title: Decision of the European Parliament of 5 May 2010 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2008

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 252/232

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 5 May 2010
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2008
   (2010/556/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
   having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2008,
   having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2008, together with the College’s replies (1),
   having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 16 February 2010 (5827/2010 — C7-0061/2010),
   having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2), and in particular Article 185 thereof,
   having regard to Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL) (3), 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 Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (4), and in particular Article 94 thereof,
   having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,
   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0075/2010),

               1.

               Postpones its decision on granting the Director of the European Police College discharge in respect of the implementation of the College’s budget for the financial year 2008;

               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

         Jerzy BUZEK

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ C 304, 15.12.2009, p. 124.

      (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

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

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

               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 252/233

         RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 5 May 2010
   with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2008
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
   having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2008,
   having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2008, together with the College’s replies (1),
   having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 16 February 2010 (5827/2010 — C7-0061/2010),
   having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2), and in particular Article 185 thereof,
   having regard to Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL) (3), 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 Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (4), and in particular Article 94 thereof,
   having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,
   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0075/2010),

               A.

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

               B.

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

               C.

               whereas the Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 2007, qualified its opinion on the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions,

               D.

               whereas on 23 April 2009 Parliament granted the Director of the European Police College discharge for implementation of the College’s budget for the financial year 2007 (5), and in its resolution accompanying the discharge decision, inter alia:

                           —

                           expressed deep concern at the fact that the Court of Auditors had identified cases where appropriations were used to finance the private expenditure of College staff members,

                           —

                           called on the College to adopt detailed implementing rules, including rules ensuring the transparency of its procurement procedures, in accordance with the Financial Regulation,

                           —

                           asked the Commission to closely supervise the implementation of the College’s budget,

                           —

                           noted that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) had opened an internal investigation concerning the College,

               E.

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

               1.

               Considers that, overall, the College’s replies to the Court of Auditors’ remarks are once again inadequate and the remedial measures it puts forward are too vague and non-specific to enable the discharge authority adequately to determine whether the College is capable of improving in future;

      Structural problems

               2.

               Considers that the small size of the College calls into question its capacity to handle effectively the complexities of the EU’s financial and staff regulations;

               3.

               Notes that the College secretariat’s location, in Bramshill, some 70 kilometres from London, is a disadvantage, inter alia as regards recruitment and public transport links;

               4.

               Questions whether the College’s new Director will be able to address these structural problems;

               5.

               Wonders whether consideration should not be given to attaching the College to Europol;

      College governance and transparency

               6.

               Finds the College’s governance costs to be not insignificant, given that, while employing only 24 staff, the College has a 27-member Governing Board (figures as at the start of the 2008 financial year);

               7.

               Notes that the College does not publish information about its governing boards on its website; therefore recommends, as a means of increasing transparency, that a list of board members be placed on the website of the College, with full contact details for all board members;

      Reliability of the accounts

               8.

               Voices deep concern at the fact that the adjustments relating to the period during which a manual accounting system was used between the discontinuation of the College’s old accounting system (23 May 2008) and the introduction of the new ABAC system (14 July 2008) were not all made in good time and that the financial information concerning the carry-overs from the previous year, the use of assigned revenue and the link with certain figures in the balance sheet for 2007 was insufficiently clear;

               9.

               Expresses concern at the fact that, owing to the simultaneous use of two fixed-asset management systems in 2008, the College sometimes recorded the same assets twice and no labels or unique inventory numbers were used;

               10.

               Regrets that, as the Court of Auditors points out in its comments, an ex post control by an external company was not launched even in mid-2009 (following the Court of Auditors’ findings in the 2007 financial year report that there were cases of appropriations which were used to finance private expenditure); calls on the College to take all the steps needed to ensure that such a control is carried out as speedily as possible so that this shortcoming does not feature again in the report on the College’s annual accounts for 2009;

      Weaknesses in procurement procedures

               11.

               Notes the irregularities in the procedure used for a public supply contract worth the equivalent of some 2 % of operational expenditure; notes, in particular, that the supply contract was based on types of framework contract intended to be used exclusively for training contracts; notes, furthermore, that the contractual provisions allow the College to renew or extend the contract without limitation;

               12.

               Stresses as in previous years the need for the College to strictly comply with the Financial Regulation and EC public procurement legislation and to improve its financial management;

      Failure to comply with the rules governing expenditure on courses

               13.

               Voices concern at the fact that the Court of Auditors identified a large number of cases in which the administrative and financial rules governing expenditure on the organisation of courses and seminars, which accounts for a major proportion (64 %) of the College’s operational expenditure, were not followed; notes that the main irregularities concerned: failure to submit supporting documents in respect of the costs incurred, failure to provide confirmation of attendance and to supply original invoices and documents necessary for the reimbursement of accommodation expenses, and failure to query travel costs for experts; considers the College’s replies to the Court of Auditors’ remarks and the rapporteur’s questions on this matter to be excessively vague and thus unacceptable to the discharge authority; calls on the College to take steps to improve this situation;

      Carry-over of appropriations

               14.

               Notes that the Court of Auditors points out that more than EUR 2 700 000 (representing 31 % of the College’s total budget) had to be carried over; is consequently concerned that this situation is at odds with the principle of annuality and shows weaknesses in the programming and subsequent implementation of the College’s budget;

               15.

               Calls on the College to introduce a system of differentiated appropriations in future budgets for grants, so as to obviate the need for cancellations;

      Other irregularities

               16.

               Notes that the Court of Auditors flagged up the absence of:

                           —

                           a legal commitment in three cases covering a total of EUR 39 500,

                           —

                           a budgetary commitment preceding the legal commitment in nine cases covering a total of EUR 244 200,

                     and calls, therefore, on the College to take steps to improve this situation and then inform the discharge authority of what it has done;

               17.

               Notes that in the coming years the discharge for the implementation of the budget for the College should be further based on the College’s performance throughout the year;

      Ongoing OLAF investigation

               18.

               Notes that, in 2008, OLAF opened an internal investigation concerning the College, in response to the findings of the Court of Auditors and the Internal Audit Service (IAS) that members of the College’s staff had used public money for private purposes; notes that the information provided by the College at Parliament’s request in 2009 concerned the use of mobile phones, the provision of furniture for the accommodation of staff and free shuttle services for staff members to airports and train stations; notes that, according to the College, the amounts involved and the state of play as regards recovery were as follows:

                           —

                           use of mobile phones by staff: GBP 3 405 for the period April - December 2007; all costs recovered,

                           —

                           use of pool cars by staff: GBP 1 157 for the period July - December 2007; all costs recovered; the cars have since been sold,

                           —

                           furniture: GBP 6 625 for furniture purchased in 2007; the furniture has since been sold,

                           —

                           free shuttle service for staff to airports and train stations: cost established at GBP 9 508 for 2007; the recovery process has been initiated;

               19.

               Calls on the College and the Commission to communicate the findings of the OLAF investigation to the discharge authority without delay;

      Human resources

               20.

               Is concerned that, until now, temporary staff have been employed for financial work; notes that it was not until 2009 that the College issued a vacancy notice for the recruitment of an Internal Control Standards Coordinator and that the interviews for that post were then scheduled for early 2010;

      Internal audit

               21.

               Acknowledges that, in its audit report, the IAS listed 13 recommendations (2 of them critical and 9 very important); notes that these mainly relate to: compliance with the financial regulation on public procurement; management assurance; fixed assets (inventory system); management of delegations (delegations must be fully documented and regularly reviewed); budgetary management; compliance with accounting rules and principles; and the checklist ensuring consistency and documentation of the financial controls;

      Action plan to be adopted by the Governing Board and introduced by the College’s Director by 30 June 2010

               22.

               Expects, as a first step, the Governing Board swiftly to adopt an action plan to meet the objectives set out in the annex to this resolution; asks the College’s Director, in cooperation with the IAS and the parent directorate-general (DG), then to draft specific measures and a timetable for implementation of that plan and to submit them to the Governing Board for adoption; calls accordingly on the IAS and the parent DG to provide all the assistance required in order to identify indicators that will enable the progress made in implementing the measures taken by the College to be measured at regular intervals; expects the College to communicate the specific measures and indicators adopted to the discharge authority by 30 June 2010;

               23.

               Calls on the Court of Auditors to deliver an opinion in letter form on the establishment of the College’s action plan to the discharge authority at the earliest opportunity;

               24.

               Refers, for other observations accompanying its Decision on discharge, which are of a horizontal nature, to its resolution of 5 May 2010 (6) on the performance, financial management and control of the agencies.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 15.12.2009, p. 124.

      (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

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

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

      (5)  OJ L 255, 26.9.2009, p. 157.

      (6)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0139. See page 241 of this Official Journal.
   ANNEX

      Action plan to be adopted by the Governing Board and introduced by the College’s Director by 30 June 2010

      BUDGETARY PROGRAMMING

   1.   Objective:

   Improve the College’s budgetary and operational programming and monitoring.

      Action:

   Director to draft a multiannual plan covering the following during his term of office:

               —

               projected measures (results and impact),

               —

               the related financial requirements and budgetary forecasts for each year,

               —

               the human resources required to implement the projected measures,

               —

               the material resources required to implement the projected measures.

      INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEMS

   2.   Objective:

   Improve the financial management of the College’s work, including in respect of programmes funded from assigned revenue (AGIS, ISEC and MEDA).

      Action:

   Financial management system to be reviewed (with alterations being made to the current financial circuits), to standardise the financial management of the College’s various activities and make it more effective. This review is also intended to ensure the provision of better quality financial information by the various programme administrators.
   3.   Objective:

   Formally validate all financial procedures and the new accounting system, in accordance with Article 43 of the framework Financial Regulation.

      Action:

   Authorising officer and authorising officers by delegation to formally document the systems which they have introduced with a view to supplying the Accounting Officer with the necessary financial information. Accounting Officer to validate the system descriptions, so as to ensure that he is provided with high-quality financial information for the purpose of drawing up the annual accounts.
   4.   Objective:

   Improve the expenditure verification environment (point 14 of the Court of Auditors’ report on the financial year 2008).

      Action:

   Formally adopt and implement effective procedures and/or checklists ensuring that payment requests submitted by bodies organising courses on behalf of the College comply with the applicable administrative and financial rules.

      STAFF

   5.   Objective:

   Fill vacant posts until a ‘normal’ post vacancy rate (e.g. 5 %) is achieved.

      Action:

               —

               Adopt and implement annual recruitment plans for the years covered by the multiannual plan referred to at point 1 above.

               —

               Adopt and implement recruitment guidelines.

         6.   Objective:

   Improve the staffing situation.

      Action:

   All posts currently vacant (or filled by agency staff) to be filled by temporary staff by the end of the year.

      PROCUREMENT

   7.   Objective:

   Improve the procurement control environment.

      Action:

               —

               Procurement procedures manual and checklists to be adopted and implemented in order to ensure that the correct procedures are chosen and properly implemented.

               —

               Annual goods and services purchasing plan to be adopted and implemented.

      MISCELLANEOUS

   8.   Objective:

   Bring the matter of appropriations used to finance private expenditure to a close.

      Action:

   Final report to be submitted by an external auditor, setting out the following information:

               —

               total appropriations used to finance private expenditure,

               —

               amounts recovered to date,

               —

               the likelihood of recovering the outstanding amounts, and the timetable for their recovery.


title: Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1253 of 11 July 2017 amending Decision 2012/392/CFSP on the European Union CSDP mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger)

text:
               12.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 179/15

         COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2017/1253
   of 11 July 2017
   amending Decision 2012/392/CFSP on the European Union CSDP mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 16 July 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/392/CFSP (1) establishing a European Union CSDP mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger) to support the capacity building of the Nigerien security actors in the fight against terrorism and organised crime.

               (2)

               On 18 July 2016, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/1172 (2), extending the Mission until 15 July 2018 and providing for a financial reference amount until 15 July 2017.

               (3)

               Decision 2012/392/CFSP should be amended to provide for a financial reference amount for the period from 16 July 2017 to 15 July 2018.

               (4)

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

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   In Article 13(1) of Decision 2012/392/CFSP, the following subparagraph is added:

      ‘The financial reference amount to cover the expenditure related to EUCAP Sahel Niger for the period from 16 July 2017 to 15 July 2018 shall be EUR 31 000 000’.

   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
   It shall apply from 16 July 2017.

      Done at Brussels, 11 July 2017.

            For the Council

            The President

         T. TÕNISTE

      (1)  Council Decision 2012/392/CFSP of 16 July 2012 on the European Union CSDP mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger) (OJ L 187, 17.7.2012, p. 48).

      (2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1172 of 18 July 2016 amending Decision 2012/392/CFSP on the European Union CSDP mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger) (OJ L 193, 19.7.2016, p. 106).


Avis juridique important

|

32001D0429

2001/429/EC: Commission Decision of 21 May 2001 suspending the examination procedures concerning obstacles to trade, within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94, consisting of trade practices maintained by Brazil in relation to imports of textile products and sorbitol (notified under document number C(2001) 1449)

Official Journal L 153 , 08/06/2001 P. 0030 - 0032

Commission Decisionof 21 May 2001suspending the examination procedures concerning obstacles to trade, within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94, consisting of trade practices maintained by Brazil in relation to imports of textile products and sorbitol(notified under document number C(2001) 1449)(2001/429/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community's rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation(1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 356/95(2), and in particular Article 11(2)(a) thereof,After consulting the Advisory Committee,Whereas:A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1. Examination on imports of textile products(1) On 12 January 1998 Febeltex, (Fédération Belge du Textile) lodged a complaint pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 (hereinafter "the Regulation").(2) Febeltex alleged that Community sales of textile products in Brazil are hindered by a number of obstacles to trade within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Regulation, i.e. "a practice adopted or maintained by a third country and in respect of which international trade rules establish a right of action". The alleged obstacles to trade were:- Brazil's non-automatic licensing system for imports of textile products into this country, The complainant alleged that this system was not justified since it did not implement any commercial policy measure compatible with the WTO,- Brazilian requirements on import payment terms operated through an "horizontal regime" (which Brazil applies to all imports), as well as a "specific regime" (which it applies to imports of textile products),- a minimum import pricing scheme. According to Febeltex, several textile products were subject to discretionary minimum import prices operated via both the import licensing and the custom valuation systems.(3) The Commission decided that the complaint contained sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an examination procedure. A corresponding notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(3).(4) The Brazilian authorities were informed of the initiation of the investigation and were requested to respond to a questionnaire on the alleged barriers to trade. The Brazilian government replied and provided the Commission with the information requested.(5) The final report on the examination procedure was circulated to the Member States on 9 November 1998, at the meeting of the Advisory Committee.2. Examination on imports of sorbitol(6) On 2 October 1998 Cerestar Holding BV lodged a complaint under Article 4 of the Regulation.(7) The complainant alleged that Community sales of sorbitol in Brazil are hindered by a number of obstacles to trade within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Regulation. The alleged obstacles to trade were:- the introduction in December 1997 by the Brazilian Government (Departamento de Operaçoes de Comércio Exterior) in accordance with Comunicado DECEX No 20 of 8.7.1997 of a non-automatic licensing procedure for sorbitol in violation of the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures,- the alleged arbitrary and/or non justified refusal (or otherwise non-granting) by the Brazilian authorities of import licences in relation with all sorbitol grades entering Brazil below a minimum fob price,- the implementation of minimum prices via de facto reference prices included in the customs valuation system.The complainant also claimed a general lack of transparency of the Brazilian import licensing system, which was not duly notified to the WTO.(8) The Commission decided that the complaint contained sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an examination procedure. A corresponding notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(4).(9) Following an intervention by the Italian chemical producer Lamberti, the examination procedure was extended to cover also carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), a product affected by the same trade barrier.(10) The Brazilian authorities were informed of the initiation of the investigation and were requested to respond to a questionnaire on the alleged barriers to trade. The Brazilian government replied and provided the Commission with the information requested.(11) The final report on the examination procedure was circulated to the Member States on 13 July 1999, at the meeting of the Advisory Committee.B. FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS(12) According to the final investigation reports, the two examination procedures led to the conclusion that the Brazilian minimum price system appeared to be in breach of:- Article XI.1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT (1994), as it is a restriction other than duties, taxes or other charges, made effective through import licences on the importation of any product of the territory of any other contracting party, without any WTO compatible justification,- Article 4.2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, for the same reason as above (in relation with trade in sorbitol),- Article 2 and 5 of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures, as it imposes sanitary controls more trade-restrictive than necessary, which are not applied only to the extent necessary to protect human life or health (in relation with trade in sorbitol and CMC).(13) In addition, the Brazilian non-automatic import licensing system, as applied with a minimum price requirement, appeared to be also in breach of:- Article 1, 3 and 5 of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, as it is not neutral in application, it is not administered in a fair and equitable manner, it has additional trade-restrictive and -distortive effects on imports without applying any WTO compatible restriction. Moreover, as the system does not implement any measure, so it can not be limited in scope and duration to the measure it implements. In addition, the list of products submitted to non-automatic licensing is not published and the applications for licenses for imports under the minimum price are left without official reply for several months,- Article X.1 and X.3 of GATT (1994), as it is not published and it is not administered in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner.(14) As regards the Brazilian legislation on customs valuation, it appeared that the scale of implementation of reference prices on a systematic basis rendered the way this system was implemented incompatible with Article 1 to 7 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade - GATT (1994) (the Customs Valuation Agreement).(15) The examination procedures also confirmed that the Brazilian contested practices caused adverse trade effects within the meaning of Article 2(4) and 10(4) of the Trade Barriers Regulation (TBR), as impeded exports of textile products, sorbitol and CMC from the Community to the Brazilian market.(16) Following the Febeltex investigation, the Commission, by its Decision of 17 March 1999(5), had decided to initiate a WTO Dispute Settlement Procedure. Once the Cerestar investigation was concluded, it was considered appropriate to join the two cases in a single request for consultations on all aspects of the Brazilian import regime found to be WTO incompatible. This request was lodged with a view also to ask Brazil for a radical review of the operation of its laws and regulations on imports according to Article VIII.2 of GATT.(17) These consultations were held on 19 November 1999. On this occasion, while declining all allegations relative to minimum pricing practices both at import licensing or customs valuation levels, Brazil admitted that it did not comply with several of its WTO obligations concerning notification in relation with its import licensing system. Moreover, following these consultations, de facto minimum prices were not applied any longer on CMC and sorbitol imports and certain textile products were excluded from the non-automatic licensing requirement.(18) The Commission acknowledges that the Brazilian systems concerned have undergone significant changes since the lodging of the complaint under the Regulation and that these substantial modifications have improved the possibility for the Community industry to enter the Brazilian market.(19) However, there are still several aspects of the Brazilian import licensing and customs valuation systems that need to be modified in order to fully comply with Brazil's obligations under the relevant WTO Agreements. In addition, the transparency of the whole import system still needs improvements.(20) The Commission considers therefore that it would be appropriate to monitor the effect of the changes in the Brazilian system for a period of not less than six months from the date of entry into force of this Decision. Such monitoring would give an indication whether the changes have lastingly improved the situation with regard to the barriers to trade in Brazil.(21) The examinations procedure concerning obstacles to trade related to import licensing, customs valuation and minimum import prices on the market of the Republic of Brazil should therefore be suspended and the Commission should supervise the situation in accordance with Article 11 (2)(b) of the Regulation.(22) A report on the enforcement of relevant Brazilian laws and regulations will be issued covering a period of six months from the date of the suspension. Any further action which might appear necessary will be proposed on the basis of that report,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Sole ArticleThe examination procedures concerning obstacles to trade, within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 3286/94, consisting of trade practices maintained by Brazil in relation to imports of textile products and sorbitol are hereby suspended.Done at Brussels, 21 May 2001.For the CommissionPascal LamyMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 71.(2) OJ L 41, 23.2.1995, p. 3.(3) OJ C 63, 27.2.1998, p. 2.(4) OJ C 361, 24.11.1998, p. 13.(5) OJ L 86 of 30.3.1999.


title: Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2009 on the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument in accordance with point 27 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management

text:
               24.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 347/29

      DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

   of 17 December 2009
   on the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument in accordance with point 27 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management
   (2009/1007/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular the fifth paragraph of point 27 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
   Whereas, after examining all the possibilities for reallocating appropriations under subheading 1a at the conciliation meeting on 18 November 2009, the two arms of the budgetary authority agreed to mobilise the Flexibility Instrument to complement the financing in the 2010 budget, beyond the ceiling of subheading 1a, of:

               —

               EUR 120 million towards the financing of projects in the field of energy in the context of the European Economic Recovery Plan,

               —

               EUR 75 million for the decommissioning of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant,

         HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the Flexibility Instrument shall be used to provide the sum of EUR 195 million in commitment appropriations under subheading 1a.
   That amount shall be used to complement the financing of:

               —

               EUR 120 million towards the financing of projects in the field of energy in the context of the European Economic Recovery Plan,

               —

               EUR 75 million for the decommissioning of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant.

         Article 2
   This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Strasbourg, 17 December 2009.

            For the European Parliament

            The President

         J. BUZEK

            For the Council

            The President

         H. LINDBLAD

      (1)  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.