title: 2006/788/EC: Council Decision of 7 November 2006 on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters on the provisional application of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Community and the Gabonese Republic on fishing off the coast of Gabon for the period from 3 December 2005 to 2 December 2011

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 319/15

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 7 November 2006
   on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters on the provisional application of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Community and the Gabonese Republic on fishing off the coast of Gabon for the period from 3 December 2005 to 2 December 2011
   (2006/788/EC)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 37 in conjunction with Article 300(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Community and the Gabonese Republic have negotiated and initialled a Fisheries Partnership Agreement providing Community fishermen with fishing opportunities in the waters falling within the sovereignty of the Gabonese Republic.

               (2)

               It is in the Community's interest to approve that Agreement.

               (3)

               It is necessary to guarantee the continuity of fishing activities from the date of expiry of the previous Protocol (1) until the date of entry into force of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in that Agreement.

               (4)

               The method for allocating the fishing opportunities among the Member States should be defined,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters on the provisional application of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Community and the Gabonese Republic on fishing off the coast of Gabon for the period from 3 December 2005 to 2 December 2011 is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.
   The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   The Agreement shall apply provisionally from 3 December 2005.
   Article 3
   The fishing opportunities set out in the Protocol to the Agreement shall be allocated among the Member States as follows:

               Fishing category

               Type of vessel

               Member State

               Licences or quota

               Tuna fishing

               Surface longliners

               Spain

               13

               Portugal

               3

               Tuna fishing

               Freezer tuna seiners

               Spain

               12

               France

               12

         If licence applications from these Member States do not exhaust all the fishing opportunities laid down by the Protocol, the Commission may take into consideration licence applications from any other Member State.
   Article 4
   The Member States whose vessels fish under this Agreement shall notify the Commission of the quantities of each stock caught within the Gabonese fishing zone in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 500/2001 of 14 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 on the monitoring of catches taken by Community fishing vessels in third country waters and on the high seas (2).
   Article 5
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the persons empowered to sign the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters in order to bind the Community.

      Done at Brussels, 7 November 2006.

            For the Council

            The President

         E. HEINÄLUOMA

      (1)  Approved by Council Regulation (EC) No 580/2002 of 25 March 2002 (OJ L 89, 5.4.2002, p. 3).

      (2)  OJ L 73, 15.3.2001, p. 8.
    ---documentbreak---

               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 319/17

         AGREEMENT IN THE FORM OF AN EXCHANGE OF LETTERS
   on the provisional application of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Community and the Gabonese Republic on fishing off the Coast of Gabon for the period from 3 December 2005 to 2 December 2011
   Sir,
   With reference to the Protocol, initialled on Friday 28 October 2005, setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution for the period from 3 December 2005 to 2 December 2011, I have the honour to inform you that Gabon is willing to apply the Protocol provisionally from 3 December 2005 pending its entry into force in accordance with Article 13 thereof, provided that the European Community is prepared to do likewise.
   This is on the understanding that the first instalment of the financial contribution, laid down by Article 2 of the Protocol, must be paid before 30 September 2006.
   I should be grateful if you would confirm the agreement of the European Community to such a provisional application.
   Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.

         For the Government of Gabon

   Sir,
   I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of today's date which reads as follows:

      ‘With reference to the Protocol, initialled on Friday 28 October 2005, setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution for the period from 3 December 2005 to 2 December 2011, I have the honour to inform you that Gabon is willing to apply the Protocol provisionally from 3 December 2005 pending its entry into force in accordance with Article 13 thereof, provided that the European Community is prepared to do likewise.
      This is on the understanding that the first instalment of the financial contribution, laid down by Article 2 of the Protocol, must be paid before 30 September 2006.’

   I am pleased to confirm the agreement of the European Community to a provisional application.
   Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.

         For the Council of the European Union

   PROTOCOL
   setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Community and the Gabonese Republic on fishing off the coast of Gabon for the period from 3 December 2005 to 2 December 2011
   Article 1
   Period of application and fishing opportunities
   1.   For a period of six years from 3 December 2005, the fishing opportunities granted under Article 5 of the Agreement shall be as follows:
   Highly migratory species (species listed in Annex 1 to the 1982 United Nations Convention)

               —

               freezer tuna seiners: 24 vessels,

               —

               surface longliners: 16 vessels.

         2.   Paragraph 1 shall apply subject to Articles 4 and 5 of this Protocol.
   3.   Vessels flying the flag of a Member State of the European Community may fish in the Gabonese fishing zone only if they are in possession of a fishing licence issued under this Protocol in accordance with the Annex hereto.
   Article 2
   Financial contribution — Methods of payment
   1.   The financial contribution referred to in Article 7 of the Agreement shall comprise, for the period referred to in Article 1, an annual amount of EUR 715 000 equivalent to a reference tonnage of 11 000 tonnes per year and a specific amount of EUR 145 000 per year for the support and implementation of initiatives taken in the context of the Gabonese sectoral fisheries policy. This specific amount shall be an integral part of the single financial contribution defined in Article 7 of the Agreement.
   2.   Paragraph 1 shall apply subject to Articles 4, 5 and 7 of this Protocol.
   3.   The Community shall pay the sum of the amounts referred to in paragraph 1, i.e. EUR 860 000, each year during the period of application of this Protocol.
   4.   If the overall quantity of catches by Community vessels in Gabonese waters exceeds 11 000 tonnes per year, the amount of the annual financial contribution (EUR 715 000) shall be increased by EUR 65 for each additional tonne caught. However, the total annual amount paid by the Community shall not be more than twice the amount indicated in paragraph 3 (EUR 1 430 000). Where the quantities caught by Community vessels exceed the quantities corresponding to twice the total annual amount, the amount due for the quantity exceeding that limit shall be paid the following year.
   5.   Payment of the financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made no later than 30 September 2006 for the first year and no later than 30 June 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 for the following years.
   6.   Subject to Article 6, the Gabonese authorities shall have full discretion regarding the use to which this financial contribution is put.
   7.   The financial contribution shall be paid into account No 47069 X, ‘Pêche Maritime’ (Sea Fisheries) in the name of the Public Treasury of Gabon.
   Article 3
   Cooperation on responsible fishing — Scientific meeting
   1.   The Parties hereby undertake to promote responsible fishing in Gabonese waters on the basis of the principles of non-discrimination between the different fleets fishing in those waters.
   2.   During the period covered by this Protocol, the Community and the Gabonese authorities shall endeavour to monitor the evolution of resources in the Gabonese fishing zone.
   3.   The Parties undertake to promote cooperation at subregional level on responsible fishing and, in particular, within COREP.
   4.   In accordance with Article 4 of the Agreement and on the basis of the recommendations and resolutions adopted within the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), and in the light of the best available scientific advice, the Parties shall consult each other within the Joint Committee provided for in Article 9 of the Agreement and adopt, where appropriate after a scientific meeting possibly at subregional level, and by mutual agreement, measures to ensure the sustainable management of fisheries resources affecting the activities of Community vessels.
   Article 4
   Review of fishing opportunities by mutual agreement
   1.   The fishing opportunities referred to in Article 1 may be increased by mutual agreement provided that the conclusions of the scientific meeting referred to in Article 3(4) confirm that such an increase will not endanger the sustainable management of Gabon's resources. In this case the financial contribution of EUR 715 000 referred to in Article 2(1) shall be increased proportionately and pro rata temporis. However, the total amount of the financial contribution paid by the European Community in respect of the reference tonnage shall not be more than twice the amount of EUR 715 000. Where the quantities caught annually by Community vessels are more than twice 11 000 (i.e. 22 000) tonnes, the amount due for the quantity exceeding that limit shall be paid the following year.
   2.   Conversely, if the Parties agree to adopt a reduction in the fishing opportunities provided for in Article 1, the financial contribution shall be reduced proportionately and pro rata temporis.
   3.   The allocation of the fishing opportunities among different categories of vessels may also be reviewed, following consultations and by mutual agreement between the Parties, provided that any changes comply with recommendations made by the scientific meeting referred to in Article 3 regarding the management of stocks liable to be affected by such redistribution. The Parties shall agree on the corresponding adjustment of the financial contribution where the redistribution of fishing opportunities so warrants.
   Article 5
   New fishing opportunities
   1.   Should Community vessels be interested in fishing activities which are not indicated in Article 1, the Community shall consult Gabon in order to seek authorisation for these new activities. Where appropriate, the Parties shall agree on the conditions applicable to these new fishing opportunities and, if necessary, make amendments to this Protocol and to the Annex hereto.
   2.   The Parties shall encourage exploratory fishing, particularly as regards deep-sea species present in Gabonese waters. To this end, at the request of one of the Parties, they shall consult each other and determine on a case-by-case basis the relevant species, conditions and other parameters.
   The Parties shall carry out exploratory fishing in accordance with parameters that shall be agreed by both Parties in an administrative arrangement where appropriate. The authorisations for exploratory fishing should be agreed for a maximum period of six months. If the Parties conclude that the exploratory campaigns have achieved convincing results, the Gabonese Government may allocate fishing opportunities for the new species to the Community fleet, until the expiry of this Protocol. The financial compensation referred to in Article 2(1) of the current Protocol shall consequently be increased.
   Article 6
   Suspension and review of the payment of the financial contribution in the event of unusual circumstances
   1.   Where unusual circumstances, other than natural phenomena, prevent fishing activities in the Gabonese exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the European Community may suspend payment of the financial contribution provided for in Article 2(1). The suspension decision shall be taken following consultations between the two Parties within a period of two months following the request of one of the Parties, and provided that the Community has paid in full any amounts due at the time of suspension.
   2.   Payment of the financial contribution shall resume as soon as the Parties find, by mutual agreement following consultations, that the circumstances preventing fishing activities are no longer present and/or that the situation allows a resumption of fishing activities.
   3.   Where the validity of the licences granted to Community vessels is suspended along with the payment of the financial contribution, it shall be extended by a period equal to the period during which fishing activities were suspended.
   Article 7
   Promotion of responsible fishing in Gabonese waters
   1.   Sixty percent (60 %) of the total amount of the financial contribution fixed in Article 2 shall be allocated each year to the support and implementation of initiatives taken in the context of the sectoral fisheries policy drawn up by the Gabonese Government.
   Gabon shall manage the corresponding amount following the identification by mutual agreement between the two Parties, in accordance with the current priorities of Gabonese fisheries policy for ensuring sustainable and responsible management of the sector, of the objectives to be attained and the annual and multiannual programming required to attain them, pursuant to paragraph 2 below.
   2.   On a proposal from Gabon and for the purposes of the preceding paragraph, as soon as this Protocol enters into force and no later than three months after that date, the Community and Gabon shall agree, within the Joint Committee provided for in Article 9 of the Agreement, on a multiannual sectoral programme and detailed implementing rules covering, in particular:

               (a)

               annual and multiannual guidelines for using the percentage of the financial contribution referred to in paragraph 1 and its specific amounts for the initiatives to be carried out each year;

               (b)

               the objectives, both annual and multiannual, to be achieved with a view to promoting responsible fishing and sustainable fisheries, taking account of the priorities expressed by Gabon in its national fisheries policy and other policies relating to or having an impact on the introduction of responsible fishing and sustainable fisheries;

               (c)

               criteria and procedures for evaluating the results obtained each year.

         3.   Any proposed amendments to the multiannual sectoral programme or of the use of the specific amounts for the initiatives to be carried out each year must be approved by both Parties within the Joint Committee.
   4.   Each year, Gabon shall allocate the share corresponding to the percentage referred to in paragraph 1 with a view to implementing the multiannual programme. For the first year of application of the Protocol, that allocation must be notified to the Community at the time when the multiannual sectoral programme is approved within the Joint Committee. For each year of application of the Protocol thereafter, Gabon shall notify the Community of the allocation no later than 1 May of the previous year.
   5.   Where the annual evaluation of the progress made in implementing the multiannual sectoral programme so warrants, the European Community may ask for the financial contribution referred to in Article 2(1) of this Protocol to be readjusted with a view to bringing the actual amount of financial resources allocated to implementation of the programme into line with its results.
   Article 8
   Disputes — suspension of application of the Protocol
   1.   Any dispute between the Parties over the interpretation of this Protocol or its application shall be the subject of consultations between the Parties within the Joint Committee provided for in Article 9 of the Agreement, in a special meeting if necessary.
   2.   Without prejudice to Article 9, application of the Protocol may be suspended at the initiative of one Party if the dispute between the two Parties is deemed to be serious and if the consultations held within the Joint Committee under paragraph 1 have not resulted in an amicable settlement.
   3.   Suspension of application of the Protocol shall require the interested Party to notify its intention in writing at least three months before the date on which suspension is due to take effect.
   4.   In the event of suspension, the Parties shall continue to consult with a view to finding an amicable settlement to their dispute. As soon as an amicable settlement is reached, application of the Protocol shall resume and the amount of the financial contribution shall be reduced proportionately and pro rata temporis according to the period during which application of the Protocol was suspended.
   Article 9
   Suspension of application of the Protocol on grounds of non-payment
   Subject to Article 3, if the Community fails to make the payments provided for in Article 2, application of this Protocol may be suspended on the following terms:

               (a)

               the competent Gabonese authorities shall notify the European Commission of the non-payment. The latter shall carry out the requisite checks and, where necessary, transmit the payment within no more than 60 working days of the date of receipt of the notification;

               (b)

               if no payment is made and non-payment is not adequately justified within the period provided for in Article 2(5) of this Protocol, the competent Gabonese authorities shall be entitled to suspend application of the Protocol. They shall inform the European Commission of such action forthwith;

               (c)

               application of the Protocol shall resume as soon as the payment concerned has been made.

         Article 10
   National law
   The activities of Community vessels operating in Gabonese waters shall be governed by the applicable law in Gabon, unless otherwise provided in the Agreement, this Protocol and the Annex and Appendices hereto.
   Article 11
   Review clause
   During the fourth year of application of this Protocol, the Annex and the Appendices hereto, the Parties may review the provisions of the Protocol, the Annex and the Appendices and, where necessary, make amendments. These amendments may include the reference tonnage and the flat-rate advances paid by shipowners.
   Article 12
   Repeal
   The Annex to the Agreement between the European Community and Gabonese Republic on fishing off the coast of Gabon is hereby repealed and replaced by the Annex to this Protocol.
   Article 13
   Entry into force
   1.   This Protocol with its Annex shall enter into force on the date on which the Parties notify each other of the completion of the procedures necessary for that purpose.
   2.   It shall apply as from 3 December 2005.


title: 89/634/EEC: Council Decision of 6 November 1989 on the conclusion of an arrangement and a consensus with the United States of America concerning trade in certain steel products

text:
No L 368 / 96                           Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18 . 12 . 89
                                                                 II
                                          (Acts whose publication is not obligatory)
                                   COUNCIL AND COMMISSION
                                                    COUNCIL DECISION
                                                     of 6 November 1989
                 on the conclusion of an Arrangement and a Consensus with the United States of America
                                           concerning trade in certain steel products
                                                         ( 89 / 634 / EEC )
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,                              Arrangement and Consensus should be approved to the
                                                                       extent that they relate to products covered by the Treaty
                                                                       establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Economic Community , and in particular Article 113
thereof,                                                               HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :
        '      f
Having regard to the recommendation from the
Commission,                                                                                Article 1
                                                                       1 . The Arrangement and the Consensus with the United
Whereas, following the Council Decision of 6 October
                                                                       States of America concerning trade in certain steel products
1989 , the Commission opened negotiations with the
                                                                       are hereby approved on behalf of the European Economic
United States of America culminating in an Arrangement
and a Consensus concerning trade in certain steel
                                                                       Community , Jto the extent to which the Arrangement and
                                                                       the Consensus relate to products covered by the EEC
products;                                                              Treaty .
Whereas the Arrangement will make it possible to                       2 . The texts of the Arrangement and the . Consensus are
safeguard the essential interests of Community producers               attached to this Decision .
exporting the products in question to the United States
market;
                                                                                Article 2
Whereas the Consensus will provide a transition towards
the more liberal conditions in steel trade which will result           The President of the Council is hereby authorized to
from the general rules and disciplines of the GATT                     designate the person empowered to sign the Arrangement
negotiated in the Uruguay Round and reduce trade                       and the Consensus in order to bind the European
distorting practices in , and establish an open trading                Economic Community.
environment for , steel ;
                                                                       Done at Brussels, 6 November 1989 .
Whereas the Commission Decision , pursuant to the Treaty
establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, on                                                     For The Council
the conclusion of the Arrangement and the Consensus has                                                     The President
received the assent of the Council in accordance with that
Treaty;    whereas,       therefore, the    abovementioned                                                    R. DUMAS


Avis juridique important

|

32001D0790

2001/790/EC: Council Decision of 29 October 2001 on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters concerning the provisional application of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Democratic Republic of Madagascar on fishing off Madagascar for the period from 21 May 2001 to 20 May 2004

Official Journal L 296 , 14/11/2001 P. 0007 - 0008

Council Decisionof 29 October 2001on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters concerning the provisional application of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Democratic Republic of Madagascar on fishing off Madagascar for the period from 21 May 2001 to 20 May 2004(2001/790/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 300(2) thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,Whereas:(1) Under the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Democratic Republic of Madagascar on fishing off Madagascar(1), the two Parties conducted negotiations to determine the amendments or additions to be made to the Agreement at the end of the period of application of the Protocol to the Agreement.(2) As a result of those negotiations, a new Protocol was initialled on 12 March 2001.(3) Under this Protocol, Community fishermen enjoy fishing opportunities in the waters falling within the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Republic of Madagascar for the period from 21 May 2001 to 20 May 2004.(4) In order to ensure uninterrupted fishing activities by Community vessels, it is essential that the new Protocol be applied as quickly as possible. For this reason, the two Parties have initialled an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters providing for the provisional application of the initialled Protocol from 21 May 2001.(5) The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters should be approved, pending a definitive decision under Article 37 of the Treaty.(6) The method of allocating the fishing opportunities among the Member States should be defined on the basis of the traditional allocation of fishing opportunities under the Fisheries Agreement,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters concerning the provisional application of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Democratic Republic of Madagascar on fishing off Madagascar for the period from 21 May 2001 to 20 May 2004, is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.The texts of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters and of the Protocol are attached to this Decision.Article 2The fishing opportunities set out in the Protocol shall be allocated among the Member States as follows:>TABLE>If licence applications from these Member States do not cover all the fishing opportunities fixed by the Protocol, the Commission may take into consideration licence applications from any other Member State.Article 3The Member States whose vessels are fishing under this Protocol are obliged to notify the Commission of the quantities of each stock taken in the Malagasy fishing zone in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 500/2001 of 14 March 2001, laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 on the monitoring of catches taken by Community fishing vessels in third country waters and on the high seas(2).Article 4The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the persons empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community.Done at Luxembourg, 29 October 2001.For the CouncilThe PresidentM. Aelvoet(1) OJ L 73, 18.3.1986, p. 26.(2) OJ L 73, 15.3.2001, p. 8.


title: 2013/482/EU: Council Decision of 30 September 2013 on the position to be taken by the European Union within the Joint Committee set up by Article 11 of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs, as regards the adoption of the rules of procedure of the Joint Committee

text:
               5.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 263/1

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 30 September 2013
   on the position to be taken by the European Union within the Joint Committee set up by Article 11 of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs, as regards the adoption of the rules of procedure of the Joint Committee
   (2013/482/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs (1) (‘the Agreement’) entered into force on 1 April 2013.

               (2)

               Article 11 of the Agreement establishes a Joint Committee which is to, inter alia, ensure that the Agreement operates properly.

               (3)

               According to Article 11(2) of the Agreement, the Joint Committee determines its own rules of procedure.

               (4)

               The position of the Union within the Joint Committee, as regards the adoption of the rules of procedure of that Joint Committee, should be based on the attached draft Decision,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The position to be adopted by the Union within the Joint Committee set up by Article 11 of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs, as regards the adoption of the rules of procedure of that Joint Committee, shall be based on the draft Decision of the Joint Committee, attached to this Decision.
   Minor technical corrections to the draft Decision may be agreed to by the representatives of the Union in the Joint Committee without further decision of the Council.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 30 September 2013.

            For the Council

            The President

         L. LINKEVIČIUS

      (1)  OJ L 10, 15.1.2013, p. 3.

      DRAFT
      DECISION OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
      of …
      on the adoption of its Rules of Procedure
      THE JOINT COMMITTEE,
      Having regard to the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs, and in particular Article 11 thereof,
      Whereas that Agreement entered into force on 1 April 2013,
      HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
      Article 1
      Heads of Delegation
      1.   The European Union and the Republic of Moldova (‘the Parties’), shall each appoint a Head of Delegation who shall be the contact person for all matters relating to the Committee.
      2.   Each Head of Delegation may delegate all or any of the functions of Head of Delegation to a nominated deputy, in which case all references hereafter to the Head of Delegation apply equally to the nominated deputy.
      Article 2
      Chair
      1.   The office of Chair of the Committee shall be held alternately, for a period of one calendar year, by the Head of Delegation of each Party.
      2.   The Chair shall be responsible for the secretarial duties of the Committee.
      Article 3
      Meetings
      1.   The Chair shall fix the date and venue or, in the case of meetings by electronic means, the technical arrangements, of meetings in agreement with the other Head of Delegation. The Chair and the other Head of Delegation shall, in agreeing the time and place of the meeting, observe the requirement to hold a meeting within 90 days.
      2.   Where both Parties agree, Joint Committee meetings can be attended by experts that are able to supply requested specific information.
      3.   Unless otherwise jointly agreed, the meetings of the Committee shall not be public.
      Article 4
      Correspondence
      1.   All correspondence to or for the Committee shall be sent to the Chair of the Committee. The latter shall send a copy of all correspondence relating to the Committee to the other Head of Delegation, to the Head of the Moldovan Mission in Brussels and to the Head of the Delegation of the EU in Chisinau.
      2.   Correspondence between the Chair and the other Head of Delegation may be by any written means, including electronic mail.
      Article 5
      Agendas for the meetings
      1.   The Chair shall draw up the draft agenda prior to a meeting. The draft agenda shall be sent to the other Head of Delegation no later than 20 working days before the start of the meeting. The draft agenda circulated by the Chair shall include any item covered by Article 11(3) of the Agreement, chosen by the Chair.
      2.   The Heads of Delegation may request additional items covered by Article 11(3) at least 10 working days before the start of the meeting, which the Chair must include on the draft agenda.
      3.   A final draft agenda shall be circulated to the other Head of Delegation by the Chair at least five working days before the start of the meeting.
      4.   The agenda shall be adopted by joint agreement by the Chair and the other Head of Delegation at the start of each meeting. An item other than those appearing on the draft agenda may be placed on the agenda if the Chair and other Head of Delegation so agree.
      Article 6
      Adoption of instruments
      1.   The decisions of the Committee within the meaning of Article 11(2) of the Agreement shall be addressed to the Parties and shall bear the signatures of the Chair and of the other Head of Delegation.
      2.   Either Party may decide to publish any decision adopted by the Committee.
      Article 7
      Written procedure
      1.   A decision of the Committee may be adopted by a written procedure where the Chair and the other Head of Delegation so agree.
      2.   The Head of Delegation proposing the use of the written procedure shall submit the draft decision to the other Head of Delegation. The other Head of Delegation shall reply, indicating whether he or she accepts or does not accept the draft, proposes any amendments, or requests further time for reflection. If the draft is adopted, it shall be finalised in accordance with Article 6(1).
      Article 8
      Minutes
      1.   The Chair shall draw up draft minutes of each meeting and submit them to the other Head of Delegation within 20 working days of the meeting. The draft minutes shall state the recommendations made and may also note any other conclusions reached. The other Head of Delegation shall agree to the draft, or submit proposed amendments. Once there is agreement on the draft minutes, two original copies shall be signed by the Chair and by the other Head of Delegation. An original copy of the minutes shall be kept by the Chair and one by the other Head of Delegation.
      2.   In the event there is no agreement on the minutes before the subsequent meeting is convened, the minutes shall record the draft drawn up by the Chair to which shall be annexed the proposed amendments submitted by the other Head of Delegation.
      Article 9
      Expenses
      Each Party shall bear the expenses it incurs in taking part in the meetings of the Committee.
      Article 10
      Confidentiality
      The deliberations of the Committee shall be confidential.


Avis juridique important

|

31998D0232

98/232/CFSP: Council Decision of 16 March 1998 amending Decision 94/942/CFSP on the joint action adopted by the Council on the basis of Article J.3 of the Treaty on European Union concerning the control of exports of dual-use goods

Official Journal L 092 , 25/03/1998 P. 0001 - 0003

COUNCIL DECISION of 16 March 1998 amending Decision 94/942/CFSP on the joint action adopted by the Council on the basis of Article J.3 of the Treaty on European Union concerning the control of exports of dual-use goods (98/232/CFSP)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article J.3 thereof,Having regard to the general guidelines given by the European Council at Lisbon on 26 and 27 June 1992,Having regard to Decision 94/942/CFSP (1),Whereas Annex I to Decision 94/942/CFSP should be updated in order to take into account developments in the Wassenaar Arrangement and in the Nuclear Suppliers' Group,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The list of dual-use goods in Annex I to Decision 94/942/CFSP, referred to in Article 2 of that Decision and in Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 3381/94 of 19 December 1994 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use goods (2), shall be amended in accordance with the Annex hereto.Article 2This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal.Article 3This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication.It shall apply from the thirtieth day following the date of its publication.Done at Brussels, 16 March 1998.For the CouncilThe PresidentJ. CUNNINGHAM(1) OJ L 367, 31.12.1994, p. 8. Decision as last amended by Decision 98/106/CFSP (OJ L 32, 6.2.1998, p. 1).(2) OJ L 367, 31.12.1994, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 837/95 (OJ L 90, 21.4.1995, p. 1).ANNEX The list of dual-use goods in Annex I to Decision 94/942/CFSP, as last amended by Decision 98/106/CFSP, shall be amended as follows:1. Under the heading 'Definitions of terms in this Annex`:- the following definition is inserted between 'camming` and 'CE`:'Carbon fibre preforms` (1) means an ordered arrangement of uncoated or coated fibres intended to constitute a framework of a part before the 'matrix` is introduced to form a 'composite`.;- for the definition 'personalized smart card` the following is substituted:'Personalized smart card` (5) means a smart card containing a microcircuit which has been programmed for a specific application and cannot be reprogrammed for any other application by the user.2. Under the heading 'Category 0 - Nuclear materials, facilities and equipment` the following is amended:0C004For this entry, substitute the following:'>TABLE>'3. Under 'Category 2 - Materials processing`:2B002This entry is deleted.4. Under 'Category 4 - Computers`:4A003.bThe words 'exceeding 710 million` are replaced by 'exceeding 2000 million`.5. Under 'Category 9 - Propulsion systems, space vehicles and related equipment`:9A003The words 'for gas turbine engine propulsion systems, as follows:` are replaced by 'for the following gas turbine engine propulsion systems:`.9D001The words '"Software" required for the` are replaced by '"Software" specially designed or modified for the`.9D002The words '"Software" required for the` are replaced by '"Software" specially designed or modified for the`.9D003The words '"Software" required for the` are replaced by '"Software" specially designed or modified for the`.


title: EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 93/16/COL of 11 May 2016 EFTA Surveillance Authority Recommendation on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with the Act referred to at point 5cl of Annex XI to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services), as adapted by Protocol 1 thereto and by the sectoral adaptations contained in Annex XI to that Agreement [2017/608]

text:
               30.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 84/7

         EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION
   No 93/16/COL
   of 11 May 2016
   EFTA Surveillance Authority Recommendation on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with the Act referred to at point 5cl of Annex XI to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services), as adapted by Protocol 1 thereto and by the sectoral adaptations contained in Annex XI to that Agreement [2017/608]
   THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY (1),
   Having regard to the Act referred to at point 5cl of Annex XI to the EEA Agreement, Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services
       (2) (hereinafter the Framework Directive), as adapted by Protocol 1 thereto and by the sectoral adaptations contained in Annex XI to that Agreement, and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,
   Having regard to the Authority's Recommendation of 5 November 2008 on relevant markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation (3) (hereinafter the Authority's 2008 Recommendation) and the Authority's guidelines on market analysis and assessment of significant market power (4),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 9 October 2014, the European Commission (hereinafter the Commission) issued Recommendation 2014/710/EU (5) on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with the Framework Directive.

               (2)

               The starting point for the revision of the Authority's Recommendation on relevant markets is the Recommendation 2014/710/EU. In its revision process, the Authority has taken the approach that the comparison of market developments should be carried out against an EEA benchmark and not just taking into account the market situation within the individual EFTA States.

               (3)

               On the basis of market developments in the EFTA States it seems that, in general, the functioning of electronic communications markets in the three EFTA States is not likely to deviate to a larger extent (than is the case in individual EU Member States) from the average functioning of the markets in the European Union or in the whole of the EEA.

               (4)

               The objective of the EEA Agreement is to establish a dynamic and homogenous European Economic Area based on common rules and equal conditions of competition (6). In light of this objective and the considerations above, the Authority adopts a Recommendation aligned to the Recommendation 2014/710/EU in order to ensure a uniform application of the common regulatory framework and legal certainty for stakeholders within the electronic communications markets in the EEA.

               (5)

               The Framework Directive establishes a legislative framework for the electronic communications sector that seeks, inter alia, to respond to convergence trends by covering all electronic communications networks and services within its scope. The aim of the regulatory framework is, inter alia, to reduce ex ante sector-specific regulation progressively as competition in markets develops and, ultimately, for electronic communications to be governed by competition law only.

               (6)

               Article 15 of the Framework Directive provides that the Authority shall, after public consultation and consultation with the national regulatory authorities (‘NRAs’) in the EFTA States, adopt a recommendation on relevant product and service markets.

               (7)

               In line with this aim, the purpose of this Recommendation is to identify those product and service markets in which ex ante regulation may be warranted in accordance with Article 15(1) of the Framework Directive. The objective of any ex ante regulatory intervention is ultimately to produce benefits for end-users by making retail markets effectively competitive on a sustainable basis. It is likely that NRAs will gradually be able to find retail markets to be competitive even in the absence of wholesale regulation, especially taking into account expected improvements in innovation and competition.

               (8)

               The definition of relevant markets may change over time as the characteristics of products and services may evolve and the possibilities for demand and supply substitution may change. With the Authority's 2008 Recommendation having been in force for more than 7 years, it is now appropriate to revise it on the basis of market developments that have occurred since its adoption. Hence, this Recommendation replaces the Authority's 2008 Recommendation and provides guidance to NRAs for forthcoming market reviews.

               (9)

               Article 15(1) of the Framework Directive requires the Authority to identify markets within the electronic communications sector the characteristics of which may be such as to justify the imposition of regulatory obligations in accordance with the principles of competition law. Competition law principles are therefore used in this Recommendation to define product markets in the electronic communications sector.

               (10)

               In accordance with Article 15(3) of the Framework Directive, it is for NRAs to define, in accordance with competition law and taking the utmost account of this Recommendation, relevant markets appropriate to national circumstances, in particular relevant geographic markets within their territory.

               (11)

               In accordance with Article 16(3) of the Framework Directive, ex ante regulatory obligations are only imposed in markets that are not effectively competitive. As explained in recital 27 of the Directive, these are markets where there are one or more undertakings with significant market power (‘SMP’) and where national and EEA competition law remedies alone are not sufficient to address the competition problem identified. Furthermore, an analysis of effective competition should include an analysis as to whether the market is prospectively competitive, and thus whether any lack of effective competition is durable.

               (12)

               For both the Authority and the NRAs the starting point for the identification of wholesale markets susceptible to ex ante regulation is the analysis of corresponding retail markets. This retail analysis is done by taking into account demand-side and, where appropriate, supply-side substitutability from a forward-looking perspective over a given time horizon. When defining relevant markets in accordance with Article 15(3) of the Framework Directive, NRAs should identify a geographic area where the conditions of competition are similar or sufficiently homogeneous and which can be distinguished from neighbouring areas in which the prevailing conditions of competition are appreciably different, having particular regard to the question whether the potential SMP operator acts uniformly across its network area or whether it faces appreciably different conditions of competition to a degree that its activities are constrained in some areas but not in others.

               (13)

               It should be assessed whether retail markets are effectively competitive from a forward-looking perspective in the absence of regulation based on a finding of SMP. On the other hand, the analysis should take into account the effects of other types of regulation applicable to the relevant retail and related wholesale market(s) throughout the relevant period.

               (14)

               When carrying out a market analysis under Article 16 of the Framework Directive, the assessment of a market should be done from a forward-looking perspective, starting from existing market conditions. The analysis should assess whether the market is prospectively competitive and whether any lack of competition is durable, by taking into account expected or foreseeable market developments (7).

               (15)

               If the retail market concerned is not effectively competitive from a forward-looking perspective in the absence of ex ante regulation, the corresponding wholesale market(s) susceptible to ex ante regulation in line with Article 16 of the Framework Directive should be assessed. When analysing the boundaries and market power within (a) corresponding relevant wholesale market(s) to determine whether it is/they are effectively competitive, direct and indirect competitive constraints should be taken into account, irrespective of whether these constraints result from electronic communications networks, electronic communications services or other types of services or applications that are comparable from the end-users' perspective (8). On the other hand, if the retail market concerned is effectively competitive from a forward-looking perspective in the absence of ex ante wholesale regulation on the corresponding relevant market(s), this should lead the NRA to conclude that regulation is no longer needed at wholesale level. In such a case, the corresponding relevant wholesale market(s) should be assessed with a view to withdrawing ex ante regulation. Where wholesale markets are vertically linked in the supply chain, the wholesale market to be analysed first is the one that is most upstream from the retail market in question.

               (16)

               The wholesale markets listed in the Annex may have such characteristics as to justify ex ante regulation because overall they meet the following three cumulative criteria, which have also been used to identify markets susceptible to ex ante regulation in the previous versions of the Recommendation. The first criterion is the presence of high and non-transitory barriers to entry. However, given the dynamic character and functioning of electronic communications markets, possibilities to overcome barriers to entry within the relevant time horizon should also be taken into consideration when carrying out a prospective analysis to identify the relevant markets for possible ex ante regulation. The second criterion addresses whether a market structure tends towards effective competition within a relevant time horizon. The application of this criterion involves examining the state of infrastructure-based and other competition behind the barriers to entry. The third criterion is that the application of competition law alone would not adequately address the market failure(s) concerned. The main indicators to be considered when assessing the first and second criteria are similar to those examined as part of a forward-looking market analysis to determine the presence of SMP. In particular, indicators of barriers to entry in the absence of regulation (including the extent of sunk costs), market structure, market performance and market dynamics, including indicators such as market shares and trends, market prices and trends, and the extent and coverage of competing networks or infrastructures.

               (17)

               As far as the first criterion is concerned, two types of barriers to entry are relevant for the purpose of this Recommendation: structural barriers and legal or regulatory barriers. Structural barriers to entry result from original cost or demand conditions that create asymmetric conditions between incumbents and new entrants impeding or preventing market entry of the latter. For instance, high structural barriers may be found to exist when the market is characterised by absolute cost advantages, substantial economies of scale and/or economies of scope, capacity constraints and high sunk costs. A related structural barrier can also exist where the provision of service requires a network component that cannot be technically duplicated or only duplicated at a cost that makes it uneconomic for competitors.

               (18)

               Legal or regulatory barriers are not based on economic conditions, but result from legislative, administrative or other measures that have a direct effect on the conditions of entry and/or the positioning of operators in the relevant market. An example of a legal or regulatory barrier impeding or preventing entry into a market is a limit on the number of undertakings that have access to spectrum for the provision of underlying services. Other examples of legal or regulatory barriers are price controls or other price-related measures imposed on undertakings, which affect not only entry but also the positioning of undertakings on the market. Legal or regulatory barriers that are likely to be removed within the relevant time horizon should not normally be deemed to constitute a barrier to entry such as to fulfil the first criterion.

               (19)

               Barriers to entry may also become less relevant with regard to innovation-driven markets characterised by ongoing technological progress. In such markets, competitive constraints often come from innovative threats from potential competitors that are not currently in the market. In innovation-driven markets, dynamic or longer-term competition can take place among firms that are not necessarily competitors in an existing ‘static’ market. This Recommendation identifies markets where barriers to entry are expected to persist over a foreseeable period. In assessing whether barriers to entry are likely to persist in the absence of regulation, it is necessary to examine whether the industry has experienced frequent and successful entry and whether entry has been or is likely in the future to be sufficiently immediate and persistent to limit market power. The relevance of barriers to entry will depend, inter alia, on the minimum efficient scale of output and the costs which are sunk.

               (20)

               Even when a market is characterised by high barriers to entry, other structural factors in that market may entail that the market still tends towards becoming effectively competitive within a relevant time horizon. A tendency towards effective competition, under the second criterion, implies that the market will either reach the status of effective competition absent ex ante regulation within the period of review, or will do so after that period provided clear evidence of positive dynamics in the market is available within the period of review. Market dynamics may, for instance, be caused by technological developments, or by the convergence of products and markets which may give rise to competitive constraints being exercised between operators active in distinct product markets. This may also be the case in markets with a limited — but sufficient — number of undertakings having diverging cost structures and facing price-elastic market demand. There may also be excess capacity in a market that would normally allow rival firms to expand output very rapidly in response to any price increase. In such markets, market shares may change over time and/or decreasing prices may be observed.

               (21)

               The third criterion serves to assess the adequacy of corrective measures that can be imposed under competition law to tackle identified persistent market failure(s), in particular given that ex ante regulatory obligations may effectively prevent competition law infringements. Competition law interventions are likely to be insufficient where, for instance, the compliance requirements of an intervention to redress persistent market failure(s) are extensive or where frequent and/or timely intervention is indispensable. Thus, ex ante regulation should be considered an appropriate complement to competition law when competition law alone would not adequately address persistent market failure(s) identified.

               (22)

               The application of these three cumulative criteria should limit the number of markets within the electronic communications sector where ex ante regulatory obligations are imposed and thereby contribute to one of the aims of the regulatory framework, namely to reduce ex ante sector-specific rules progressively as competition in the markets develops. Failure to meet any one of the three criteria would indicate that a market should not be identified as susceptible to ex ante regulation.

               (23)

                  Ex ante regulation imposed at the wholesale level should be considered sufficient to tackle potential competition problems on the related downstream market(s). A downstream market should only be subject to ex ante regulation if competition on that market still exhibits SMP despite the presence of ex ante regulation on the related upstream wholesale market(s). Given the advances in competition that have been achieved thanks to regulation, this Recommendation identifies only relevant markets at the wholesale level. It is believed that their regulation can address a lack of effective competition at the wholesale level, which in turn is the cause of identified market failures in the related retail markets. Should an NRA nonetheless demonstrate that wholesale interventions have been unsuccessful, the relevant retail market may be susceptible to ex ante regulation provided that the NRA has found that the three-criteria test prescribed in this Recommendation is met.

               (24)

               The markets listed in the Annex have been identified on the basis of the above-mentioned three cumulative criteria. The NRAs should start from a presumption that, in these markets, the three criteria are met. If, however, an NRA concludes that, absent regulation at the wholesale level, the retail market(s) as defined display(s) sustainable competition, it should also conclude that ex ante regulation is no longer needed at the wholesale level.

               (25)

               For the markets listed in the Annex, an NRA may still consider it appropriate, on the basis of specific national circumstances, to conduct its own three-criteria test. An NRA may conclude that the three-criteria test is or is not met in the national circumstances. If the three-criteria test is not met for a specific market listed in the Recommendation, the NRA should not impose regulatory obligations on that market.

               (26)

               NRAs may identify other markets than those listed in this Recommendation and apply the three-criteria test. In particular, if NRAs, having concluded that a retail market is not effectively competitive absent ex ante regulation, intend to regulate the corresponding wholesale market(s), and this/these market(s) is/are not listed in the Recommendation, they should always conduct the three-criteria test. In such a case, the wholesale market to be analysed first is the one that is most upstream from the retail market in question in the vertical supply chain. An NRA should conduct a gradual analysis of the markets that are situated downstream from a regulated upstream input, to determine whether they would be effectively competitive in the presence of regulation upstream, until it reaches the retail market(s).

               (27)

               NRAs should also apply the three-criteria test to those markets listed in the Annex to the Authority's Recommendation of 14 July 2004 on relevant markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation (9) and to the Authority's 2008 Recommendation which are no longer listed in the Annex to this Recommendation if they are currently regulated in the light of national circumstances, in order to assess whether, on the basis of such national circumstances, such markets are still susceptible to ex ante regulation.

               (28)

               Newly-emerging markets should not be subject to inappropriate ex ante regulatory obligations, even if there is a first-mover advantage, in accordance with the Framework Directive. Newly-emerging markets are considered to comprise products or services where, due to their novelty, it is very difficult to predict demand conditions or market entry and supply conditions, and consequently difficult to apply the three-criteria test. The purpose of not subjecting newly-emerging markets to inappropriate ex ante regulatory obligations is to promote innovation as required by Article 8 of the Framework Directive; at the same time, foreclosure of such markets by the leading undertaking should be prevented, as also indicated in the Authority's guidelines on market analysis and the assessment of SMP (10). Incremental upgrades to existing network infrastructure rarely lead to a new or emerging market. The lack of substitutability of a product has to be established from both demand- and supply-side perspectives before it can be concluded that it is not part of an already existing market. The emergence of new retail services may give rise to a new derived wholesale market to the extent that such retail services cannot be provided using existing wholesale products.

               (29)

               NRAs shall make accessible to the Authority and to the other EEA NRAs the results of the application of the three-criteria test carried out in accordance with this Recommendation and falling within the scope of Article 7(3) of the Framework Directive. Failure to notify a draft measure which affects trade between the EFTA States as described in recital 38 of the Framework Directive may result in infringement proceedings being taken against the EFTA State concerned.

               (30)

               The markets listed in the Annex to the Recommendation no longer include two markets that were listed in the Authority's 2008 Recommendation (markets 1 and 2) as they no longer fulfil the three-criteria test. As there may be a degree of variation across the EFTA States in the pace of the expected or foreseeable market developments which underlie this finding at EEA level, specific national circumstances may justify that an NRA could find that market 1 of the Authority's 2008 Recommendation or other retail markets related to market 2 of the Authority's 2008 Recommendation are not yet effectively competitive from a forward-looking perspective absent appropriate and proportionate wholesale remedies. NRAs could thus justify continuing ex ante regulatory intervention at wholesale level provided that the three-criteria test is satisfied in the national circumstances for the subsequent review period. The remaining markets of the Authority's 2008 Recommendation still warrant ex ante regulation, although the boundaries of markets 4, 5 and 6 of the Authority's 2008 Recommendation are redefined. NRAs take into account their national circumstances when delineating these markets.

               (31)

               This Recommendation has been subject to a public consultation and consultation with NRAs and other national authorities in the EFTA States (11).

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:

               1.

               In defining relevant markets appropriate to national circumstances in accordance with Article 15(3) of the Framework Directive, NRAs should analyse the product and service markets identified in the Annex.

               2.

               When identifying markets other than those set out in the Annex, NRAs should demonstrate, and the Authority will verify, that the following three criteria are cumulatively met:

                           a)

                           the presence of high and non-transitory structural, legal or regulatory barriers to entry;

                           b)

                           a market structure which does not tend towards effective competition within the relevant time horizon, having regard to the state of infrastructure-based and other competition behind the barriers to entry;

                           c)

                           competition law alone is insufficient to adequately address the identified market failure(s).

               3.

               When considering that any of the markets set out in the Annex is not susceptible to ex ante regulation in the specific national circumstances, NRAs should demonstrate, and the Authority will verify, that at least one of the three criteria set out in point 2 is not met.

               4.

               NRAs should consider all relevant competitive constraints, irrespective of whether the sources of such constraints are deemed to be electronic communications networks, electronic communications services, or other types of services or applications which are comparable from the perspective of the end-user.

               5.

               This Recommendation is without prejudice to market definitions, results of market analyses and regulatory obligations adopted by NRAs in accordance with Articles 15(3) and 16 of the Framework Directive prior to the date of adoption of this Recommendation.

               6.

               This Recommendation is addressed to the EFTA States.

      Done at Brussels, 11 May 2016.

            For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

         Sven Erik SVEDMAN

            President

         Frank BÜCHEL

            College Member

      (1)  Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’.

      (2)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33.

      (3)  EFTA Surveillance Authority Recommendation of 5 November 2008 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with the Act referred to at point 5cl of Annex XI to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services), as adapted by Protocol 1 thereto and by the sectoral adaptions contained in Annex XI to that Agreement (OJ C 156, 9.7.2009, p. 18 and EEA Supplement No 36, 9.7.2009, p. 1).

      (4)  The EFTA Surveillance Authority's Guidelines of 14 July 2004 on market analysis and the assessment of significant market power under the regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services referred to in Annex XI of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (OJ C 101, 27.4.2006, p. 1 and EEA Supplement No 21, 27.4.2006, p. 1), hereinafter referred to as the ‘Authority's guidelines on market analysis and the assessment of SMP’.

      (5)  Commission Recommendation 2014/710/EU of 9 October 2014 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (OJ L 295, 11.10.2014, p. 79).

      (6)  4th consideration in the Preamble to the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

      (7)  Point 20 of the Authority's Guidelines on market analysis and the assessment of SMP. See footnote 4 above.

      (8)  Such as, for instance, over-the-top (‘OTT’) services which, although today may not be considered as direct substitutes to services provided by electronic communications service providers, technological developments are likely to result in their continuous expansion in the coming years.

      (9)  EFTA Surveillance Authority Recommendation of 14 July 2004 on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with the Act referred to at point 5cl of Annex XI to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services), as incorporated into the Agreement on the European Economic Area, adopted by Decision 194/04/COL.

      (10)  See footnote 4 above.

      (11)  The consultation took place between 4 February and 18 March 2016.

      ANNEX

                  Market 1

                  :

                  Wholesale call termination on individual public telephone networks provided at a fixed location

                  Market 2

                  :

                  Wholesale voice call termination on individual mobile networks

                  Market 3

                  :

                              (a)

                              Wholesale local access provided at a fixed location

                              (b)

                              Wholesale central access provided at a fixed location for mass-market products

                  Market 4

                  :

                  Wholesale high-quality access provided at a fixed location


title: Political and Security Committee Decision EUJUST LEX/1/2006 of  13 June 2006  extending the mandate of the Head of Mission for the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX

text:
               30.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 176/111

      POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUJUST LEX/1/2006
   of 13 June 2006
   extending the mandate of the Head of Mission for the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX
   (2006/449/CFSP)
   THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular the third paragraph of Article 25 thereof,
   Having regard to Council Joint Action 2005/190/CFSP of 7 March 2005 on the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX (1), and in particular Article 11(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Article 9(1) of Joint Action 2005/190/CFSP provides that the Council authorises the Political and Security Committee to take the relevant decisions in accordance with Article 25 of the Treaty, including the decision to appoint, upon a proposal by the Secretary-General/High Representative, a Head of Mission.

               (2)

               On 8 March 2005, the Political and Security Committee adopted Decision EUJUST LEX 1/2005 (2) appointing Mr Stephen WHITE as Head of Mission of the Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX. That Decision expires on 30 June 2006.

               (3)

               On 12 June 2006, the Council adopted Joint Action 2006/413/CFSP, extending the Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX, for a further period of 18 months.

               (4)

               The Secretary-General/High Representative has proposed the extension of the mandate of Mr Stephen WHITE as Head of Mission of the Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX, until the end of the Mission.

               (5)

               The mandate of Mr Stephen WHITE as Head of Mission of the Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX, should therefore be extended until the end of the Mission,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The mandate of Mr Stephen WHITE as Head of Mission of the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX, is hereby extended until the end of the Mission.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.
   It shall apply until the end of the European Union Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq, EUJUST LEX.

      Done at Brussels, 13 June 2006.

            For the Political and Security Committee

            The President

         F. J. KUGLITSCH

      (1)  OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 37. Joint Action as amended and extended by Joint Action 2006/413/CFSP (OJ L 163, 15.6.2006, p. 17).

      (2)  OJ L 72, 18.3.2005, p. 29.


Avis juridique important

|

31999D0481

1999/481/CFSP: Council Decision of 19 July 1999 amending Common Position 96/184/CFSP concerning arms exports to the former Yugoslavia

Official Journal L 188 , 21/07/1999 P. 0003 - 0003

COUNCIL DECISIONof 19 July 1999amending Common Position 96/184/CFSP concerning arms exports to the former Yugoslavia(1999/481/CFSP)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15 thereof,Whereas:(1) On 26 February 1996 the Council adopted Common Position 96/184/CFSP concerning arms exports to the former Yugoslavia(1), which was amended by Council Decision 98/498/CFSP(2);(2) This Common Position should be updated in the light of changes in the international military presence in Bosnia, in particular the deployment of the Stabilisation Forces (SFOR);(3) In order to pursue pacification and stabilisation in Bosnia and Herzegovina transfers of small arms to the police forces should not be subject to the embargo,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1Common Position 96/184/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:1. Point 2(i) shall be replaced by the following: "(i) during the period of the deployment of SFOR, as well as other operations including IPTF, the EU embargo on arms, munitions and military equipment(3) will be maintained towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.Transfers of equipment needed for demining activities and transfers of small arms to the police forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina are not covered by this embargo. States will inform the Council of those transfers;"2. Point 3 shall be replaced by the following: "3. This Common Position shall be re-examined before the end of the deployment of SFOR."Article 2This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.Article 3This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal.Done at Brussels, 19 July 1999.For the CouncilThe PresidentT. HALONEN(1) OJ L 58, 7.3.1996, p. 1.(2) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 1.(3) The abovementioned embargo covers weapons designed to kill and their ammunition, weapons platforms, non-weapons platforms and ancillary equipment as listed in the EC embargo list of 8 and 9 July 1991. The embargo also covers spare parts, repairs, transfer of military technology and contracts entered into prior to the onset of the embargo.


title: 2012/606/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2012 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010

text:
               17.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 286/313

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 10 May 2012
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010
   (2012/606/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010, together with the replies of the Joint Undertaking (1),

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 21 February 2012 (06086/2012 - C7-0050/2012),

               —

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

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 71/2008 of 20 December 2007 setting up the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (3), and in particular Article 11(4) thereof,

               —

               having regard to the Financial Rules of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking adopted by Decision of its Governing Board on 7 November 2008,

               —

               having regard to Opinion No 2/2011 on the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking’s Financial Rules, delivered by the Court of Auditors on 8 February 2011,

               —

               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 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0115/2012),

               1.

               Grants the Executive Director of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking discharge in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2010;

               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 the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

            The President

         Martin SCHULZ

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ C 368, 16.12.2011, p. 8.

      (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 30, 4.2.2008, p. 1.

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

               17.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 286/314

         RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 10 May 2012
   with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010, together with the replies of the Joint Undertaking (1),

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 21 February 2012 (06086/2012 - C7-0050/2012),

               —

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

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 71/2008 of 20 December 2007 setting up the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (3), and in particular Article 11(4) thereof,

               —

               having regard to the Financial Rules of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking adopted by Decision of its Governing Board on 7 November 2008,

               —

               having regard to Opinion No 2/2011 on the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking’s Financial Rules, delivered by the Court of Auditors on 8 February 2011,

               —

               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 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0115/2012),

               A.

               whereas the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (‘the Joint Undertaking’) was set up in December 2007 for a period of 10 years to accelerate the development, validation and demonstration of clean air transport technologies in the Union for earliest possible deployment,

               B.

               whereas the Joint Undertaking started to work autonomously in November 2009,

               C.

               whereas the Court of Auditors states that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the Joint Undertaking’s annual accounts for the financial year 2010 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular,

               D.

               whereas the maximum contribution for the period of 10 years from the Union to the Joint Undertaking is EUR 800 000 000 to be paid from the budget of the Seventh Research Framework Programme,

               E.

               whereas the budget of the Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010 amounted to EUR 168 553 053,

      Budget and Financial Management

               1.

               Notes that the structure and presentation of the Joint Undertaking’s 2010 budget were not in line with the requirements of its founding Regulation (EC) No 71/2008 nor with its Financial Rules; understands from the Joint Undertaking that the structure and presentation of the budget have been adapted in the 2011 budget; calls on the Court of Auditors to assure the discharge authority that the structure and presentation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget are now fully in line with its Founding Regulation (EC) No 71/2008 and its Financial Rules;

               2.

               Acknowledges that the Joint Undertaking’s final budget included commitment appropriations of EUR 168 000 000 and payment appropriations of EUR 129 000 000;

               3.

               Highlights from the final annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking that while the utilisation rate for commitment appropriations was 96 %, the rate for payment appropriations was only 58 %; notes with concern that it reflects the significant delays in the implementation of the activities as compared with the initial plan;

               4.

               Is concerned about the low implementation of the budget of the Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010 and regrets the EUR 53 000 000 cash balance, at the end of the year representing 41 % of the available payment appropriations;

      Internal Control Systems

               5.

               Notes from the Court of Auditors that the Joint Undertaking has not completely implemented its internal controls and financial information systems during 2010 and that further work is needed on the ex-ante control procedures applied for the validation of cost claims; urges the Joint Undertaking to implement the necessary measures for finalising its internal controls and financial information systems;

               6.

               Acknowledges from its 2010 Annual Activity Report (AAR) that the Joint Undertaking created a checklist for the Integrated Technology Demonstrators to improve the quality of the submitted cost claims and to clarify the reporting needs for certain aspects of claims;

               7.

               Recognises that the Joint Undertaking rejected cost claims in cases where a member or an associate did not submit the required audit certificate in accordance with the terms of reference of the grant agreements; notes in particular from the Final Account that in 2010 the Joint Undertaking has validated costs claimed by members for the execution of projects in 2008 and 2009 and that the assessment of the eligibility of certain costs resulted in the rejection of approximately 11 % of the expenses; notes with satisfaction that overpaid pre-financing was recovered by the Joint Undertaking;

               8.

               Notes that the Court of Auditors stated that, when validating the cost claims, the Joint Undertaking did not take into account exceptions included in the audit certificates in four cases; calls therefore on the Joint Undertaking to take into due account the exceptions included in the audit certificates when validating the underlying cost claims;

               9.

               Establishes from the AAR that the Joint Undertaking has developed an ex-post audit strategy which was adopted in December 2010; calls on the Joint Undertaking to inform the discharge authority about the level of implementation of the strategy and on the results achieved; asks the Court of Auditors, in addition, to evaluate the strategy and inform the discharge authority about its conclusions;

               10.

               Ascertains from the AAR that the Joint Undertaking, together with the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking and the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, launched the procurement procedure for ex-post audit services from external firms; notes that the first ex-post audits were to take place in the second quarter of 2011 following the signature of the contracts with the winning tenderers;

               11.

               Notes the Court of Auditors’ finding that the Joint Undertaking has an adequate level of IT governance and practice for its size and mission; stresses, however, that the formalisation of policies and procedures in strategic IT planning and monitoring cycle, security policies and rules, IT Risk management, Business Continuity Plan and Recovery Plan is lagging behind; calls on the Joint Undertaking to remedy the situation and provide the discharge authority with an up-to-date report on the matter;

               12.

               Takes note that the Joint Undertaking’s Accounting Officer validated the financial and accounting systems (ABAC and SAP); notes however that the underlying business processes were not validated, in particular the system providing financial information about the validation of the cost claims; calls on the Joint Undertaking to remedy the situation and provide the discharge authority with an up-to-date report on the matter;

               13.

               Welcomes the fact that the Joint Undertaking adopted a comprehensive strategic internal audit plan for the period 2010-2012; regrets, nevertheless, that some of the key processes, such as the ex-ante validation of the cost claims and the ex-post audits were not planned to start before 2011;

      Call for Proposals and Projects Negotiations

               14.

               Notes from the Joint Undertaking that it has launched five Calls in 2010; notices that the statistics related to these Calls, which were supposed to be included in Annex 6, are missing from the AAR; urges the Joint Undertaking to publish them;

               15.

               Acknowledges from the AAR that the Joint Undertaking invited three different observers in 2010 to ensure transparency in the evaluation process; notes from the Joint Undertaking that each of them had full access to all stages of the evaluation and to consensus meetings;

               16.

               Calls on the Joint Undertaking to inform the discharge authority about the verification mechanisms that it implements to ensure the full independence of experts and observers and therefore to mitigate the risks of conflicts of interest during the evaluation of tenders;

               17.

               Underlines that the Joint Undertaking mentioned in its AAR that the observers’ evaluation reports were available on its website; regrets however that this is not the case and calls therefore on the Joint Undertaking to publish these reports immediately;

      Protection of Intellectual Property

               18.

               Points out that, at the end of 2010, the Joint Undertaking had not yet completed the internal procedures to supervise the application of the provisions included in the consortium and grant agreements regarding the protection, use and dissemination of research results;

      Performance

               19.

               Notes that the first interim evaluation by the Commission of the Joint Undertaking took place at the end of 2010; acknowledges that the interim evaluation identified the following weaknesses:

                           —

                           the accumulation of significant delays compared to the initial plans due to difficulties in establishing the Joint Undertaking’s internal procedures and regulations as well as building up the teams,

                           —

                           delays of a technical nature identified by the ‘bottom-up’ work plan in June 2010,

                           —

                           the lack of preparedness, both at administrative and technical levels, when starting the Joint Undertaking;

               20.

               Observes that the first interim evaluation draw a list of 34 recommendations to the Joint Undertaking and a list of 8 recommendations to its Management Board; asks the Joint Undertaking to inform the discharge authority on the measures introduced following the results of this first interim evaluation;

      Internal Audit

               21.

               Takes note that the Joint Undertaking’s Financial Rules have not yet been amended to include a provision referring to the powers of the Commission’s internal auditor regarding the general budget as a whole;

               22.

               Notes however that the Commission and the Joint Undertaking have taken action to ensure that the respective operational roles of the Commission’s Internal Audit Service and the Joint Undertaking’s internal auditing function are clearly defined;

      Lack of Host State Agreement

               23.

               Reiterates that the Joint Undertaking should rapidly conclude a host agreement with Belgium concerning office accommodation, privileges and immunities and other support to be provided by Belgium to it as provided by its Founding Regulation (EC) No 71/2008; remarks the Joint Undertaking’s response that a draft of the Host state agreement has been submitted to the Belgian Government for approval.

      Horizontal Observations on the Joint Undertakings

               24.

               Underlines that seven Joint Undertakings have so far been established by the Commission under Article 187 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; notes that six Joint Undertakings (IMI, Artemis, ENIAC, Clean Sky, FCH and ITER-F4E) are in the research area under the Commission’s DGs RTD and INFSO and one is charged with developing the new air traffic management system (SESAR) in the transport domain whose activities are supervised by DG MOVE;

               25.

               Notes that the total indicative resources deemed necessary for the Joint Undertakings for their period of existence amounts to EUR 21 793 000 000;

               26.

               Notes that the total Union contribution deemed necessary for the Joint Undertakings for their period of existence amounts to EUR 11 489 000 000;

               27.

               Notes that, for the financial year 2010, the overall Union contribution to the budget of the Joint Undertakings amounted to EUR 505 000 000;

               28.

               Calls on the Commission to provide the discharge authority annually with consolidated information on the total annual funding per Joint Undertaking made from the general budget of the Union in order to ensure transparency and clarity on the use of the Union’s funds and restore trust among the European taxpayers;

               29.

               Welcomes the initiative of Artemis to include information in its AAR on the monitoring and review of its ongoing projects; believes this is a practice that should be followed by the other Joint Undertakings;

               30.

               Recalls that Joint Undertakings are public-private partnerships and that as a consequence public and private interests are intertwined; is of the opinion that under the circumstances the likelihood of conflicts of interest should not be dismissed but addressed properly; calls therefore on the Joint Undertakings to inform the discharge authority on the verification mechanisms which exist in their respective structures to enable a proper management and prevention of conflicts of interest;

               31.

               Notes, with the notable exception of the Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy, that Joint Undertakings are relatively small structures and geographically-concentrated; believes therefore that they should pool their resources where possible;

               32.

               Calls on the Court of Auditors to provide the discharge authority with a follow-up on the comments it has made for each of the Joint Undertakings in their respective report on the annual accounts for the financial year 2011;

               33.

               Invites the Court of Auditors to provide, within a reasonable deadline, a special report to Parliament, on the added value of the establishment of the Joint Undertakings for the efficient execution of Union research, technological development and demonstration programmes; further notes that the same report should include an assessment of the effectiveness of the Joint Undertakings’ establishment.

      (1)  OJ C 368, 16.12.2011, p. 8.

      (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 30, 4.2.2008, p. 1.

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


title: 2014/682/EU: Council Decision of 25 September 2014 appointing a Bulgarian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

text:
               30.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 284/47

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 25 September 2014
   appointing a Bulgarian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

      (2014/682/EU)

   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal of the BulgarianGovernment,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. On 10 July 2012, by Council Decision 2012/403/EU (3) Ms Kornelia MARINOVA was appointed as alternate member until 25 January 2015.

               (2)

               An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Kornelia MARINOVA,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The following is hereby appointed as alternate member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

               —

               Ms Madlena BOYADZHIEVA, Chair of the Municipal Council of the Municipality of Teteven.

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

      Done at Brussels, 25 September 2014.

            For the Council

            The President

         F. GUIDI

      (1)  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

      (2)  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.

      (3)  Council Decision 2012/403/EU of 10 July 2012 appointing six Bulgarian members and eight Bulgarian alternate members of the Committee of the Regions(OJ L 188, 18.7.2012, p. 16).


Avis juridique important

|

31987D0523

87/523/Euratom, ECSC, EEC: Council Decision of 19 October 1987 appointing members of the Court of Auditors

Official Journal L 304 , 27/10/1987 P. 0045 - 0045

*****COUNCIL  DECISION  of 19 October 1987  appointing members of the Court of Auditors  (87/523/Euratom, ECSC, EEC)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article 78e thereof,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 206 thereof,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 180 thereof,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities, and in particular Article 22 thereof,  Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),  Whereas the terms of office of Mr Angioi, Mr Botelheiro Moreno, Mr Brixtofte, Mr Gaudy, Mr Ryan and Mr Subirats Pinana, members of the Court of Auditors, expire on 17 October 1987;  Whereas new appointments should be made,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  The following are hereby appointed members of the Court of Auditors for the period from 18 October 1987 up to and including 17 October 1993:  Mr Angioi  Mr Botelheiro Moreno  Mr Brixtofte  Mr Hebette  Mr Ryan  Mr Subirats Pinana  Article 2  This Decision shall take effect on 18 October 1987.  Done at Luxembourg, 19 October 1987.  For the Council  The President  U. ELLEMANN-JENSEN  (1) Opinion delivered on 15 October 1987 (not yet published in the Official Journal).