the last three years, and increased to 62,7 % during the first five months of 1989. This indicates that the Community industry was able to take advantage of the increasing demand; (e) with regard to profitability the Community situation had improved considerably since the end of 1986 and the majority of Community producers had achieved once again reasonable profit margins.  (12) In the light of the trends of the relevant economic factors referred to above, it would appear that the situation of the Community industry had substantially improved. This is especially demonstrated by the good financial results and the high level of capacity utilization reached by most Community producers. Under these circumstances, it is concluded that the Community industry is presently not suffering material injury as a result of the imports concerned.  (ii) Possible injurious effects of a termination of measures in force  (13) In order to analyse whether terminating the undertakings in force would lead to a situation causing or threatening to cause material injury to the Community industry, the probable development of volumes and prices of the imported product was considered.  (14) As previously mentioned, imports from the four countries concerned progressed in terms of volume from the beginning of 1986 to the end of May 1989 no faster than Community consumption and, consequently, the Community market share held by those countries remained stable over that period.  (15) With regard to the production capacities in those exporting countries, no indications were found of additional capacities either having been installed in recent years or planned to be installed in the near future.  (16) Neither was there any indication that spare capacities, which might exist in those countries, will be used to increase exports to the Community. Moreover, given the traditional distribution of exports from those countries between the Community and other regions, it is doubtful if such a potential increase in production would lead to significant increases in exports to the Community in relation to the Community consumption.  (17) It follows that, when the protective measures are repealed, the foreseeable development of the volume of the imports concerned will not be likely to have a significant impact on the Community industry.  (18) Concerning prices of imports from Finland, Switzerland and two Yugoslav exporters, it was found that the imported product was sold in the Community at a level similar to that of Community producers and that the minimum prices set out in the undertakings in force were respected and, in many cases, even exceeded. This leads to the assumption that, when the undertakings are repealed, prices for these imports will not be likely to decline and undercut Community producers' prices to an extent which could cause material injury.  (19) With regard to prices of imports from Argentina and the third Yugoslav exporter, whatever undercutting would remain following the repeal of the protective measures should have, under the present circumstances, a limited effect on the prices of Community producers. This is because, in addition to the fact that no sizeable increase of these imports is expected, the Community market share held by imports originating in Argentina remained below one per cent during the last four years, and a major proportion of imports from Yugoslavia consisted of hardboard with specifications which were hardly produced in the Community and which did not therefore directly compete with the Community production.  (20) In view of the above considerations it must be assumed that, following the repeal of Commission Decisions 86/35/EEC (1) and 86/232/EEC (2) accepting the undertakings in force, a situation in which the imports from the four contries concerned would cause or threaten to cause material injury to the Community industry is not at present clearly foreseeable.  D. DUMPING  (21) Given the above findings with respect to injury and threat of injury, the Commission has considered it unnecessary further to investigate the question of dumping with regard to the imports concerned.  E. TERMINATION OF REVIEW PROCEEDING  (22) In these circumstances, therefore, the review proceeding concerning imports of hardboard originating in Finland, Argentina, Switzerland and Yugoslavia should be terminated without the imposition of further measures. Decisions 86/35/EEC and 86/232/EEC accepting the undertakings currently in force and offered by the exporters concerned should be repealed.  (23) No objections to this course of action were raised in the Advisory Committee.  (24) The European Confederation of Wood Working Industries was informed of the considerations and main facts on the basis of which the Commission intended to terminate the proceeding,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Sole Article  1. The review proceeding of the anti-dumping measures concerning imports of fibre building-board (hardboard) falling within CN codes 4411 11 00 and 4411 19 00, originating in Finland, Argentina, Switzerland and Yugoslavia, is hereby terminated.  2. Decisions 86/35/EEC and 86/232/EEC are hereby repealed with effect from the day following the publication of this Decision in the Official Journal of the European Communities.  Done at Brussels, 22 May 1990.  For the Commission  Frans ANDRIESSEN  Vice-President  (1) OJ No L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1.  (2) OJ No C 165, 24. 6. 1988, p. 2.  (3) OJ No L 176, 23. 6. 1989, pp. 1 and 51.  (4) OJ No C 150, 17. 6. 1989, p. 3.  (1) OJ No L 46, 25. 2. 1986, p. 23.  (2) OJ No L 157, 12. 6. 1986, p. 61.


title: 2009/233/EC: Decision of the European Parliament of 22 April 2008 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2006

text:
               31.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 88/243

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 22 April 2008
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2006
   (2009/233/EC)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
   having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2006 (1),
   having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2006, together with College'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 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 Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL) and repealing Decision 2000/820/JHA (4), and in particular Article 16 thereof,
   having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (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 Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0121/2008),

               1.

               Grants the Director of the European Police College discharge in respect of the implementation of the College'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 Police College, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

            The President

         Hans-Gert PÖTTERING

            The Secretary-General

         Harald RØMER

      (1)  OJ C 261, 31.10.2007, p. 52.

      (2)  OJ C 309, 19.12.2007, p. 105.

      (3)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

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

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

               31.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 88/244

         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 Police College for the financial year 2006
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
   having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2006 (1),
   having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2006, together with College'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 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 Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL) and repealing Decision 2000/820/JHA (4), and in particular Article 16 thereof,
   having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (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 Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0121/2008),

               A.

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

               B.

               whereas 2006 was the first financial year for which the College was responsible for administering its own budget as an EU agency,

         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 two executive agencies (not including two 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 the 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;

               13.

               Is concerned that a significant number of staff is employed on a temporary basis in a way that could undermine the quality of their work; therefore asks the Commission to improve its monitoring of the implementation of the Staff Regulations by the agencies;

         Presentation of reporting data

               14.

               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;

               15.

               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 none the less done so for 2006, in one case including an important reservation;

               16.

               Recalls its resolution of 12 April 2005 (6), 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;

               17.

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

               18.

               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

               19.

               Notes the Court's finding (Annual Report, paragraph 10.29 (7)) 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;

               20.

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

               21.

               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

               22.

               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;

               23.

               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.’;

               24.

               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;

               25.

               Notes the ever-growing number of regulatory and executive agencies and joint undertakings required to be audited by the IAS under Article 185 of the 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;

               26.

               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;

               27.

               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

               28.

               Recalls the joint statement by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission (8) 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

               29.

               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

               30.

               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;

               31.

               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

               32.

               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 (9),

                           —

                           Community Plant Variety Office cash and cash equivalents: EUR 18 million (10);

         Specific points

               33.

               Notes that the Court of Auditors in its report on the College qualified its declaration of assurance as regards the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions on the grounds that the system of procurement did not comply with the provisions of the Financial Regulation, there was no documentation available to justify the need to purchase particular items or to explain the recourse to a particular supplier, and that a similar issue arose with removal costs for staff, which were not dealt with following standard procurement procedures for the acquisition of goods and services;

               34.

               Regrets the Court's further finding that in 2006 the College did not establish the necessary systems and procedures to enable it to prepare a financial report in compliance with the requirements of the framework Financial Regulation applicable to the Agencies;

               35.

               Calls upon the College to adopt detailed implementing rules, including those ensuring the transparency of its procurement procedures, in accordance with its Financial Regulation;

               36.

               Underlines the Court's recommendation that the introduction of commitment appropriations would improve control over the College's budgetary implementation and ensure that any appropriations which were unused at the close of the financial year could be carried over under strictly defined conditions in accordance with the Financial Regulation;

               37.

               Expresses concern at the Court's finding that as regards courses and seminars (EUR 1 296 636 in 2006), there was no formal submission and approval of cost estimates prior to the events taking place, so that budget appropriations were not used in accordance with the principle of sound financial management;

               38.

               Recalls that although the College was founded in 2001, it only began operating as an EU agency in 2006;

               39.

               Takes note of remarks in the text accompanying the College's financial statements that:

                           —

                           it has not been possible to respect certain requirements of the College's financial regulation, as systems are currently being put in place,

                           —

                           in its first year as an EU agency, the College experienced some delays in recruitment resulting in an under-run of EUR 600 000 against appropriations of EUR 2,1 million (30 %);

               40.

               Notes from the College's annual report that, although now an EU agency, it still retains some characteristics of an inter-governmental body (e.g. the rotating presidency of the governing board);

               41.

               Invites the College to ensure without delay, and by June 2008 at the latest, that its financial management fully respects the provisions of the Financial Regulation;

               42.

               Asks the Commission to closely supervise the implementation of the College's budget.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 31.10.2007, p. 52.

      (2)  OJ C 309, 19.12.2007, p. 105.

      (3)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

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

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

      (6)  All resolutions regarding the agencies were published in OJ L 196, 27.7.2005.

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

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

      (9)  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).

      (10)  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).