Important legal notice

|

E1998C0317

EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 317/98/COL of 4 November 1998 on the fifteenth amendment of the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid

Official Journal L 111 , 29/04/1999 P. 0073 - 0087

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISIONNo 317/98/COLof 4 November 1998on the fifteenth amendment of the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State AidTHE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,has amended the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid(1), adopted on 19 January 1994(2) as last amended on 1 July 1998(3), as follows:1. Chapter 21, Aid to the textile and clothing industry, is deleted.2. The following rules on regional aid for large investment projects shall be added to the State Aid Guidelines as a new Chapter 26, and as a new Annex XIII, respectively: "26. MULTISECTORAL FRAMEWORK ON REGIONAL AID FOR LARGE INVESTMENT PROJECTS(4)26.1. Need for and scope of the measure(1) The need for more systematic controls on regional aid to large-scale mobile investment projects has been widely acknowledged in recent years. The establishment of the European Economic Area makes it more important than ever to maintain tight controls on State aid for such projects since the distortive effect of aid is magnified as other government induced distortions of competition are eliminated and markets become more open and integrated.(2) Investors in large projects often consider alternative sites in different EEA States, which may lead to a spiral of increasingly generous promises of aid. Such subsidy auctions carry a considerable risk of distorting competition. The EFTA Surveillance Authority is therefore introducing this framework, initially for a trial period only, with the aim of limiting aid for large-scale projects to a level which avoids as much as possible adverse effects on competition but which at the same time maintains the attraction of the assisted area.(3) Several sensitive industrial sectors are already subject to special rules on aid, notably steel, shipbuilding, synthetic fibres, the motor industry, transport and the coal industry. During the trial period these sectors will continue to be covered exclusively by their own existing sectoral Guidelines (with the exception of the textile and clothing sector which will be subject solely to the provisions of this Framework(5)). This situation will be reviewed after an evaluation has been carried out of the efficacy of this Framework. In other sectors the only current restriction on regional investment aid is that the amount of aid must not exceed the ceilings authorised by the EFTA Surveillance Authority for the regional scheme in question. However, the regional ceilings are in general designed to provide an incentive for the type of investment facing the biggest problems and are usually in excess of the average regional handicaps. The purpose of this Framework is to limit this net incentive for large projects to a level which avoids as much as possible adverse sectoral effects caused by the project.(4) Under this Framework the EFTA Surveillance Authority will decide on a case-by-case basis a maximum allowable aid intensity for projects which are subject to the notification requirement. This might lead to aid intensities below the applicable regional ceiling. This Framework does not apply to restructuring aid cases, which will continue to be covered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty(6) Similarly, this Framework will not affect the operation of the existing horizontal frameworks, such as the EFTA Surveillance Authority framework for State aid for research and development(7) and the EFTA Surveillance Authority guidelines on State aid for environmental protection(8).(5) The EFTA Surveillance Authority would stress that it has no intention of seeking to interfere unnecessarily with the discretion of EFTA States in the field of regional policy. Nor does it seek to weaken the application of Article 61(3)(a) and (c) of the EEA Agreement, which aims to encourage companies to invest in disadvantaged areas, despite the structural handicaps that they face there. On the contrary, the intention is strictly to limit the scope of the new rules to those large-scale projects, often capital intensive in nature, which could have a serious impact on unaided competitors located elsewhere in the EEA; and to examine more critically the planned levels of aid for those projects which do not have, directly or indirectly, a significant impact on employment in the region concerned, which is an important objective of regional policy. The EFTA States will continue to be able freely to decide on the aid intensity in the vast majority of cases, within the terms of the approved regional aid schemes.(6) In drawing up this Framework, the EFTA Surveillance Authority has attempted to ensure that, as far as possible, it is clear and unambiguous, predictable, certain and efficient and that the additional administrative burden it entails is kept to a minimum.26.2. Notification requirement(1) Under this Framework EFTA States are required to notify pursuant to Article 1(3) of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (hereafter referred to as the Surveillance and Court Agreement), any proposal to award regional investment aid(9), within the scope of an approved scheme(10), where either of the following two criteria are met:(i) the total project cost is at least EUR 50 million(11), and the cumulative aid intensity expressed as a percentage of the eligible investment costs is at least 50 % of the regional aid ceiling for large companies in the area concerned and aid per job created or safeguarded amounts to at least EUR 40000(12);or(ii) the total aid is at least EUR 50 million.Notification format(2) The standard notification form is contained in Annex XIII of these Guidelines. This form should be sent directly to the EFTA Surveillance Authority.26.3. Assessment rules(1) The EFTA Surveillance Authority will determine, in accordance with the calculation formula set out in paragraph (10), a maximum allowable aid intensity for a proposal to award aid. It will begin by identifying the maximum aid intensity (regional aid ceiling) which a large company could obtain in the assisted area concerned within the context of the authorised regional aid system valid at the moment of notification (unless it is ad hoc aid in which case the aid ceiling fixed for the region concerned will be applied). A range of adjustment factors will then be applied to that percentage figure, in accordance with three specific assessment factors (see below), in order to calculate a maximum allowable aid intensity for the project in question. In the case of the third criterion, the regional impact indicator, a positive factor or bonus may be applied, depending on the degree of benefit the project is likely to confer on the region concerned. The question of the viability of an individual project will be for the EFTA States themselves to determine. However, the EFTA Surveillance Authority will be entitled, if it deems it to be necessary, to request information on a project's viability. Finally, the EFTA Surveillance Authority will, where appropriate, utilise independent external data to assess the likely impact on competition in the relevant market; where this is not easily obtainable, however, the EFTA Surveillance Authority will give full weight to the representations made by the EFTA States.The three assessment criteria(i) Competition factor(2) The authorisation of aid to companies operating in sectors which are in structural overcapacity poses particular risks for the distortion of competition. Any capacity expansion which is not compensated by capacity reductions elsewhere will exacerbate the problem of structural overcapacity. If such expansion is aided, the aid recipient may be left with excess capacity that it will not be able to use in the future or it may start a price-war in order to drive other producers out of the relevant market. It is also likely to threaten jobs elsewhere. Thus the competition factor will involve an analysis of whether the proposed project would take place in a sector or subsector suffering from structural overcapacity.(3) In determining whether structural overcapacity exists in the sector or subsector concerned, the EFTA Surveillance Authority will consider, at the EEA level, the difference between the average capacity utilisation rate for manufacturing industry as a whole and the capacity utilisation rate of the relevant sector or subsector. In order to allow for cyclical fluctuations in relative capacity utilisation rates, the reference period will be the last five years for which data are available.(4) In the absence of sufficient data on capacity utilisation, the EFTA Surveillance Authority will consider whether the investment takes place in a declining market. For this purpose, the EFTA Surveillance Authority will compare the evolution of apparent consumption of the product(s) in question (that is, production plus imports minus exports) with the growth rate of EEA manufacturing industry as a whole.(5) For the purpose of determining whether the investment will result in a capacity expansion, the relevant capacity is the total viable capacity of the prospective beneficiary (and/or, if appropriate, the group to which it belongs) for the relevant product. In all cases, viable capacity would include temporarily idle capacity (that is, capacity that would be reactivated when sales improve) but would exclude obsolete and inactive capacity (that is, idle capacity that cannot be re-used without substantial additional investment).(6) Wherever a company, prior to making an application for aid, already has a high market share for the product(s) concerned, which for the purpose of this Framework will be assumed to be at least 40 %, there is a risk that the award of maximum levels of aid normally permitted in the region concerned will unduly distort competition. In such circumstances the company should, in principle, receive less aid than would otherwise be the case, even if its investment contributes to regional development. There could, however, be exceptions to this general rule, for example where the company creates, through genuine innovation, a new product market.(ii) Capital-labour factor(7) Since regional aid is usually granted in the form of capital subsidies, there is a natural tendency for capital intensive projects to locate in assisted areas. While this is a positive development, such a policy does not necessarily contribute to the creation of many new jobs and the reduction of unemployment. Only highly capital-intensive projects will be captured by this factor. The notion of jobs safeguarded will only be relevant where it is demonstrated that they are directly linked to the investment project in question and can thus be assessed in terms of investment aid, as opposed to employment aid.(8) This criterion would also take account of the possible distorting effect of the aid on the price of the final product. Undertakings with a relatively high share of capital in total costs realise an important reduction of their unit cost through the aid and could obtain thereby a considerable competitive advantage over non-aided competitors. The higher the capital intensity of the supported investment project, the more distortive the effects of capital grants on competition are likely to be.(iii) Regional impact factor(9) Whereas the competition and capital-labour factors look at the project's potentially distorting effects, the regional impact factor takes account of the beneficial effects on the economies of the assisted regions. The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that job creation can be used as an indicator of a project's contribution to the development of a region. Where a capital-intensive investment creates only a limited number of direct jobs, it may nevertheless create a significant number of indirect jobs in the assisted region concerned and any adjacent assisted region(s). Job creation in this context refers to jobs created directly by the project together with jobs created by first-tier suppliers and customers in response to the aided investment. When applying this factor to the calculation formula to arrive at an allowable aid intensity, the EFTA Surveillance Authority will give a higher positive weighting to the indirect creation of jobs by aid recipients located in Article 61(3)(a) regions than in Article 61(3)(c) regions in recognition of the more severe economic problems faced by the former.Calculation formula(10) The complete calculation formula is obtained by multiplying the regional aid ceiling by the coefficients that result from the examination of the three factors mentioned above, which are represented by the following symbols:R= authorized maximum aid intensity for large companies in the assisted area concerned (regional ceiling)T= competition factorI= capital-labour factorM= regional impact factorThe formula of the maximum allowable aid intensity is then:>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>.The following adjustment factors will apply to each of the three assessment criteria:1. Competition factor(i) Project which results in a capacity expansion in a sector facing serious structural overcapacity and/or an absolute decline in demand: 0,25;(ii) Project which results in a capacity expansion in a sector facing structural overcapacity and/or a declining market and which is likely to reinforce high market share: 0,50;(iii) Project which results in a capacity expansion in a sector facing structural overcapacity and/or a declining market: 0,75;(iv) No likely negative effects in terms of (i) - (iii): 1,00.2. Capital-labour factor>TABLE>3. Regional impact indicator>TABLE>NB: No project would of course be allowed to receive aid above the regional ceiling.26.4. Date of introduction and period of validity(1) This Framework will be applicable from 1 January 1999 for an initial trial period of three years. Before the end of the trial period, the EFTA Surveillance Authority will carry out a review of the utility and scope of the Framework, which will, inter alia, consider the question of whether it should be renewed, revised or abolished.26.5. Procedure for assessment of cases by the EFTA surveillance authority(1) The EFTA Surveillance Authority aims, in principle, to take a decision either to authorise the aid or to open the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and court Agreement within a period of two months following the receipt of a complete notification, which should follow the standard format set out in Annex XIII. (In the case of incomplete notifications, the EFTA Surveillance Authority will send a request for additional information to the EFTA State within ten working days). The two-month time-limit may only be extended with the consent of the EFTA State concerned.(2) In the event that the EFTA Surveillance Authority initiates the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the EFTA Surveillance Authority will take a final decision within four months following the decision to open the procedure. The EFTA Surveillance Authority will take account of all the evidence which can be gathered during that period, including information from interested third parties and any additional elements not considered during the initial investigation. Thus the maximum period for investigation into an individual case would normally not exceed six months.26.6. Ex-post monitoring(1) In view of the sensitive nature of the large mobile investments involved, it is essential that a mechanism exists which helps to ensure that the level of aid actually disbursed to the beneficiary conforms with the EFTA Surveillance Authority decision.(2) For each aided project approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority under this framework, the EFTA Surveillance Authoritiy will require either that any aid contract between the relevant authority of the EFTA State and the aid recipient contains a reimbursement provision in the event of non-compliance with the contract or that the final significant payment of the aid (e.g. 25 %) will be made only when the aid beneficiary has satisfied the EFTA State that execution of the project is in compliance with the EFTA Surveillance Authoritiy decision and on condition that the EFTA Surveillance Authority, on the basis of information provided by the EFTA State concerning implementation of the project, has, within 60 working days, indicated its agreement or raised no objections to the final payment of the aid.(3) A copy of any aid contract between the EFTA State and the aid beneficiary must be communicated to the EFTA Surveillance Authoritiy immediately after it has been signed by the parties.(4) In order to ensure compliance with the EFTA Surveillance Authority decision, the EFTA State, in cooperation with the aid beneficiries, must provide the EFTA Surveillance Authority with an annual report on the project, including information on the subsidies already paid, any interim report on the execution of the aid contract, and a final report indicating the objectives in terms of the timetable, the investments, and compliance with any specific conditions laid down by the authority granting the aid.26.7. Definition of terms used(1) The following definitions of the terms used in this Framework will apply.Investment project(2) 'Investment project' means an initial investment in fixed assets in the creation of a new establishment, the extension of an existing establishment or engaging in an activity involving a fundamental change in the product or production process of an existing establishment (by means of rationalisation, diversification or modernisation). It may also take the form of the takeover of an establishment which has closed or which would have closed had such a takeover not taken place, but does not include the acquisition of assets from a company in financial difficulties (for which the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty apply).An investment project should not be artificially divided into sub-projects in order to escape the notification obligation.Total project cost(3) 'Total project cost' means the total expenditure on tangible and non-tangible new assets which are purchased by an undertaking to carry out an investment project and will be depreciated (or leased) over the lifetime of the assets concerned.Eligible expenses(4) 'Eligible expenses' mean expenditure on those tangible and non-tangible assets permitted under the regional aid guidelines.Jobs(5) 'Job' means a permanent full-time job or its part-time equivalent. It may be a new job or the safeguarding of an existing job to the extent that the latter is directly associated with the investment project, would require a significant amount of re-training and would no longer exist at the start of the new production if not for that investment.Relevant market(6) The relevant product market(s) for determining market share comprises the products envisaged by the investment project and, where appropriate, its substitutes considered by the consumer (by reason of the products' characteristics, their prices and their intended use) or by the producer (through flexibility of the production installations)(13). The relevant geographic market comprises usually the EEA or, alternatively, any significant part of it if the conditions of competition in that area can be sufficiently distinguished from other areas of the EEA. Where appropriate the relevant market(s) may be considered to be global.Structural overcapacity(7) Structural overcapacity is deemed to exist when, on average over the last five years, the capacity utilisation rate of the relevant sector or subsector(14) is more than two percentage points below that of manufacturing as a whole. Serious structural overcapacity is deemed to exist when the difference with respect to the average for manufacturing is more than five percentage points.Declining market(8) The market for the product(s) in question will be deemed to be declining if, over the last five years, the average annual growth rate of apparent consumption of the product(s) in question is signficiantly (more than 10 %) below the annual average of EEA manufacturing industry as a whole, unless there is a strong upward trend in the relative growth rate of demand for the product(s). An absolutely declining market is one in which the average annual growth rate of apparent consumption over the last five years is negative.""ANNEX XIIISTANDARD NOTIFICATION FORM PURSUANT TO THE MULTISECTORAL FRAMEWORK ON REGIONAL AID FOR LARGE INVESTMENT PROJECTSIntroductionThis form specifies the information to be provided by an EFTA State when notifying the EFTA Surveillance Authority on an investment project to be located in an assisted area which is subject to the notification rules of the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects.The EFTA States should note that:(a) all information requested by this form must be provided. However if notifying parties, in good faith, are unable to provide a response to a question or can only respond to a limited extent on the basis of available information they should indicate this and give reasons;(b) unless all sections are completed in full or adequate reasons are given explaining why it has not been possible to answer the questions in full, the notification will be incomplete and will become effective only on the date on which all the information is received;(c) the EFTA Surveillance Authority may request the EFTA State and the aid recipient concerned to provide additional information and/or explanation on the information supplied in this form in order to facilitate the initial assessment, which should be provided within ten working days and may form the subject of a technical meeting to be arranged by the EFTA Surveillance Authority with the competent public authority.Supporting documentation(a) a copy of the draft aid agreement or, if that is unavailable, a copy of the envisaged aid offer letter. If the draft aid agreement is unavailable at the time of the notification, it should be submitted as soon as possible and not later than when it is posted to the aid recipients;(b) copies of the most recent annual reports and accounts of the aid recipient(s), and if the recipient is part of a larger group, the most recent annual reports and accounts of the group;(c) a list and short description of the contents of all other analyses, reports, studies and surveys prepared by or for the aid recipient(s) for the purpose of assessing or analysing the proposed aided investment with respect to competitive conditions, competitors (actual and potential), and market conditions. Each item in the list must include the name and position of the author.How to notifyThe notification must be completed in the official language of the EFTA Surveillance Authority (English) or in the official language of an EFTA State.Supporting documents may be submitted in their original language or translated into English.The financial data requested must be provided in local currency or Euro indicating the conversion rates used.The notification should be sent to: EFTA Surveillance Authority rue de Trèves/Trierstraat 74 , B - 1040 Brussels ,or delivered by hand during normal working hours to the same address.SecrecyThe EFTA State and/or the aid recipient concerned should take note that any of the information requested may be used as a basis to prepare a decision on the case. Notifying parties should indicate that part of the information submitted in this notification which should not be published or otherwise divulged to other parties by marking it "Business secrets". They should also set out the reasons why this information should not be divulged or published. However, if sensitive information is needed in the preparation of the decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority would first consult the EFTA State and/or the aid recipient about the publication of the parts of the decision containing sensitive information.Ex-post controlThe EFTA Surveillance Authority acknowledges that part of the information requested in this notification form cannot be given entirely accurately in advance. The EFTA State and/or the aid recipient concerned are requested to give their best estimate and to provide a justification of the information to be provided. The aided investment project will be subject to ex-post control by which the EFTA Surveillance Authority can verify the accuracy of the information provided in the context of the notification.SECTION 1EFTA STATE1.1. Information on notifying public authority1.1.2. name and address of notifying authority;1.1.3. name, telephone, fax and e-mail address of, and position held by, the person(s) to be contacted in case of further inquiry.1.2. Information of contact in Permanent Representation1.2.1. Name, telephone, fax and e-mail address of, and position held by, the person to be contacted in case of further inquiry.SECTION 2AID RECIPIENT2.1. Structure of a company or companies investing in the project2.1.1. Identity of aid recipient;2.1.2. If the legal identity of the aid recipient is different from the undertaking(s) that finance(s) the project or that receive(s) the aid, describe also these differences;2.1.3. Identify the parent group of the aid recipient, describe the group structure and ownership structure of each parent company.2.2. For a company or companies investing in the project, provide the following data for the last three financial years:2.2.1. Worldwide turnover, EEA turnover, turnover in EFTA State concerned;2.2.2. Profit after tax and cash flow (on a consolidated basis);2.2.3. Employment worldwide, at EEA level and in EFTA State concerned;2.2.4. Market breakdown of sales in the EFTA State concerned, in the rest of the EEA and outside the EEA.2.3. If the investment takes place in an existing industrial location, provide the following data for the last three financial years of that entity2.3.1. Total turnover;2.3.2. Profit after tax and cash flow;2.3.3. Employment;2.3.4. Market breakdown of sales: in the EFTA State concerned, in the rest of the EEA and outside the EEA.SECTION 3PROVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCEFor each measure of proposed public assistance, provide the following:3.1. Details3.1.1. Scheme title (or indicate if it is an "ad-hoc" aid);3.1.2. Legal basis (law, decree, etc.);3.1.3. Public entity providing the assistance;3.1.4. If the legal basis is an aid scheme approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, provide the date of the approval and the State aid case reference number.3.2. Form of the proposed assistance3.2.1. Is the proposed assistance a grant, interest subsidy, reduction in social security contributions, tax credit (relief), equity participation, debt conversion or write off, soft loan, deferred tax provision, amount covered by a guarantee scheme, etc?3.2.2. Provide the conditions attached to the payment of the proposed assistance.3.3. Amount of the proposed assistance3.3.1. Nominal amount of support and its gross and net grant equivalent;3.3.2. Is the assistance measure subject to corporate tax (or other direct taxation)? If only partially, to what extent?2.3.3. Provide a complete schedule of the payment of the proposed assistance.For the package of proposed public assistance, provide the following:3.4. The characteristics of the assistance measures3.4.1. Are any of the assistance measures of the overall package not yet defined? If yes, specify;3.4.2. Indicate which of the above mentioned measures does not constitute State aid and for what reason(s).3.5. Cumulation of public assistance measures3.5.1. Estimated gross grant equivalent (before taxation) of the combined aid measures;3.5.2. Estimated net grant equivalent (after taxation) of the combined aid measures.SECTION 4ASSISTED PROJECT(The information to be given in this section is used, inter alia, to determine the outcome of the application of the capital-labour assessment factor.)4.1. Location of the project4.1.1. Specify the region and the municipality as well as the address.4.2. Duration of the project4.2.1. Specify the start date of the investment project as well as the completion date of the investment;4.2.2. Specify the planned start date of the new production and the year by which full production may be reached.4.3. Description of the project4.3.1. Specify the type of the project and whether it is a new establishment or a capacity expansion or other;4.3.2. Provide a short general description of the project.4.4. Breakdown of the project costs4.4.1. Specify the total cost of capital expenditure to be invested and depreciated over the lifetime of the project;4.4.2. Provide a detailed breakdown of the capital and non-capital(1) expenditure associated with the investment project by filling in the following table:>PIC FILE= "L_1999111EN.008401.EPS">4.5. Financing of total project costs4.5.1. Indicate the financing of the total cost of the investment project by filling in the following table:>PIC FILE= "L_1999111EN.008501.EPS">4.6. Employment creation4.6.1. Does the project create new permanent jobs (full-time equivalent)? If yes, provide a number of the jobs to be created and over which period as well as a description of the jobs to be created.4.7. Safeguard of existing employment4.7.1. Does the project safeguard existing permanent jobs? If yes, provide a number of the jobs to be safeguarded and over which period as well as a description of the jobs to be safeguarded;4.7.2. Explain in detail the re-training in average number of hours and cost (excluding the salaries of the trainees) necessary to safeguard these permanent jobs;4.7.2. Explain why these jobs would be at imminent risk if the project was not realised.SECTION 5CAPACITY CONSIDERATIONS AND AFFECTED MARKET(S)(The information to be given in this section is used to determine the outcome of the application of the competition assessment factor. A definition of the relevant market(s) as well as a definition of structural overcapacity and market(s) in decline are given in the appendix)5.1. Characterisation of product(s) envisaged by the project5.1.1. Specify the product(s) that will be produced in the aided facility upon the completion of the investment (indicate the CN code) and the relevant (sub-) sector(s) to which the product belong(s) (indicate the NACE code);5.1.2. What product(s) will it replace? If these replaced products are not produced at the same location, indicate where they are currently produced;5.1.3. What other product(s) can be produced with the same new facilities at little or no additional cost?5.2. Characterisation of relevant geographic market(s)5.2.1. Specify the relevant geographic market(s) where different from EEA;5.2.2. Why is the geographic market considered to be different from EEA?5.3. Capacity considerations5.3.1. Quantify the impact of the project on the aid recipient's total viable capacity in the EEA (including at Group level) for each of the product(s) concerned (in units per year in the year preceeding the start year and on completion of the project);5.3.2. Provide an estimate of the total EEA (or of the relevant geographic market) capacity utilisation rate of the relevant (sub-)sector(s) for the last five years. What proportion of this capacity during this period is accounted for by the aid recipient and what has been its rate of capacity utilisation in the relevant (sub)-sector?5.4. Market data5.4.1. Provide for each of the last five financial years data on apparent consumption(2) of the product(s) concerned. If available, include statistics prepared by other sources to illustrate the answer;5.4.2. Provide for the next three financial years a forecast of the evolution of apparent consumption of the product(s) concerned. If available, include statistics prepared by other sources to illustrate the answer;5.4.3. Is the relevant market in decline and for what reasons? If not, why?5.4.4. An estimate of the market share (in value) of the aid recipient or of the group to which the aid recipient belongs in the year preceding the start year and on completion of the project.SECTION 6REGIONAL IMPACT(The information to be given in this section is used to determine the outcome of the application of the regional impact assessment factor.)6.1. Information on the employment created with first tier suppliers and customers of the aid recipient6.1.1. In the opinion of the EFTA State and/or aid recipient, which of the three options below best describes the degree of jobs created with first-tier suppliers and customers resulting from the project:(i) High degree of job creation for each job created by the aid recipient (more than 100 %);(ii) Medium degree of job creation for each job created by the aid recipient (between 50 % and 100 %);(iii) Low degree of job creation for each job created by the aid recipient (less than 50 %).6.1.2. Justify and explain your answer to the previous question;6.1.3. Provide as complete a list as possible of the prospective first-tier suppliers for the new production within the assisted region and/or assisted regions;6.1.4. Provide as complete a list as possible of the prospective customers for the new production within the assisted region and/or assisted regions.(1) Investment expenditure that cannot be depreciated over the lifetime of the investment project.(2) Production plus imports minus exports."Done at Brussels, 4 November 1998.For the EEA Surveillance AuthorityThe PresidentKnut ALMESTAD(1) Hereinafter referred to as the State Aid Guidelines.(2) OJ L 231, 3.9.1994, p. 1; EEA Supplement to the OJ 32, 3.9.1994.(3) See page 46 of this Official Journal.(4) This chapter corresponds to Communication from the Commission - Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects (OJ C 107, 7.4.1998, p. 7).(5) This Framework consequently replaces Chapter 21, Aid to the textile and clothing industry, of the Guidelines adopted and issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 19 January 1994 (OJ L 231, 3.9.1994).(6) See Chapter 16 of these Guidelines.(7) See Chapter 14 of these Guidelines.(8) See Chapter 15 of these Guidelines.(9) Regional investment aid awarded solely for the creation of jobs as described in the EFTA Surveillance Authority regional aid guidelines is not covered by this Framework.(10) The notification requirement also applies, of course, to proposals to award ad hoc aid.(11) ECU 15 million in the case of projects carried out in the textile and clothing sector.(12) ECU 30000 in the case of projects carried out in the textile and clothing sector.(13) If the investment concerns the production of intermediates, the relevant market may be the market for the final product if most of the production is not sold on the open market.(14) The sector or subsector will be established at the lowest available segmentation of the NACE classification.


Avis juridique important

|

31994D0025

94/25/EC: Commission Decision of 6 December 1993 concerning the exchange of letters between the European Community and the Republic of Austria on the reciprocal granting of tariff quotas for certain wines (Text with EEA relevance)

Official Journal L 019 , 22/01/1994 P. 0023 - 0023

COMMISSION DECISION of 6 December 1993 concerning the exchange of letters between the European Community and the Republic of Austria on the reciprocal granting of tariff quotas for certain wines (Text with EEA relevance) (94/25/EC)THE  COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1108/93 of 4 May 1993 laying down certain provisions for the application of the Bilateral Agreements on agriculture between the Community, of the one part, and Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden of  the other part (1), and in particular Article 1 thereof,  Whereas, under the terms of the Agreement between the Community and Austria on certain arrangements in the field of agriculture (2), signed on 2 May 1992, the two Contracting Parties grant reciprocal tariff concessions for certain wines within quota  limits; whereas this Agreement replaces the Agreement between the Community and Austria on the reciprocal establishment of tariff quotas for certain quality wines signed on 23 December 1988, the technical details concerning the certificate of origin of  the wines eligible for the tariff concession have been laid down;  Whereas the Agreement on the European Economic Area was signed between the Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the States of the European Free Trade Association, of the other part, hereinafter called the 'EEA Agreement'; whereas,  pursuant to Protocol 47 thereto on the abolition of technical barriers to trade in wine, the intra-Community system of accompanying documents relating to wine referred to in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 986/89 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC)  No 592/91 (4), will be extended to the EEA; whereas to take account of these new circumstances, new detailed rules must be laid down on the certificate of origin to be presented for wines eligible for tariff concessions; whereas the aforementioned  technical exchange of letters of 23 December 1988 must accordingly be replaced by a new exchange of letters;  Whereas the measures provided for in exchange of letters between the Community and Austria attached hereto are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:   Article 1  The exchange of letters between the European Community and the Republic of Austria relating to the Bilateral Agreement on the reciprocal tariff quotas for certain wines is hereby approved.  The text of the exchange of letters is attached to this Decision (5).   Article 2  The text of exchange of letters referred to in Article 1 shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.  Done at Brussels, 6 December 1993.  For the Commission René STEICHEN Member of the Commission  (1) OJ No L 113, 7. 5. 1993, p. 1.  (2) OJ No L 109, 1. 5. 1993, p. 6.  (3) OJ No L 106, 18. 4. 1989, p. 1.  (4) OJ No L 66, 13. 3. 1991, p. 13.  (5) The letters were signed on 20 December 1993.


title: Council Decision of 1 December 2009 appointing the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union

text:
               9.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 322/37

      COUNCIL DECISION

   of 1 December 2009
   appointing the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union
   (2009/911/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 240(2), first subparagraph, thereof,
   Whereas the Secretary-General of the Council should be appointed,
   HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Mr Pierre de BOISSIEU is hereby appointed Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union for the period from 1 December 2009 until the day after the European Council meeting of June 2011.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall be notified to Mr Pierre de BOISSIEU by the President of the Council.
   It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 1 December 2009.

            For the Council

            The President

         B. ASK


Avis juridique important

|

31993D0137

93/137/Euratom, EEC: Council Decision of 2 March 1993 appointing a member of the Economic and Social Committee

Official Journal L 056 , 09/03/1993 P. 0037 - 0037

COUNCIL DECISION of 2 March 1993 appointing a member of the Economic and Social Committee(93/137/Euratom, EEC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 193 to 195 thereof,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Articles 165 to 167 thereof,  Having regard to the Convention on certain Institutions common to the European Communities, and in particular Article 5 thereof,  Having regard to the Council Decision of 24 September 1990 appointing the members of the Economic and Social Committee for the period ending on 20 September 1994 (1),  Whereas a seat has become vacant on the Economic and Social Committee following the resignation of Mr François Ceyrac, notified to the Council on 16 October 1992;  Having regard to the nominations submitted by the French Government on 23 November 1992,  Having obtained the opinion of the Commission of the European Communities,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Sole Article  Mr Jean Gautiers is hereby appointed member of the Economic and Social Committee in place of Mr François Ceyrac for the remainder of the latter's term of office, which runs until 20 September 1994.  Done at Brussels, 2 March 1993.  For the Council The President J. TROEJBORG (1) OJ No L 290, 23. 10. 1990, p. 13.


title: Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/83 of 16 January 2017 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran

text:
               17.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 12/92

         COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2017/83
   of 16 January 2017
   amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,
   Having regard to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (1), and in particular Article 23(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 26 July 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/413/CFSP.

               (2)

               In accordance with Article 26(3) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, the Council has reviewed the list of designated persons and entities set out in Annex II to that Decision.

               (3)

               Several entities should be removed from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.

               (4)

               Following the judgments of the General Court in Cases T-182/13 (2), T-433/13 (3), T-158/13 (4), T-5/13 (5), T-45/14 (6) and T-539/14 (7) and in Joined Cases T-423/13 and T-64/14 (8), Moallem Insurance Company, Petropars Operation & Management Company, Petropars Resources Engineering Ltd, Iran Aluminium Company, Iran Liquefied Natural Gas Co., Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping (HTTS) GmbH, Naser Bateni, North Drilling Company and Good Luck Shipping Company LLC are not included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.

               (5)

               Following the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases C-176/13 (9) and C-200/13 P (10), Bank Mellat and Bank Saderat Iran are not included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP. Consequently, and for legal certainty, the entry concerning Bank Saderat PLC (London) in that Annex should be deleted.

               (6)

               Decision 2010/413/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 16 January 2017.

            For the Council

            The President

         F. MOGHERINI

      (1)  OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39.

      (2)  Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2014, Moallem Insurance Co. v Council of the European Union, T-182/13, ECLI:EU:T:2014:624.

      (3)  Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015, Petropars Iran Co. and Others v Council of the European Union, T-433/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:255.

      (4)  Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2015, Iranian Aluminium Co. (Iralco) v Council of the European Union, T-158/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:634.

      (5)  Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015, Iran Liquefied Natural Gas Co. v Council of the European Union, T-5/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:644.

      (6)  Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015, HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH and Naser Bateni v Council of the European Union, T-45/14, ECLI:EU:T:2015:650.

      (7)  Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015, North Drilling Co. v Council of the European Union, T-539/14, ECLI:EU:T:2015:871.

      (8)  Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2016, Good Luck Shipping LLC v Council of the European Union, T-423/13 and T-64/14, ECLI:EU:T:2016:308.

      (9)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 February 2016, Council of the European Union v Bank Mellat, C-176/13 P, ECLI:EU:C:2016:96.

      (10)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 April 2016, Council of the European Union v Bank Saderat Iran, C-200/13 P, ECLI:EU:C:2016:284.

      ANNEX
      The entries relating to the entities listed below are deleted from the list set out in part I.B of Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP:
      I.   Persons and entities involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities and persons and entities providing support to the Government of Iran.

      B.   Entities

                     ‘7.

                     (a) Bank Saderat PLC (London)

                     48.

                     Neka Novin (a.k.a. Niksa Nirou)

                     65.

                     West Sun Trade GMBH

                     159.

                     Oil Industry Pension Fund Investment Company (OPIC)’.


Avis juridique important

|

31982D0435

82/435/EEC: Council Decision of 21 June 1982 on the granting of food aid in the form of cereals to the people affected by the events in Lebanonn

Official Journal L 193 , 03/07/1982 P. 0036 - 0036

*****COUNCIL  DECISION  of 21 June 1982  on the granting of food aid in the form of cereals to the people affected by the events in Lebanon  (82/435/EEC)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,  Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,  Whereas, by Decision 82/270/EEC (1), the Council set aside within its 1982 cereals food-aid programme certain quantities for emergency operations and other unforeseen situations;  Whereas quantities of cereals are still available under that reserve;  Whereas the Community has received requests for emergency food aid for the people affected by the events in Lebanon;  Whereas the Community should respond favourably to these requests,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Sole Article  Food aid in the form of cereals from the reserve under the 1982 programme shall be allocated as follows:  1.2.3 //   //   //   // Recipient  // Quantity  // Delivery terms  //   //   //   // People of Lebanon and others  // 20 000 tonnes  // cif  //   //   //  Done at Luxembourg, 21 June 1982.  For the Council  The President  L. TINDEMANS  (1) OJ No L 120, 1. 5. 1982, p. 27.


title: Council Decision (EU) 2015/1209 of 20 July 2015 appointing a member of the Court of Auditors

text:
               24.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 196/14

         COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2015/1209
   of 20 July 2015
   appointing a member of the Court of Auditors
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 286(5) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal by the Kingdom of Denmark,
   Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 24 January 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/60/EU (1), appointing seven members of the Court of Auditors until 28 February 2018.

               (2)

               On 1 February 2015, a seat became vacant following the death of Mr Henrik OTBO.

               (3)

               A new member should therefore be appointed to serve for the remainder of Mr OTBO's term of office,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Ms Bettina Michelle JAKOBSEN is hereby appointed member of the Court of Auditors for the period from 1 September 2015 to 28 February 2018.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 20 July 2015.

            For the Council

            The President

         F. MOGHERINI

      (1)  Council Decision 2012/60/EU of 24 January 2012 appointing seven members of the Court of Auditors (OJ L 30, 2.2.2012, p. 18).


Avis juridique important

|

31983D0162

83/162/EEC: Council Decision of 18 April 1983 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports of acrylonitrile originating in the United States of America

Official Journal L 101 , 20/04/1983 P. 0029 - 0033

*****COUNCIL  DECISION  of 18 April 1983  terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports of acrylonitrile originating in the United States of America  (83/162/EEC)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3017/79 of 20 December 1979 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1580/82 (2), and in particular Article 9 thereof,  Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, submitted following consultation of the Committee set up under the abovementioned Regulation,  A. Procedure  Whereas in April 1982 the Commission received a complaint from the European Council of Chemical Manufacturers' Federations (CEFIC), lodged on behalf of the great majority of Community producers of acrylonitrile, which account for some 90 % of production in the Community;  Whereas the complaint contained evidence of the existence of dumping and resultant material injury; whereas this was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding; whereas the Commission therefore announced, in a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (3), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of acrylonitrile falling within heading No ex 29.27 of the Common Customs Tariff (NIMEXE code 29.27-10), originating in the United States of America, and opened an investigation;  Whereas the Commission officially informed the exporters and importers known to be concerned, and the US Government;  Whereas the Commission gave all interested parties the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing;  Whereas most of the US exporters and a number of importers known to be concerned took the opportunity to make their views known in writing; whereas, in particular, one of the exporters, Vistron Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio, requested and obtained a hearing;  Whereas a major Community end user of acrylonitrile, Courtaulds Ltd, Coventry, United Kingdom, took the opportunity to make its views known in writing and at a hearing; whereas the International Rayon and Synthetic Fibres Committee also made its opinion known in writing;  Whereas for the purposes of arriving at a preliminary finding as to whether dumping and injury had occurred, the Commission endeavoured to gather and check all the information it considered necessary, and carried out on-the-spot checks at the following companies:  - Community producers:  - CdF Chimie - Norsolor, Paris La Défense,  - Erdoelchemie GmbH, Koeln,  - ANIC, Milano,  - Montedipe, Milano,  - Border Chemicals, London,  - Monsanto Europe SA, Bruxelles,  - DMS Marketing Centre Chemicals and Polymers, nv, Urmond;  - Exporters:  - Dupont de Nemours, Wilmington, Delaware,  - Vistron Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio,  - Monsanto, Saint-Louis, Missouri,  - ICC Industries, Inc., New York,  - Fallek Chemicals Corp., New York;  Whereas the Commission requested and obtained detailed written comments on the alleged dumping, injury and its causes from complainant producers in the Community and also from most US exporters and certain importers; whereas the information obtained was checked by the Commission in so far as necessary;  Whereas the investigation period adopted by the Commission to determine whether dumping had occurred was the 12 months up to 31 March 1982;  B. Normal value  Whereas in order to determine whether the imports originating in the United States of America had been dumped, the Commission requested exporters to provide it with details of their sales during the investigation period on the US domestic market to non- associated customers, or details of their production costs;  Whereas, in order to establish whether exporters had engaged in dumping, the Commission determined the normal value on the basis of the weighted average quarterly selling price at the fob - place of production stage of acrylonitrile sold on the US domestic market to non-associated customers; whereas in the case of Dupont de Nemours, which refused to divulge the prices at which it effected sales on the domestic market or details of its production costs, the Commission considered that, in order not to encourage a refusal to cooperate, the normal value should be established every quarter on the basis of the highest normal value determined for the other producers exporting to the Community; whereas for exporters not selling on the domestic market, the normal value was established on the basis of the quarterly average of the other exporters' selling prices on the US market;  C. Export prices  Whereas with regard to export prices, the Commission adopted the prices actually paid or payable for exports to the Community, as ascertained from the exporters' documents; whereas a certain number of standard adjustments were made to enable an export price at the fob stage to be calculated; whereas the Commission accordingly took into account, on the basis of the checked information, the terms of payment, transport costs to the Community frontier and related costs such as insurance premiums and any warehousing costs;  Whereas the Commission included in its calculation of the export prices all consignments of acrylonitrile to the Community which formed the subject of transactions during the investigation period;  Whereas in this connection Vistron Corporation asserted that, under the terms of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3017/79, transactions carried out for the purposes of inward processing under cover of customs document T 1 should not be taken into account for calculating export prices; whereas, furthermore, according to that firm, taking such transactions into consideration in the calculation of dumping margins would run counter to Article VI of GATT and Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Code (Agreement of 1979 on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on tariffs and trade);  Whereas the Commission considers that it would be entirely out of the question to exclude from the basis of calculation transactions effected under cover of customs document T 1 with customs duties temporarily suspended, for the following reasons of principle:  - firstly, there is a possibility that Community producers may suffer injury as a result of these imports in respect of which customs duties are temporarily suspended, owing either in particular to the indirect effect on Community market prices or to a reduction in the outlets offered to producers,  - furthermore, excluding T 1 imports from the basis of calculation of the export prices would offer considerable scope for abuse in anti-dumping proceedings since subsequent release for home use (or re-export) would be difficult for either the Commission or the Member States themselves to substantiate;  Whereas the Anti-Dumping Code and Community legislation confine the collection of anti-dumping duties to goods imported and consumed in the importing country; whereas with respect to the determi nation of dumping, the Anti-Dumping Code and Regulation (EEC) No 3017/79 specify that the calculation should be based not on import prices but on export prices, which implies that all export transactions should be taken into consideration;  D. Comparison  Whereas, in order to determine whether the goods were being dumped, the normal values as defined above were therefore compared transaction by transaction at the fob stage with the export prices to the Community at the same stage, over the period of the investigation; whereas a quarterly comparison was effected, using weighted averages where appropriate;  Whereas although Vistron Corporation disclosed details of its sales on the domestic market and its production costs, it claimed that the prices charged on sales on the US domestic market were not comparable with the prices charged on its exports to the Community; whereas according to Vistron, the US market is made up of transactions carried out under long-term or medium-term contracts while export markets, and especially the Community market, are spot markets, and normal value ought to be calculated either on the basis of the export price of US acrylonitrile to third countries, or by using a constructed value, or by correcting selling prices recorded on the domestic market by the amounts necessary to establish price comparability;  Whereas after a detailed examination of Vistron's arguments, the Commission has concluded that the prices ascertained by it, whether on the US acrylonitrile market or on exports to the Community, are intrinsically comparable, since both correspond to normal commercial transactions; whereas, in addition, the adjustments to the normal value requested by Vistron, to reflect the lower 'infrastructure costs' which the corporation and its US customers would enjoy if the domestic market were also a spot market, are unacceptable as they do not correspond to differences in the conditions of sale directly relevant to the sales here considered;  Whereas on the basis of the information available to it, therefore, the Commission failed to find any differences which could significantly affect price comparability in terms of either physical characteristics, quantity, conditions or manner of sale or stage of transaction, between sales of acrylonitrile on the US market and exports to the Community; whereas the only adjustments made were the standard ones for terms of payment, transport and related costs, designed to permit comparison at the fob - place of production stage;  E. Margins  Whereas it emerged from the above facts that imports which had been the subject of investigation and had originated in the United States were being dumped;  Whereas the extent of dumping varied from exporter to exporter; whereas in each case, the dumping margin has been taken as the difference between the normal values, as defined above, and the prices charged for exports of acrylonitrile to the Community; whereas the dumping margins arrived at for the various exporters expressed as a percentage of the free at Community frontier price, not cleared through customs, were as follows:  - Fallek Chemical Corporation:  no exports of US acrylonitrile during the period covered by the investigation,  - ICC Industries:  dumping margins varying from 10,70 to 15,00 % with a weighted average of 12,76 %,  - Dupont de Nemours:  dumping margins varying from 10,68 to 16,51 % with a weighted average of 13,67 %,  - Monsanto Company:  dumping margins varying from 1,00 to 22,80 % the weighted average being 11,50 %,  - Vistron Corporation:  dumping margins varying from 11,52 to 20,07 % with a weighted average of 16,41 %;  F. Injury  Whereas with regard to injury to the Community industry from imports of dumped US acrylonitrile, the information available to the Commission shows that total imports into the Community, including both goods released from home use and imports under temporary admission arrangements, rose from 28 143 tonnes in 1978 to 54 251 tonnes in 1979, falling back to . . . (1) tonnes in 1981 and rising again to . . . tonnes in the first quarter of 1982; whereas this corresponded to an increase in the market share taken by these imports from 3,3 % in 1978 to 4,9 % in 1981, and from 5,8 to 9,5 % on the open market only;  Whereas depending on the year, between 90 and 97 % of these imports come in under the inward processing arrangements (T 1 imports);  Whereas according to the evidence available to the Commission, the selling prices of the dumped imports in the Community were only 3 % lower than the prices charged by Community producers, but the selling price of these imports were nevertheless below the minimum level which would enable those producers to cover their costs;  Whereas with regard to the possible impact of the imports on the Community industry, the evidence available to the Commission shows that:  - imports of US acrylonitrile on which customs duties were temporarily suspended under the inward processing arrangements, which accounted for 97 % of imports originating in the United States of America during the period covered by the investigation, exercised a downward pressure on prices on the open Community market, in that during the quarterly price negotiations the main Community end users aim not to buy Community acrylonitrile at a higher price than they would have to pay for US acrylonitrile released for home use (T 2 imports), viz. the price of (dumped) T 1 imports plus customs duties, which is below the break-even level for almost all producers,  - the volume of imports originating in the United States, whether under the temporary admission arrangements or for home use, reduces demand for Community products where, as in this case, they come in at low prices over a long enough period,  - consequently, imports of US acrylonitrile, most of which come in under temporary admission arrangements, do cause some injury to Community producers,  - however, the Commission is firmly of the opinion that the 5,7 % drop in the complainants' production between 1979 and 1981 (from 703 276 to 662 906 tonnes) and the 25,8 % decline in their total sales on the Community market (from 658 953 to 488 806 tonnes) over the same period are due mainly to factors other than imports from the United States which are affecting Community production either individually or in combination,  - in particular, consumption of acrylonitrile on the open Community market fell from approximately 511 250 tonnes in 1979 to an estimated 447 400 tonnes in 1981, a decline of 12,5 %, while over the same period total Community production capacity increased by 60 000 tonnes (+ 5 %), which is far in excess of the small increase (16 000 tonnes) in captive use by industry; as a result, the average capacity utilization rate in the Community industry fell from 67 to 59 %,  - in addition, the volume of imports against which no dumping is alleged increased from 60 322 tonnes in 1978 to 103 665 tonnes in 1981, an increase of 71,8 %, which further unbalanced the Community market;  Whereas, in these circumstances, it appears that the slump in demand on the open market coupled with a simultaneous increase in production capacity and the steep rise in imports against which no dumping is alleged are the main causes of the difficulties experienced experienced by the Community industry and in particular the disastrous financial results of the producers, most of whom have made huge losses on acrylonitrile;  Whereas, accordingly, while it accepts that dumped imports have caused some injury to Community producers, the Commission cannot conclude from the evidence available to it that such injury taken in isolation can be regarded as material;  Whereas the Commission finds confirmation for this view in the fact that the authorities in the Member States responsible for issuing processing authorizations have regularly renewed such import authorizations over the years, which indicates on the basis of Article 5 of Directive 69/73/EEC (1), that the imports do not conflict with the essential interests of Community producers;  Whereas, in addition, acrylonitrile is the feedstock for the acrylic fibre industry, accounting for 40 % of its production costs; whereas, given the harsh competition on the Community and world acrylic fibre markets, protective measures would not be in the Community's interests at present; whereas the investigation need not, therefore, be continued and the proceeding in respect of imports of acrylonitrile from the United States should be terminated;  Whereas two of the Member States consulted raised objections,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Sole Article  The anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports of acrylonitrile originating in the United States is hereby terminated.  Done at Luxembourg, 18 April 1983.  For the Council  The President  I. KIECHLE  (1) OJ No L 339, 31. 12. 1979, p. 1.  (2) OJ No L 178, 22. 6. 1982, p. 9.  (3) OJ No C 84, 3. 4. 1982, p. 2.  (1) The figures are confidential.  (1) OJ No L 58, 8. 3. 1969, p. 1.


Avis juridique important

|

41986D0284

86/284/ECSC: Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, of 30 June 1986 on the arrangements for trade between the Community and the associated overseas countries and territories in products within the province of the European Coal and Steel Community

Official Journal L 175 , 01/07/1986 P. 0111 - 0111 Finnish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 11 P. 0270  Swedish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 11 P. 0270

DECISION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE  MEMBER STATES, MEETING WITHIN THE COUNCIL, of 30 June 1986 on the arrangements for trade between  the Community and the associated overseas countries and territories in products within the province  of the European Coal and Steel Community (86/284/ECSC)THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE  GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, MEETING WITHIN THE  COUNCIL, Whereas the Member States have concluded among themselves the Treaty establishing the  European Coal and Steel Community; Whereas Part Two, Title I, Chapter 1 of Council Decision  86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the  European Economic Community  (1) does not apply to products within the province of the European  Coal and Steel Community; Whereas, however, trade in such products between the Member States and  the countries and territories should be maintained and intensified; Whereas this Decision in no way  prejudices the special arrangements established by Decision 86/50/ECSC of the Representatives of  the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, of 3 March 1986 establishing  arrangements for trade between Spain and Portugal on the one hand and the overseas countries and  territories (OCT) on the other in products falling within the ECSC Treaty  (2); In agreement with  the Commission, HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The duties applicable in the  Community to imports of products within the province of the European Coal and Steel Community  originating in the countries and territories listed in Annex I to Decision 86/283/EEC, the charges  having an effect equivalent to such duties and the collection of such duties and charges shall be  suspended; however, the treatment applied to those products shall not be more favourable than that  applied by the Member States among themselves. Article 2The products referred to above  originating in the Member States shall be admitted for import into the countries and territories on  conditions similar to those laid down in Part Two, Title I, Chapter 1 of Decision 86/283/EEC.  Article 3Consultations shall take place between the Member States concerned in all cases where,  in the opinion of one of them, the implementation of the above provisions calls for such  consultations. Article 4The provisions laying down the rules of origin for the application of  Decision 86/283/EEC shall also apply to this Decision. Article 5Member States shall decide by  agreement on any safeguard measures proposed by one or more Member States or the Commission.  Article 6This Decision shall not affect the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European  Coal and Steel Community, or the powers of jurisdiction conferred by that Treaty. Article 7This  Decision shall apply until 28 February 1990. Article 8Member States shall take the measures  necessary to implement this Decision. Article 9This Decision shall be published in the Official  Journal of the European Communities at the same time as Decision 86/283/EEC. It shall enter into  force at the same time as Decision 86/283/EEC. Done at Luxembourg, 30 June 1986.  For the Council The President N. SMIT-KROES            (1)  See page 1 of this  Official Journal. (2)  OJ No L 63, 5. 3. 1986, p. 189.


title: 2014/174/CFSP: Political and Security Committee Decision EUTM MALI/1/2014 of 18 March 2014 on the appointment of the EU Mission Commander for the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of the Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali) and repealing Decision EUTM MALI/1/2013

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 95/30

         POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUTM MALI/1/2014
   of 18 March 2014
   on the appointment of the EU Mission Commander for the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of the Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali) and repealing Decision EUTM MALI/1/2013
   (2014/174/CFSP)
   THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,
   Having regard to Council Decision 2013/34/CFSP of 17 January 2013 on a European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali) (1), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 5(1) of Decision 2013/34/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC), in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty on European Union, to take the relevant decisions concerning the political control and strategic direction of EUTM Mali, including the decisions to appoint the subsequent EU Mission Commanders.

               (2)

               On 19 July 2013, the PSC adopted Decision EUTM MALI/1/2013 (2) appointing Brigadier General Bruno GUIBERT as EU Mission Commander for EUTM Mali.

               (3)

               On 15 February 2014, France proposed the appointment of Brigadier General Marc RUDKIEWICZ as the new EU Mission Commander for EUTM Mali to succeed Brigadier General Bruno GUIBERT.

               (4)

               On 21 February 2014 the EU Military Committee recommended that the PSC appoint Brigadier General Marc RUDKIEWICZ as EU Mission Commander for EUTM Mali to succeed Brigadier General Bruno GUIBERT.

               (5)

               Decision EUTM MALI/1/2013 should be repealed.

               (6)

               In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Brigadier General Marc RUDKIEWICZ is hereby appointed EU Mission Commander for the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of the Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali) as from 1 April 2014.
   Article 2
   Decision EUTM MALI/1/2013 is hereby repealed.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on 1 April 2014.

      Done at Brussels, 18 March 2014.

            For the Political and Security Committee

            The Chairperŝon

         W. STEVENS

      (1)  OJ L 14, 18.1.2013, p. 19.

      (2)  Political and Security Committee Decision EUTM MALI/1/2013 of 19 July 2013 on the appointment of an EU Mission Commander for the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of the Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali) (OJ L 202, 27.7.2013, p. 22).


Avis juridique important

|

31997D0251

97/251/EC: Commission Decision of 14 April 1997 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain types of electronic microcircuits known as EPROMs (erasable programmable read only memories) originating in Japan and repealing the anti- dumping measures imposed on such imports

Official Journal L 099 , 16/04/1997 P. 0016 - 0020

COMMISSION DECISION of 14 April 1997 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain types of electronic microcircuits known as EPROMs (erasable programmable read only memories) originating in Japan and repealing the anti-dumping measures imposed on such imports (97/251/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), and in particular Articles 9, 11 (3), 11 (7) and 23 thereof,Following consultations within the Advisory Committee as provided for by the said Regulation,Whereas:A. PROCEDURE (1) In March 1991 and October 1993, the Commission accepted undertakings offered by eight exporters of EPROMs of Japanese origin (2). A definitive anti-dumping duty was imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 577/91 (3).(2) In June 1995, the Commission decided to suspend the anti-dumping measures for a period of nine months (4). This decision was based on the findings that the market conditions had changed, due to a strong and growing demand for EPROMs, that market prices were stable at a relatively high level, and that the Community industry was no longer suffering from injury.(3) In March 1996, the suspension was extended for a period of 12 months, until 15 April 1997, by a Council Regulation (5). The Council determined that the extension was warranted because favourable market conditions had prevailed and would probably continue and that a recurrence of injury, as a result of such extension, was therefore unlikely.(4) During the period of suspension, a notice of impending expiry of the anti-dumping measures imposed against imports of EPROMs of Japanese origin (hereinafter also called: 'the product concerned`) (6), the Commission decided, in October 1995, and on its own initiative, to open an interim review, pursuant to Article 11 (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 3283/94 (7), replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Basic Regulation`).(5) The grounds for the initiation of the interim review were:- an important new circumstance, namely the enlargement of the European Union, which had apparently led to a significant increase in the size of the Community EPROM market and had brought in several new substantial users of EPROMs,- an apparent significant development in respect of technology and application of one product segment which justifies a review in order to clarify the product definition,- the consideration that the interim review was appropriate to investigate the need for the continued imposition of the measures.(6) Since the interim review was not concluded at the end of the period of application of the measures, the investigation, pursuant to Article 11 (7) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, covered also the circumstances of an expiry review in accordance with Article 11 (2) of the Basic Regulation.(7) The Commission officially advised the Community producers, the importers and the Japanese producers known to be concerned as well as the representatives of Japan of the opening of the investigation and gave the parties concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing.The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of the investigation and, for this purpose, visited the premises of SGS-Thomson Microelectronics Srl (complainant Community industry, see also recital 15 below).(8) During the investigation period, the following companies exported the product concerned to the European Community and cooperated with the Commission in the review investigation:- Advanced Micro Devices Inc.,- Fujitsu Limited,- Hitachi Ltd,- Intel,- Mitsubishi,- Oki Electric Co. Ltd,- Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd,- Sharp Corporation,- Texas Instruments,- Toshiba Corporation.One company, National Semiconductor Corporation which did not, in the investigation period, export EPROMs of Japanese origin to the Community, but intended to do so after that period, and which expressed its wish to offer an undertaking, cooperated in the investigation and replied to the Commission's questionnaire.(9) The following unrelated importers, which are end-users of the product concerned, cooperated with the Commission in the present investigation:- Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson,- Nokia Corporation.(10) The investigation period applied in the present investigation was from 1 July 1994 to 30 June 1995. The trend analysis of factors relevant for the determination of injury was based on data collected for the period 1 January 1990 to the end of the investigation period.(11) The investigation has exceeded the normal time period because of the complexity of the aspects regarding injury and the likelihood of recurrence of injury which was mainly owing to the large number and the degree of diversity of the different types within the product concerned.B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCT (12) The products concerned by this investigation are EPROMs (erasable programmable read only memories), whether in processed wafer form or die form, and other product variations using EPROM technology, of all densities (including future densities), irrespective of access speed, configuration, frame or package. Flash EPROMs were also included in the investigation if they were based on an EPROM-like technology, typically (but not exclusively) on a one transistor cell technology, used in EPROM-like applications, and/or erasable only in blocks or sectors, thus distinguishing the Flash EPROM from other EPROMs which are byte-erasable.(13) The product concerned was classified within the following CN Codes:- 8542 11 33, 8542 11 34, 8542 11 35 or 8542 11 36 for finished UV erasable EPROMs,- ex 8542 11 38 for finished Flash EPROMs,- ex 8542 11 76 for OTPs,- ex 8542 11 01 for wafers for all types of EPROMs,- ex 8542 11 05 for dice and chips for all types of EPROMs.(14) It was found that EPROMs produced in Japan, sold domestically and exported to the Community, and EPROMs produced by the Community industry and sold on the Community market are alike in their physical characteristics and use. They are therefore considered as a like product in accordance with Article 1 (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96.C. DEFINITION OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY (15) The Community industry consists of SGS-Thomson Microelectronics Srl ('SGS-Thomson`) which is a member of the European Electronic Component Manufacturers Association (EECA). The EECA was the complainant in the original investigation. SGS-Thomson is the only producer of EPROMs in the Community. The company submitted a response to the Commission's questionnaire within the deadline set by the Commission and cooperated in this investigation.(16) Since SGS-Thomson is the only Community producer of EPROMs, it constitutes the entirety of Community production. The requirements of Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 are thus met.D. INJURY The situation of the Community industry (17) Value of salesThe sales value of the Community industry, in the period 1990 to the investigation period, increased by more than 160 %.(18) Market share of the Community industryThe investigation has shown that, while overall consumption in the Community of the product concerned increased by 104 % between 1990 and the investigation period, the market share of the Community industry on this market increased by 142 % in the same period.(19) Production capacity and capacity utilizationThe production capacity more than tripled between 1990 and the investigation period. Capacity utilization was constantly at the maximum level.(20) StocksThe value of stocks decreased by around 18 % between 1990 and the investigation period.(21) EmploymentBetween 1990 and the investigation period, employment in the Community industry rose by 43 %.(22) InvestmentThe amount of investment increased by 155 % between 1990 and the investigation period.(23) ProfitabilityWhereas the Community industry incurred losses in the years 1990 to 1992, substantial profits were achieved in the years 1993, 1994 and in the investigation period. In the years 1993, 1994 and in the investigation period, the return on turnover reached a satisfactory level.(24) Conclusion on injuryIn the light of the abovementioned injury factors, it is considered that the Community industry did not suffer injury in the investigation period, since it produced at full capacity, sales value was at its maximum level, compared to production capacity, stocks were kept at the minimum level, employment had risen substantially, and profitability was high.E. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY Factors concerning the likelihood of recurrence of injury (25) Characteristics of the EPROM marketThe EPROM market in the past has been fast growing, but volatile, as established in the original investigation. However, this volatility was less pronounced than for other types of integrated circuits, for example DRAMs, because the use of EPROM is spread more widely over different applications and user industries.(26) Market demand trendsThe market demand had been increasing substantially and continually in the period from 1990 to the investigation period. On the basis of the information obtained during the investigation, it can be concluded that substantial growth rates may be expected for the time after the investigation period. These findings are confirmed by a market forecast made by a market analyst which predicts a growth of market consumption of almost 90 % between 1995 and 1999. Other market forecasts from other market research institutes are even more optimistic.(27) Market supply trendsIt was found in the investigation period that EPROM manufacturers worldwide had, in particular in 1995, in view of the high growth in demand for Flash EPROMs, begun to extend their production capacities for Flash. Further investment decisions for additional production capacities have been announced for the time thereafter. According to publicly available data, around 40 % of these capacities have been or will be established in Japan. These capacities would increase substantially the overall world production capacity for Flash between 1995 and 1999. Compared to Flash, no substantial increase in production capacities for EPROMs proper has been announced.(28) Factors concerning the likelihood of recurrence of injuryThe investigation showed that, at the end of the investigation period, the Community market for EPROMs was still stable, the situation of undersupply had continued and prices were still high. There were no substantiated indications that a change in market circumstances, which could have led to a recurrence of injury to the Community industry, was likely. Moreover, in an assessment concerning the likelihood of recurrence of injury, which was mainly based on the cost and sales data obtained from the Japanese producers in their periodical undertaking reports, it was found that, in mid 1996, i.e. one year after the investigation period of the review, the Community market for EPROMs had remained stable. Although the additional production capacities which had come on-stream had improved market supply, in particular for Flash, there were again no substantiated indications that these increased production capacities, in particular those built up by the Japanese manufacturers, would, in the imminent future, create a situation of over-supply on the Community market which could lead to a recurrence of injury to the Community industry. These findings were confirmed by the data available from market research institutes.(29) Conclusions concerning the likelihood of recurrence of injuryIn the light of the foregoing, it is considered that the recurrence of injury, should the measures expire, is unlikely and that the measures are therefore no longer necessary.F. DUMPING/LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF DUMPING (30) In view of the findings made in respect of injury, the investigation into dumping was not further pursued. Indeed, any dumping which might have been determined would not have caused injury and would therefore not be relevant for the purpose of this investigation. The same applies for the determination of the likelihood of recurrence of dumping.G. COMMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY ON THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS (31) The aforementioned findings and considerations were disclosed to the Community industry.(32) The Community industry claimed in its comments that the Commission had not taken into account the market development for EPROMs, in particular for the market segment of Flash EPROMs, since October 1996, which would show a steady decline of sales prices for these product types. Furthermore, the company pointed to a publication in October 1996 by market analysts which predicted, for an undefined point in time in the future, an over-supply of Flash EPROMs and a price-crash comparable to that seen for DRAMs, based on a background of increased production capacities and further projects of substantial capacity extension.(33) Although the above information would indicate a certain weakening of one market segment for the product concerned, the information submitted is not considered to justify a reversal of the positive trend as determined, based on the findings for the investigation period. Indeed, the data cited by the Community industry on the price development since October 1996 does not constitute a substantiated indication that this would lead to the recurrence of dumping and injury.(34) The Commission therefore considers that the considerations set out in recitals 23 and 28 concerning injury in the investigation period and the likelihood of recurrence of injury remain valid.H. CONCLUSIONS (35) Given the above findings, it is considered that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of EPROMs originating in Japan should be terminated and that the anti-dumping measures in force should be allowed to lapse.(36) The Commission informed the interested parties other than the Community industry of its intention to terminate this proceeding and to allow the anti-dumping measures in force to lapse.(37) The Member States were consulted. No Member State raised objections to the Commission's intended course of action.I. ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THIS DECISION (38) The Commission considers that this Decision should enter into force on 16 April 1997, since the suspension of the anti-dumping duty expires on this day,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1 The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of EPROMs falling within CN codes- 8542 11 33, 8542 11 34, 8542 11 35 or 8542 11 36 for finished UV erasable EPROMs,- ex 8542 11 38 for finished Flash EPROMs,- ex 8542 11 76 for OTPs,- ex 8542 11 01 for wafers for all types of EPROMs and- ex 8542 11 05 for dice and chips for all types of EPROMsand originating in Japan is terminated and the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 577/91 on such imports will therefore lapse.Article 2 This Decision shall enter into force on 16 April 1997.Done at Brussels, 14 April 1997.For the CommissionLeon BRITTANVice-President(1) OJ No L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1.(2) OJ No L 65, 12. 3. 1991, p. 42, and OJ No L 262, 21. 10. 1993, p. 64.(3) OJ No L 65, 12. 3. 1991, p. 1.(4) OJ No L 165, 15. 7. 1995, p. 26.(5) Council Regulation (EEC) No 664/96 (OJ No L 92, 13. 4. 1996, p. 1).(6) OJ No C 239, 14. 9. 1995, p. 3.(7) OJ No L 349, 31. 12. 1994, p. 1.


title: 2008/493/EC: Council Decision of 23 June 2008 amending Annex I to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania

text:
               3.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 174/6

      COUNCIL DECISION

   of 23 June 2008
   amending Annex I to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania
   (2008/493/EC)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the 2005 Act of Accession, and in particular Article 3(6) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Article 3(3) of the 2005 Act of Accession provides that Bulgaria and Romania accede to the conventions and protocols concluded between the Member States, listed in its Annex I.

               (2)

               On 8 December 2004, the Member States signed a Convention on the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (1) to the Convention of 23 July 1990 on the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises (2) (the Arbitration Convention).

               (3)

               It is appropriate to provide for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Arbitration Convention as amended by the Convention of 8 December 2004. To that effect, the Convention of 8 December 2004 should be added to Annex I of the 2005 Act of Accession,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The following indent shall be added to point 2 of Annex I to the 2005 Act of Accession:

               ‘—

               Convention of 8 December 2004 on 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 Convention on the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises (OJ C 160, 30.6.2005, p. 1).’

         Article 2
   This Decision shall take effect on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Luxembourg, 23 June 2008.

            For the Council

            The President

         I. JARC

      (1)  OJ C 160, 30.6.2005, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 225, 20.8.1990, p. 10.


( UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION ) DECISION NO. 14 OF 20 NOVEMBER 1959 CONCERNING THE MOST APPROPRIATE DATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING ON THE RATE OF EXCHANGE APPLICABLE FOR CALCULATING VARIOUS PAYMENTS.


Important legal notice

|

52007BP0126(01)

1. European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for the implementation of the budget of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2005 (C6-0400/2006 - 2006/2167(DEC))

Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0261 - 0262

		1.European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for the implementation of the budget of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2005 (C6-0400/2006 — 2006/2167(DEC))The European Parliament,- having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2005 [1],- having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2005, together with the Centre's replies [2],- having regard to the Council's recommendation of 27 February 2007 (5711/2007 — C6-0080/2007),- 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 Regulation (EC) No 851/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 establishing a European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control [4], and in particular Article 23 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 for Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0119/2007),1. Grants the executive director of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control discharge for the implementation of the Centre's budget for the financial year 2005;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 executive director of European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, 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).[1] OJ C 266, 31.10.2006, p. 31.[2] OJ C 312, 19.12.2006, p. 54.[3] OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 (OJ L 390, 30.12.2006, p. 1).[4] OJ L OJ L 142, 30.4.2004, p. 1.[5] OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.--------------------------------------------------


Avis juridique important

|

E1995G0002

DECISION OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES No 2/95/SC of 18 May 1995 amending the Rules of Procedure of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States

Official Journal L 244 , 12/10/1995 P. 0080 - 0080

DECISION OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES No 2/95/SC of 18 May 1995 amending the Rules of Procedure of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES,Having regard to the Agreement on a Standing Committee of the EFTA States as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement on a Standing Committee of the EFTA States, hereinafter referred to as the Agreement, and in particular Article 7 thereof,Having regard to Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No 1/94/SC of 10 January 1994 adopting the Rules of Procedure of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States,Having regard to the entry into force of the Agreement for Liechtenstein on 1 May 1995,Whereas the Rules of Procedure of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States must be amended following the entry into force of the Agreement for Liechtenstein,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1 Article 11 (1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States shall be replaced by the following:'1. Representatives of two EFTA States shall constitute a quorum.`Article 2 This Decision shall take immediate effect.Article 3 This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Communities.Done at Brussels, 18 May 1995.For the Standing CommitteeThe ChairmanEivinn BERG


Avis juridique important

|

32003B0410

2003/410/EC: European Parliament Decision of 8 April 2003 concerning discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 2001 financial year — Section II — Council

Official Journal L 148 , 16/06/2003 P. 0042 - 0042 Official Journal 064 E , 12/03/2004 P. 0216 - 0216

European Parliament Decisionof 8 April 2003concerning discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 2001 financial year - Section II - Council(2003/410/EC)THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,having regard to the Revenue and Expenditure Account and Balance Sheet in respect of the financial year 2001 (SEC(2002) 405 - C5-0243/2002),having regard to the annual report of the European Court of Auditors for the financial year 2001, together with the institutions' replies (C5-0538/2002)(1),having regard to the Statement of Assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the European Court of Auditors pursuant to Article 248 of the EC Treaty (C5-0538/2002),having regard to the Council's recommendation of 7 March 2003 (C5-0087/2003),having regard to Articles 272(10) and 275 of the EC Treaty,having regard to Article 22(2) and (3) of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977(2) and Article 50 of the Financial Regulation of 25 June 2002(3),having regard to Rule 93a and Annex V of its Rules of Procedure,having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A5-0101/2003/rev1),1. Grants discharge to the Secretary-General of the Council in respect of the implementation of the budget for the 2001 financial year (operational expenditure);2. Records its comments in the accompanying resolution;3. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the accompanying resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the Ombudsman, and to have it published in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).The Secretary-GeneralJulian PriestleyThe PresidentPat Cox(1) OJ C 295, 28.11.2002, p. 1.(2) OJ L 356, 31.12.1977, p. 1.(3) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.


title: Council Decision of 22 December 2009 appointing the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union for the period from 26 June 2011 to 30 June 2015

text:
               24.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 347/31

      COUNCIL DECISION

   of 22 December 2009
   appointing the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union for the period from 26 June 2011 to 30 June 2015
   (2009/1009/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 240(2), first subparagraph, thereof,
   Whereas the Secretary-General of the Council should be appointed for the period from 26 June 2011 until 30 June 2015,
   HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Mr Uwe CORSEPIUS is hereby appointed Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union for the period from 26 June 2011 until 30 June 2015.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall be notified to Mr Uwe CORSEPIUS by the President of the Council.
   It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 22 December 2009.

            For the Council

            The President

         A. CARLGREN