title: Commission Decision (EU) 2015/120 of 29 October 2014 on the aid scheme SA.27317 (C 25/09) (ex N 673/08) which Italy is planning to implement for digital projection equipment (notified under document C(2014) 7888)  Text with EEA relevance

text:
               30.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 25/37

         COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2015/120
   of 29 October 2014
   on the aid scheme SA.27317 (C 25/09) (ex N 673/08) which Italy is planning to implement for digital projection equipment

         (notified under document C(2014) 7888)

   (Only the Italian text is authentic)
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,
   Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1) and having regard to their comments,
   Whereas:
   I.   PROCEDURE

               (1)

               On 30 December 2008 Italy notified the Commission of its intention to introduce tax incentives for film investment, film distribution and digital cinema. The Italian authorities submitted additional information on 2 April 2009 and 23 June 2009.

               (2)

               By letter dated 22 July 2009, the Commission informed Italy that it had decided to approve Italy's film investment and distribution tax incentives. At the same time, the Commission informed Italy that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of the proposed tax credit for investment in digital projection equipment.

               (3)

               The Commission's decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (2). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments.

               (4)

               A workshop on the subject was held jointly by the Italian Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the European Commission in Rome on 21 October 2009.

               (5)

               The Commission received comments from interested parties. It forwarded them to Italy, which was given the opportunity to react; the Italian authorities' observations were received on 19 January 2010. Further exchanges of information took place after that, including additional letters from the Italian authorities received on 7 September 2010, 12 April 2011, 1 June 2011, 1 December 2011, 10 May 2012, 14 September 2012, 23 April 2013, 6 December 2013, 18 April 2014, 11 June 2014 and 1 August 2014.

         II.   DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE

   1.   The notified measure

               (6)

               The tax credit for exhibitors installing digital projection equipment was part of a set of tax measures for the film sector introduced by the Italian authorities. Together, these tax measures were intended to stimulate the market dynamics to support Italian cultural films in an environment conducive to competition and to promote such films in Italy and Europe.

               (7)

               The digital cinema tax credit scheme offers a 30 % tax credit for the costs of introducing digital projection equipment. The maximum annual tax credit is capped at EUR 50 000 per screen.

               (8)

               The following costs may be eligible:

                           (a)

                           the purchase of digital projection and reproduction equipment;

                           (b)

                           the purchase of equipment and machinery for receiving digital signals via terrestrial and/or satellite transmission;

                           (c)

                           the purchase via financial lease or the rental of the equipment, systems and machinery referred to in the above points; the relevant contracts must include an obligation to purchase the assets on expiry of the lease, or a provision for the advance exercise of this option by the user company;

                           (d)

                           expenditure on staff training activities;

                           (e)

                           associated and ancillary expenditure for renovating and adapting projection booths, equipment and utilities and ancillary premises formerly used for 35 mm film projection.

                     The expenditure under the latter two points cannot constitute more than 20 % of the total expenditure incurred for points (a), (b) and (c).

               (9)

               According to the original notification of the Italian authorities, support would be unconditional for cinemas with between 1 and 4 screens and for multiplex cinemas with between 5 and 10 screens in towns with a population of 50 000 or less. For other multiplexes up to 24 screens, there would be an obligation to show cultural films for 50 % of the screenings and to convert at least 50 % of the screens to digital projection as a condition of the aid.

               (10)

               The tax credit applies to film companies which are liable for taxation in Italy.

               (11)

               The legal bases for the scheme are the following:

                           (a)

                           Law No 244 of 24 December 2007 laying down provisions for drawing up the annual and multiannual state budget (legge 24.12.2007 n.244);

                           (b)

                           Decree-Law No 91 of 8 August 2013, converted, with amendments, into Law No 112 of 7 October 2013 (decreto legge 8.8.2013, n.91, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 7 ottobre 2013, n.112);

                           (c)

                           new provisions implementing the tax credits granted to cinemas for the introduction and acquisition of digital projection equipment and machinery (Nuove disposizioni applicative dei crediti d'imposta concessi alle imprese di esercizio cinematografico per l'introduzione e acquisizione di impianti e apparecchiature destinate alla proiezione digitale).

         2.   Doubts raised by the Commission

               (12)

               The Commission considered in the opening decision that the measure constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. By offering tax incentives, the Italian State was foregoing certain revenues and therefore the scheme involved State resources. The scheme provided an economic advantage to certain undertakings, in this case cinema exhibitors. Given the international trade in films, this selective advantage might affect trade within the Union. The Commission doubted whether the aid could be considered compatible.

               (13)

               Firstly, the Commission doubted the necessity of the proposed digital cinema tax credit. It questioned the maximum tax credit (of EUR 50 000 per screen) proposed: at a tax rate of 30 %, this corresponded to a maximum eligible installation cost of EUR 166 667 per screen (EUR 50 000 × 100/30). This was higher than the estimated costs of digital projection equipment put forward by the Italian authorities, which was EUR 100 000. The Commission doubted whether the maximum tax credit should be so high and whether the conversion costs put forward were a fair estimate. On top of that, the Commission doubted that the installation of 2K (3) DCI-compliant (4) projection equipment was necessary to release Italian or European cultural films.

               (14)

               Secondly, it doubted the proportionality of the proposed aid measure. The Commission noted that larger cinemas were more likely to be able to afford digital projection equipment without public support. Moreover, the Commission noted the availability to exhibitors of commercial transition models, such as the virtual print fee (‘VPF’) models (5). It therefore raised the question whether public support on the proposed scale per screen would ‘crowd out’ commercial alternatives.

               (15)

               Thirdly, the Commission doubted that the proposed tax credit was an adequate aid measure. It noted that the estimated budget of the measure (EUR 16,8 million) corresponded to installation costs of EUR 56 million, which was significantly lower than the estimated costs of conversion (EUR 395,7 million on the basis of EUR 100 000 per screen). Next to the adequacy of the available funding, the Commission also questioned whether the proposed measure was sufficiently targeted to achieve the aim of increasing the circulation of cultural Italian and European films. It doubted that the Italian authorities would be able to ensure that digitally equipped exhibitors would introduce alternative commercial models that would offer Italian cinema audiences a wider choice of cultural films. As the use of a tax credit required that a beneficiary must have sufficient tax liabilities and as the measure implied a 70 % investment by the exhibitor, the Commission doubted whether the cinemas most in need of the aid would be able to take advantage of it. The Commission moreover had doubts that the one-off support envisaged (the notification announced a pilot measure of two years) would provide a sustainable solution to the expected shorter lifespan and increased running costs associated with the installation of digital equipment.

               (16)

               Fourthly, the Commission raised questions on the economic, social and cultural impact of the aid. While it recognised that it could be in the common interest for a Member State to use State aid to invest in the transition to digital technology in cinemas, it asked to be assured that the measure would be technologically neutral. In particular, it asked for confirmation that exhibitors would not be induced to invest in one digital standard in preference to another. In addition, it asked the Italian authorities to ensure that films released digitally in an open standards format lower than the digital standard of the support equipment could also be screened. Moreover, it noted that aid for installing digital projection equipment could indirectly benefit the US film majors (in the case of DCI-compliant equipment). The increased demand from the proposed aid might raise the price of the limited supply of projection equipment. As a result of the aid, the critical mass of digital cinemas could be reached more quickly in Italy, which in turn might accelerate the switch to digital distribution and thereby the closure of those cinemas that were not able to install digital equipment by that time. Taken together, the Commission doubted that the potential distortions of competition would be balanced by the social and cultural advantages of the aid.

         3.   Modifications to the proposed measure since the opening of the procedure

               (17)

               Following the opening of the investigation procedure by the Commission, the Italian digital cinema tax credit measure has been implemented within the de minimis thresholds (6). Subject to approval by the Commission, the Italian authorities seek to fully implement the measure beyond the de minimis thresholds.

               (18)

               The Italian authorities estimate that the budget of the measure will amount to approximately EUR 7,5 million for the period 2014-2015.

               (19)

               The period covered by this decision runs until 31 December 2022. The Italian authorities expect that the tax credit will be used most intensively in the years 2014 and 2015.

               (20)

               The draft implementing regulations that the Italian authorities seek to implement in full (beyond the de minimis thresholds) differ on a number of important points from the original notification.

               (21)

               First, the requirement for medium and large cinemas to screen a certain amount of Italian and European cultural films as a condition for obtaining the aid has been removed from the modified implementing regulations. In recent years, the Italian authorities have found it difficult to monitor compliance with this requirement in the case of medium to large cinemas. Moreover, they state that removing this requirement is necessary to restore a level playing field between the larger cinemas that need aid and the maxi-circuits that dominate the Italian cinema market (cf. recital 37).

               (22)

               Second, and linked to this, a threshold of 60 screens is introduced in the modified implementing regulations. Cinema exhibitors that own or manage a higher number of screens are excluded from the tax credit. The Italian authorities consider this a sound alternative to the programming requirements initially imposed as a way of ensuring that the measure reaches its objectives and excluding those market players that, because of their market strength, should be able to make the transition without aid.

               (23)

               Third, the modified implementing regulations require a declaration from the beneficiary in order to ensure that overcompensation or redirection of aid is avoided if the tax credit is combined with commercial (VPF) models.

               (24)

               Fourth, the modified regulations allow for the combination of aid up to a maximum aid intensity of 75 % of the total costs. For cinemas of one or two screens, the maximum cumulative aid intensity is 90 %.

               (25)

               On top of these changes, since 2012 it has been possible for beneficiaries to transfer the digital tax credit benefits to suppliers of digital equipment, banks, financial intermediaries and insurance agencies (cf. recital 56).

         III.   COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES

               (26)

               The Commission received around 20 submissions from interested third parties in response to the public consultation on the aid measure that was held in 2009. The responses were submitted by:

                           —

                           European and Italian trade organisations representing distributors and cinemas, the French Commission Supérieure Technique de l'Image et du Son (CST), and the European Digital Cinema Forum (EDCF),

                           —

                           the French authorities, German and UK film funds, and the network of European regional film funds (Cineregio); several contributions also referred to the EFAD publications on the subject (7),

                           —

                           a number of businesses, film sector professionals and individuals from Italy, France, Switzerland and the UK.

                     Moreover, a workshop on the subject was held in Rome in October 2009.

               (27)

               Regarding the necessity of the aid, all contributions underlined the need for State aid in the transition to digital cinema, which was seen as an inevitable development. Both the French authorities and the UK Film Council explained that the general benefits of digital cinema were accompanied by an asymmetrical distribution of the costs associated with the transition (carried by the exhibitor) and the direct financial benefits (for the distributor). This asymmetrical situation made it difficult to complete a timely transition without external assistance. In this context, the contributors identified a clear risk that many of Europe's smaller, independent and/or remote cinemas would leave the market if digital projection systems were not made more accessible and affordable. In its Statement of September 2009 the EFAD said that 30 % of European screens were at risk of disappearing. Both the French authorities and the German Federal Film Board emphasised that, in the absence of aid, not only the exhibition of films but also their distribution would suffer. A long transition, with the parallel circulation of analogue and digital film copies, would prove too costly, especially for the smaller film distributors. Ultimately, the absence of aid would have a significant negative impact on European film circulation, cultural diversity and the access of European citizens to culture.

               (28)

               All contributions also stressed that the so-called DCI standards were widely accepted as the common standard for digital cinema. The promotion of one global standard was seen as a positive element rather than a disadvantage for cinemas because it created a level playing field.

               (29)

               With regard to the costs of installing digital projection equipment, EUR 100 000 per screen was generally not seen as an exaggerated estimate. Instead, several contributors contended that costs could be much higher, for instance when substantial work on the projection booth was required, which could be the case especially for small cinemas. Some contributions nevertheless identified a downward trend in the pricing of digital cinema equipment.

               (30)

               Several contributions argued that, even if the costs of conversion were much higher than the State support available (as seemed to be the case for the Italian tax credit), the State aid should be seen as complementary to other sources of revenue, for example virtual print fees and exhibitors' own funds.

               (31)

               Regarding the proportionality of the aid, some of the interested parties criticised the tax credit as they expected larger cinemas to be most likely to benefit from the aid. Others argued that aid for larger cinemas could be appropriate, possibly on the basis of programming obligations. Some contributions however echoed the EFAD Statement and stressed that it was important not to introduce differences in treatment, for instance (in the specific Italian tax credit case) arising from the different level of tax liabilities of the cinemas involved, but also (more generally) arising from a restriction of access on the basis of the programming, size and location of cinemas. The International Federation of Film Distributors' Associations (FIAD) argued that even major exhibitors might not be considered profitable in the current cinema market and general economic context.

               (32)

               On the availability of commercial business models for the transition and their applicability to smaller cinemas, opinions diverged somewhat. Some argued that there was no standard business model for the digital cinema transition. Others argued that a large number of cinemas could not access the VPF deals offered by third-party integrators (cf. also footnote 5) because of the nature and volume of their programming (the volume of virtual print fees generated depended on the number of films programmed in their first week of release and/or the number of screens the cinema had). Europa Distribution argued that the commercial business models worked only for the more profitable cinemas and big, commercial distributors. According to the EFAD background paper, only approximately 10 000 European screens out of a total of 30 000 could be equipped through the VPF model. One contribution claimed that the commercial VPF models were equally suited for smaller cinemas. In any case, the French authorities argued that the available commercial transition models did not cover all the costs of digital cinema conversion (such as the upgrade of projection booths) and moreover always required a contribution by the cinema exhibitor as well. Public support could play a crucial complementary role in these cases too.

               (33)

               Regarding the adequacy of the aid, interested parties said that, in general, State aid would help smaller cinemas to face the strong competition of large multiplex cinemas and would create a level playing field. The installation of digital cinema equipment was expected to result in a wider choice for audiences. Contributors also emphasised other advantages associated with digital cinema, such as the quality of the projection, the programming flexibility and the lower distribution costs. The French authorities argued that the adequacy of digital cinema support should be looked at not in terms of an increase in programming diversity, but rather in terms of preventing the closure of cinemas. It was in their view through the digitisation of the diverse types of cinema that a diverse range of films would be offered. The European Digital Cinema Forum argued that, if the tax credits could be offset against VAT, even the less profitable cinemas would be able to benefit from the Italian measure.

               (34)

               Some contributions did mention the short-term nature of the tax credit and contrasted this with the longer-term challenges posed by the digital cinema transition. However, it was also argued that the standards were sufficiently established to guarantee that they would last for at least a decade, or that the lifespan of digital cinema equipment could not yet be determined. The German Federal Film Board said that support for the digital cinema transition would be less costly than the costs associated with rebuilding cinemas and cultural diversity that would be needed after the disappearance of those players that were unable to finance the transition themselves. Germany also emphasised that the specific national and regional context of each Member State would require a specifically designed aid measure and a tailored form of aid. The EFAD Statement echoed this sentiment and emphasised that there was no one-size-fits-all solution. The Italian association of cinema exhibitors (ANEC) expected that the context would have changed sufficiently by the end of the lifespan of the digital equipment to make replacement less of a challenge. The European Digital Cinema Forum moreover stated that any additional running costs might be offset by new revenue streams for the cinemas concerned.

               (35)

               Regarding the economic, social and cultural impact of the aid, the contributions generally emphasised the need for one digital cinema standard and the wide recognition of DCI standards. The EFAD Statement argued that support for digital cinema should not impose a technological solution but should at the same time take stock of the technological situation in the sector. Europa Distribution's contribution warned that failure to follow the industry standard would lead to the closure of many cinemas. In any case, ANEC confirmed that cinemas were free under the measure to invest in the standard of their choice. Several contributions argued that DCI-compliant equipment could also be used to screen alternative programmes of different (lower) digital standards, whereas the reverse (screening DCI-compliant film copies on, e.g. 1,3K equipment) was not possible. The contributors did not identify a risk of price increases. Instead, prices were expected to fall over time. Both the contribution of the French authorities and the EFAD background paper emphasised in this respect that any aid measure should be designed with a view to avoiding the distortion of competition in the digital equipment market. Any aid measure should therefore be based on an evaluation of digital equipment costs and the aid should be capped in line with those cost estimates. The Commission's concern that State aid might accelerate the switch-over and with it the closure of cinemas (cf. recital 16) was not reflected in the contributions. Instead, State aid was put forward as a sustainable solution to the digital cinema challenge. The Italian federation of arthouse cinemas drew attention to the limited geographic reach of cinemas, which it said meant that the distortive effects on competition would be small.

         IV.   COMMENTS FROM ITALY

   1.   Necessity of aid

               (36)

               The Italian authorities have provided the Commission with information on the characteristics of the Italian cinema market (last updated in October 2013). The total number of Italian screens is estimated at 3 936, located in 1 872 cinema sites. Four categories can be distinguished:

                           (a)

                           big cinema networks (8) of more than 60 screens. There are only two such networks, UCI and The Space. They represent 787 screens in 76 sites;

                           (b)

                           small cinema networks. There are 15 such networks, each comprising in total 60 screens or less. In total, the cinemas in this category represent 513 screens in 104 sites;

                           (c)

                           small commercial cinemas. These account for 1 287 screens, located in 351 cinema sites;

                           (d)

                           smaller sites, comprising almost only single-screen cinemas (90 % of the sites), alongside seasonal cinemas and/or church cinemas. There are 1 340 such sites, corresponding to an estimated 1 500 screens.

               (37)

               While the largest cinema networks (category (a)) represent 40 % of the national market share, the cinemas in category (d) account for only 5 to 10 % of the market share.

               (38)

               The tax credit scheme targets the cinemas in categories (b) to (d). In particular in view of the strong market presence of the two big cinema networks, the Italian authorities consider that State aid is necessary to complete the digital transition of these cinema exhibitors, which are all small or medium-sized.

               (39)

               According to data provided by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism a total of 1 603 screens applied for digital cinema tax credits during the period 2010–2013 (April 2014 data). The measure, implemented within the de minimis rules, proved particularly popular immediately after its launch in 2010, when 671 screens benefited.

               (40)

               Yet the implementation of the aid measure under the de minimis rules has proved insufficient to turn the situation round. In particular medium-sized multi-screen cinemas have, as a result, been able to digitise only some of their screens.

               (41)

               The Italian authorities say that the digitisation of Italian cinemas is still lagging behind. In October 2013, the digitisation rate stood at about 62 % (9). According to estimates provided by the Italian authorities in June 2014, at least 700 cinema screens remain to be digitalised.

               (42)

               As a result, a considerable number of cinemas, mostly small to medium-sized, are at risk. Their disappearance would not only signify job losses at the level of exhibitors, but would in turn impact the distribution of films and restrict choice for the audience.

               (43)

               The Italian authorities have in particular highlighted the role of single-screen cinemas and medium-sized cinemas in Italy. The continuing presence of the first group is crucial to ensure equal access for all citizens to cinemas, including those located in small rural and mountain towns. The second group of medium-sized cinemas forms the backbone of the distribution and exhibition of quality films in Italy. Their continuing presence is important as they offer an alternative to the two large cinema networks that dominate the market.

               (44)

               The Italian authorities expect that traditional film will completely disappear from the market within a period of only a couple of weeks or months. As the cut-off point draws nearer, the Italian authorities stress the need to implement the measure beyond the de minimis thresholds.

               (45)

               With regard to the maximum tax credit proposed (EUR 50 000 per screen) and the estimated costs of digital projection equipment, the Italian authorities have adjusted their estimates of the average cost of digital conversion per screen to EUR 50 000–60 000 (figures provided in April and June 2014). The maximum tax credit in other words corresponds to conversion costs that are significantly higher than the estimated average conversion costs. However, the Italian authorities argue that the tax incentives are calculated on the basis of a percentage of the expenses that are actually incurred. Based on an average investment of EUR 50 000, the tax incentive provided (at 30 %) would equal EUR 15 000. In practice, therefore, the maximum tax credits have not as a rule been applied. Nevertheless, the maximum cap guarantees that, in case of atypically high conversion costs, the aid amounts remain limited in absolute terms.

               (46)

               With regard to the necessity of aid, it is furthermore important to note that the latest indications by the Italian authorities still point to a cost of digital conversion amounting to several tens of thousands of euros per screen. For many cinemas, especially the smaller ones, it is not possible to raise these funds from private sources, especially in the current Italian and European economic climate.

         2.   Proportionality of aid

               (47)

               In general terms, the Italian authorities stress that the tax credit is complementary to the commercial transition models and is not in a competitive relationship with VPF models.

               (48)

               The modified implementing regulations contain a number of provisions that ensure that the aid measure remains proportional. These take into account the market mechanisms available for digital cinema conversion (i.e. the VPF models).

               (49)

               First of all, only cinema exhibitors of 60 screens or less may apply for tax benefits. This means that the two Italian maxi-circuits (UCI and The Space) are excluded from the aid. The Italian authorities say that the classic VPF model has been applied successfully to the conversion of these dominant market players. Moreover, taking into account their market strength (cf. recital 37), they should not be dependent on State aid for digital conversion.

               (50)

               According to the information provided by the Italian authorities, the two large cinema networks are the only ones that have made use of the classic VPF model. However, smaller cinema operators have also accessed commercial mechanisms to facilitate their digital transition. An alternative VPF model, tailored for medium to small cinemas, has been developed in Italy on the basis of an agreement between the distributors' and exhibitors' associations. The table below outlines the main differences and similarities between the classic and alternative VPF models as implemented in Italy.

                  Comparison between the classic and alternative VPF models in Italy

                           The classic VPF model in Italy

                           The alternative VPF model in Italy

                           A third party ‘integrator’ (which in turn has VPF contracts with distributors) signs an agreement with a cinema exhibitor.

                           Based on an agreement between the distributors' association and the exhibitors' association. There are no third parties involved.

                           The exhibitor does not own the digital equipment and does not pay for it up-front.

                           The exhibitor owns the digital equipment from the start and covers the entire purchase cost up-front.

                           Both the distributors and the exhibitor contribute to the gradual amortisation of costs through respectively VPF fees and monthly payments. The division of costs is typically 75 % for distributors and 25 % for exhibitors.

                           Film distributors pay virtual print fees for digital screenings of films. These fees may cover up to 75 % of the digital conversion costs. The exhibitor is in any case expected to cover EUR 5 500 of the costs.

               (51)

               Secondly, taking this into account, the Italian authorities have modified the implementation regulations to ensure there is no overcompensation or redirection of aid if the tax credit is combined with any of the commercial (VPF) models. A declaration is required from the beneficiary that the tax benefit is requested to cover only its own effective costs (cf. recital 23). The Italian authorities have stated that checking by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, on a case-by-case basis, will guarantee that the aid covers only the part of the investment that effectively has to be carried by the cinema exhibitor.

               (52)

               Thirdly, maximum cumulative aid intensities have been introduced to keep the aid measure proportionate. These distinguish between the smallest cinema sites (with one or two screens) and other cinemas (cf. recital 24).

         3.   Adequacy of aid

               (53)

               In the opening decision, the Commission doubted that the estimated budget of the measure was sufficient to cover the estimated costs of conversion. The updated budget and cost estimates provided by the Italian authorities (cf. recitals 18 and 45) give an updated assessment of the situation addressed by the aid measure. On the basis of an average tax credit of EUR 15 000 and taking into account the estimated budget of the scheme (cf. recital 18), the measure could benefit 500 screens over the period 2014-2015, when the aid measure is expected to be used most intensively. This corresponds to a substantial part of the screens that remain to be digitalised (cf. recital 40).

               (54)

               While the cultural programming requirement has been removed from the aid scheme, the Italian authorities have argued that the scheme still has a strong cultural objective. The achievement of the complete digitisation of the Italian cinema market will result in a better circulation of different types of film and increase circulation potential for ‘niche’ works. If the various types of cinema in Italy could not all make the digital transition, culture would suffer.

               (55)

               The Italian authorities maintain that the tax credit measure implies an offset against not just direct taxes owed to the Italian Revenue Agency (corporate tax) but also indirect taxes (such as VAT) and withholding tax and social security obligations (paid by employers on behalf of their employees). All these taxes are taken into account when calculating the tax credit benefits. This increases the accessibility of the scheme, as its use does not depend on the level of profits realised by the undertaking concerned.

               (56)

               Moreover, Article 51 of Decree-Law 83 of 2012 introduced the possibility of transferring tax credits to suppliers of digital equipment, banks, financial intermediaries and insurance agencies (cf. recital 25). This increases the accessibility of the aid measure for the smaller cinemas, especially if they are family-run and have no employees.

               (57)

               Already during the implementation of the measure under de minimis rules, the tax credits have been of benefit to all types of cinema, including the smallest cinemas in the market. The pie chart below gives an overview of the beneficiaries of the scheme (2010-2013) demonstrating this.

                  Beneficiaries per type of cinema (2010-2013, based on the number of screens) (data last updated in April 2014 and provided by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism)

               (58)

               The data provided moreover show a marked increase in the number and share of small cinemas benefiting from the tax credit in 2012 and especially 2013. All in all, according to data received from the Italian authorities, 325 cinemas or 24,3 % of the 1 340 smallest cinema sites in Italy were able to use the tax credit to make the digital transition between 2010 and the end of 2013.

         4.   Economic, social and cultural impact

               (59)

               The Italian authorities stress the cultural importance of ensuring a comprehensive digital cinema transition. The installation of digital equipment brings with it a number of important advantages (such as increased flexibility) for the whole cinema sector (and ultimately cinema audiences). Yet the costs of conversion are high and unequally spread, with cinemas carrying most of the burden. In particular the smaller market players are not able to make the transition without State aid. The market transition (VPF) models developed do not suffice to offset this imbalance and not all cinemas can access them to the same extent.

               (60)

               The Italian authorities confirm that, in their view, the scheme's mechanisms do not call into question the principle of technological neutrality.

         V.   ASSESSMENT OF THE AID MEASURE

   1.   Existence of aid

               (61)

               Article 107(1) TFEU states that ‘Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.’

               (62)

               As explained in the opening decision and more briefly in recital 12, the measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The source of funding is tax incentives, so the Italian State is foregoing certain tax revenues. Under the scheme, certain film companies will benefit from this financial advantage, and the measure therefore provides a selective advantage to certain undertakings. The beneficiaries compete with other undertakings that do not necessarily benefit from the scheme. Consequently the scheme distorts or threatens to distort competition. In view of the international trade in films, the measure may affect intra-Union trade.

         2.   Compatibility of the aid

               (63)

               The Italian authorities justify the measure as aid to promote culture. They have continually stressed the cultural importance of completing the digital cinema roll-out in Italy as soon as possible. The aid measure aims to ensure that all types of cinema are able to make the digital transition, despite the high costs of conversion.

               (64)

               When the opening decision on the measure was adopted, the Commission had not defined its policy on digital projection support. Since then, the Commission has adopted a new communication on State aid for films and other audiovisual works (10), which updated the rules used for assessing the compatibility of State aid for films and other audiovisual works under Article 107(3)(d) TFEU.

               (65)

               The new Cinema communication explicitly acknowledges that aid to cinemas may be assessed as aid to promote culture within the meaning of Article 107(3)(d) TFEU. Therefore the compatibility of the aid at issue here may be assessed under this provision. The Cinema communication stipulates that aid for the modernisation of cinemas, including their digitisation, can be justified on that basis if such aid is necessary, proportionate and adequate.

         (a)   Necessity of the measure

               (66)

               As demonstrated by the Italian authorities and confirmed by the comments from interested parties, the digital cinema transition poses a challenge for the film sector that affects European cinema as a whole, and smaller cinemas in particular. The disappearance of cinemas, in particular independent small and medium-sized venues in smaller towns, would reduce the diversity and regional reach of the films offered. In other words, a long and uneven transition has a negative impact on film exhibition, distribution and, ultimately, European audiences.

               (67)

               Despite the implementation of the tax measure under the de minimis rules, Italy continues to lag behind in the digital cinema transition.

               (68)

               At the same time, as the market has passed the ‘tipping point’ of conversion, with more than 60 % of the screens in Italy digitalised at the end of 2013, the situation has worsened for those cinemas that are dependent on State aid to make the transition. Indeed, the availability of 35 mm films is not guaranteed in the short term.

               (69)

               The measure targets not only the smallest cinemas, but also larger commercial cinemas and networks. However, the largest cinema networks (of more than 60 screens) are excluded from aid. The Italian authorities have argued that the tax benefits granted to all cinemas of a lesser size reinstates a level playing field in the sector, which is dominated by two very large cinema networks.

               (70)

               The tax credit aims to help those cinemas that are unable, especially in the current economic climate, to raise sufficient private funds for a costly cinema conversion.

               (71)

               Taking into account the above, the Commission considers that the aid measure can be considered necessary to retain and restore a diverse cinema landscape in Italy in a digital context. The continued presence of different types of cinema, from single-screen arthouses to multi-screen venues with commercial programming, is crucial to help ensure that a diverse range of cinema continues to be offered to the Italian public. As recognised by the submissions received from interested parties, the digital cinema transition challenges the film sector as a whole, with only the largest cinema networks easily accessing commercial transition models. The market data supplied by the Italian authorities have demonstrated that the de minimis implementation of the measure has not sufficed to complete this transition, especially for those cinemas that have more than one screen. Even if it is true that certain cinemas were able to access VPF deals, it is also true that commercial transition models do not cover all the costs of the digital cinema conversion (cf. recital 32). Public support can be considered necessary in these cases too, as long as it is designed in a complementary fashion, ensuring that the measure remains proportional regardless of the type of cinema concerned.

         (b)   Proportionality of the measure

               (72)

               The Italian authorities have excluded cinema exhibitors of more than 60 screens from the tax credit. The Italian cinema market structure shows a clear gap between operators of up to 60 screens and those of a larger size (cf. recitals 36 and 37). The threshold introduced therefore seems proportional in view of the objective of the scheme.

               (73)

               Moreover, the tax credit covers only part (30 %) of the transition costs and is capped at EUR 50 000 per year. By making the amount of aid a percentage of actual digitisation costs, the Italian authorities have guaranteed that the aid remains proportionate, even when the costs may vary on a case-by-case basis. As several contributors pointed out (recital 29), the costs for digitisation can rise significantly above average in some cases, for instance when substantial work on the projection booth is required. In such atypical cases, the cap of EUR 50 000 nevertheless ensures that the absolute aid amounts remain proportionate.

               (74)

               Whereas the opening decision raised questions on the ‘crowding out’ of commercial digital cinema conversion models, recital 50 demonstrates that two different commercial conversion models have been developed in Italy. They can be combined with the proposed digital cinema tax credit. The Italian authorities have included specific provisions in the modified implementing regulations to ensure that the combination of private and public digital cinema conversion financing does not result in overcompensation or redirection of aid (e.g. to distributors or VPF integrators). In this way, the Italian authorities promote an optimal synergy between the available market models and State aid, in order to foster a complete digital roll-out.

               (75)

               The tax credit can also be combined with other aid measures. In order to ensure the proportionality of the aid, the Italian authorities have introduced maximum cumulative aid intensities of 90 % for small cinema sites (single- and two-screen cinemas) and 75 % for other types of cinema.

               (76)

               More generally, the application has to be accompanied by a certified document specifying the actual expenditure incurred for each screen and checks are to be carried out by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism on a case-by-case basis. The implementing regulations moreover indicate that the tax credit will be recovered (plus interest and penalties) if the requirements are not met.

         (c)   Adequacy of the measure

               (77)

               The clarifications provided by the Italian authorities, and the introduction of the transferability of the tax credits, ensure that the measure will have an impact on the intended beneficiaries of the scheme. Even the least profitable cinemas should be able to access the scheme.

               (78)

               The measure is no longer proposed as a pilot measure, but would be in force until the end of 2022.

               (79)

               The data provided by the Italian authorities (recitals 57 and 58) demonstrate the accessibility of the measure to all types of cinema targeted, in particular the smaller ones. While other factors may play a role, it should be noted that the marked increase in the number of cinemas of 1 to 4 screens benefiting from the tax credits (under the de minimis rules) in 2012 and 2013 coincides with the introduction of the transferability of the tax credits in 2012 (recital 25).

               (80)

               More generally, the measure seems adequate for the purpose of safeguarding the diversity of cinemas present on the Italian market, ranging from single-screen outfits to small commercial cinemas and various types of multiplex cinema. This diversity of screens is a prerequisite for achieving a diverse range of films offered on those screens.

         (d)   Distortion of competition and effect on trade

               (81)

               The distortions of competition and the effect on trade are limited. The cross-border effect of cinemas is limited to the presence of international cinema operators and the international dimension of the film trade in general. However, individual cinema locations have an inherently limited geographic reach, as audiences will not travel far to visit a cinema.

               (82)

               The measure relates to investment aid and provides a one-off benefit to cinemas that are facing a one-off transition. The tax credit ensures that all cinemas can complete the digital switch-over, but does not unduly distort competition in terms of their daily operation.

               (83)

               The completion of the digital cinema transition across Europe is moreover expected to benefit the European film industry as a whole. In this regard, the doubts on digital cinema standards raised in the opening decision are no longer relevant. The contributions from third parties have shown that there is a consensus in the trade in favour of the prevalent digital cinema standards.

         VI.   CONCLUSION

               (84)

               In the light of the foregoing, the Commission takes the view that the aid pursues a well-defined cultural objective. The doubts with regard to necessity, proportionality, adequacy and impact raised in the opening decision have been addressed. The distortions of competition and the effects on trade that the measure will have are limited in such a way that they are not contrary to the common interest. Accordingly, the tax credit for digital projection equipment can be considered compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3)(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The State aid measure which Italy is planning to implement for digital projection equipment on the basis of Law No 244 of 24 December 2007, Decree-Law No 91 of 8 August 2013 and the draft provisions implementing the tax credit granted to cinemas for the introduction and acquisition of digital projection equipment and machinery is compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
   Implementation of the aid measure is accordingly authorised.
   Article 2
   This decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.

      Done at Brussels, 29 October 2014.

            For the Commission

         Joaquín ALMUNIA

            Vice-President

      (1)  OJ C 196, 20.8.2009, p. 9.

      (2)  Cf. footnote 1.

      (3)  2K refers to a screen resolution of 2 048 × 1 080 pixels.

      (4)  DCI refers to the DCI specifications, originally defined for the US market in 2005 by a joint venture of the US film majors (Disney, Fox, Paramount, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal and Warner Bros. Studios), called Digital Cinema Initiatives.

      (5)  These commercial transition models are based on the payment of a virtual print fee by distributors for the digital projection of their films in cinemas. The VPF system is based on the notion of using some of the savings realised by the distributor that distributes films digitally in order to contribute to the payment of digital equipment costs borne by cinema exhibitors. Typically such VPF deals involve an intermediary third party (an ‘integrator’) that collects VPFs from distributors, and installs and possibly finances the equipment in cinemas. Cf. also recital 50 for an overview of the available VPF models in Italy.

      (6)  Until the end of 2010 guided by the Commission communication ‘Temporary Community framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis’ (OJ C 83, 7.4.2009, p. 1). After the end of 2010, the measure was implemented on the basis of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid (OJ L 379, 28.12.2006, p. 5). In 2013, the Commission adopted a new de minimis Regulation, Commission Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid (OJ L 352, 24.12.2013, p. 1).

      (7)  European Film Agency Directors (EFAD), San Sebastian Statement: Urgent and comprehensive public support needed for the digitisation of cinemas (San Sebastian, 21 September 2009), and EFAD background paper — The case for public intervention in the digital transition of cinema (October 2009).

      (8)  The Italian authorities have defined a cinema network as a company owning at least 15 screens in a minimum of three cinema sites.

      (9)  Data of the national association of cinema exhibitors (ANEC), provided by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism.

      (10)  Communication from the Commission on State aid for films and other audiovisual works (OJ C 332, 15.11.2013, p. 1).


title: 2007/646/EC: Council Decision of 1 October 2007 appointing one Estonian member and three Estonian alternate members to the Committee of the Regions

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 261/27

      COUNCIL DECISION

   of 1 October 2007
   appointing one Estonian member and three Estonian alternate members to the Committee of the Regions
   (2007/646/EC)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the Estonian Government,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 24 January 2006 the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1).

               (2)

               One member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of Mr Margus LEPIK’s mandate. Three alternate members’ seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the change of mandate of Mr Mihkel JUHKAMI and the end of mandate of Ms Laine JÄNES and Mr Jüri RATAS,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The following are hereby appointed member and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2010:

               (a)

               as member:

                           —

                           Mr Mihkel JUHKAMI, Chairman of Rakvere Town Council;

               (b)

               as alternate members:

                           —

                           Ms Kersti KÕOSAAR, Mayor of Võru,

                           —

                           Mr Edgar SAVISAAR, Mayor of Tallinn,

                           —

                           Mr Ivar UNT, Mayor of Valga.

         Article 2
   This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Luxembourg, 1 October 2007.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. LINO

      (1)  OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.


Avis juridique important

|

31982D0895

82/895/EEC: Council Decision of 21 December 1982 on a financial contribution from the Community to the campaign against foot-and-mouth disease in south-east Europe

Official Journal L 378 , 31/12/1982 P. 0063 - 0063

+++++( 1 ) OJ NO C 264 , 8 . 10 . 1982 , P . 7 .  ( 2 ) OPINION DELIVERED ON 17 DECEMBER 1982 ( NOT YET PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL ) .  COUNCIL DECISION OF 21 DECEMBER 1982 ON A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FROM THE COMMUNITY TO THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE IN SOUTH-EAST EUROPE ( 82/895/EEC )  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,  HAVING REGARD TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY , AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 43 THEREOF ,  HAVING REGARD TO THE PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMISSION ( 1 ) ,  HAVING REGARD TO THE OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ( 2 ) .  WHEREAS THERE HAVE BEEN OUTBREAKS OF FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE CAUSED BY VIRUSES FOREIGN TO THE COMMUNITY IN RECENT YEARS IN CERTAIN REGIONS OF SOUTH-EAST EUROPE ; WHEREAS THE DANGER TO COMMUNITY LIVESTOCK FROM SUCH EXOTIC FOOT-AND-MOUTH VIRUSES HAS NOT YET BEEN REMOVED ; WHEREAS , CONSEQUENTLY , AID SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE GRANTED TO THE NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES CONCERNED TO ENABLE THEM TO APPLY MEASURES DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF THESE VIRUSES , IN PARTICULAR BY THE CREATION OF BUFFER ZONES IN THESE REGIONS ,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :  ARTICLE 1  THE COMMUNITY SHALL CONTRIBUTE TO THE CAMPAIGN WAGED IN THE COUNTRIES OF SOUTH-EAST EUROPE AGAINST EXOTIC FOOT-AND-MOUTH VIRUSES . THE COMMISSION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING AID TO THE FAO PROGRAMME FOR 1982 AND 1983 .  ARTICLE 2  THE COMMISSION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPERVISING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE AID PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 1 IS USED . IT SHALL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL AND TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS DECISION .  DONE AT BRUSSELS , 21 DECEMBER 1982 .  FOR THE COUNCIL  THE PRESIDENT  O . MOELLER


Avis juridique important

|

32002D0800

2002/800/EC: Council Decision of 8 October 2002 amending Decision 98/508/EC on the conclusion of an Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia

Official Journal L 278 , 16/10/2002 P. 0019 - 0019

Council Decisionof 8 October 2002amending Decision 98/508/EC on the conclusion of an Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia(2002/800/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 in conjunction with Article 300(2), first subparagraph, first sentence, and Article 300(3), first subparagraph, first sentence, and (4) thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,Whereas:In order to ensure the efficient operation of the Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, certificates and markings between the European Community and Australia(1) (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") it is necessary to amend Decision 98/508/EC(2) in order to empower the Commission to take all necessary measures for the operation of the Agreement,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Sole ArticleArticle 3 of Decision 98/508/EC shall be replaced by the following: "Article 31. The Commission shall represent the Community in the Joint Committee provided for in Article 12 of the Agreement, assisted by the special Committee designated by the Council. The Commission shall proceed, after consultation with this special Committee, to the appointments, notifications, exchanges of information and requests for information specified in the Agreement.2. The position of the Community in the Joint Committee shall be determined by the Commission, following consultation of the special Committee referred to in paragraph 1."Done at Luxembourg, 8 October 2002.For the CouncilThe PresidentT. Pedersen(1) OJ L 229, 17.8.1998, p. 3.(2) OJ L 229, 17.8.1998, p. 1.


               15.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 468/285

         P7_TA(2013)0564
   Appointment of the Chair of the Supervisory Board of the European Central Bank
   European Parliament decision of 11 December 2013 on the proposal of the European Central Bank for the appointment of the Chair of the Supervisory Board of the European Central Bank (N7-0103/2013 — C7-0424/2013 — 2013/0901(NLE))
   (Approval)
   (2016/C 468/65)

      The European Parliament,

               —

               having regard to the proposal of the European Central Bank of 22 November 2013 for the appointment of the Chair of the Supervisory Board of the European Central Bank (N7-0103/2013),

               —

               having regard to Article 26(3) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (1),

               —

               having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament and the European Central Bank on the practical modalities of the exercise of democratic accountability and oversight over the exercise of the tasks conferred on the ECB within the framework of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (2),

               —

               having regard to its Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0452/2013),

               A.

               whereas Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 provides that the European Central Bank (ECB) is to submit to Parliament its proposal for the appointment of the Chair of its Supervisory Board and that the Chair is to be chosen on the basis of an open selection procedure from among individuals of recognised standing and experience in banking and financial matters who are not members of the Governing Council;

               B.

               whereas Article 26(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 provides that the appointments for the Supervisory Board in accordance with that Regulation are to respect the principles of gender balance, experience and qualification;

               C.

               whereas, by letter of 22 November 2013, the ECB submitted to Parliament a proposal for the appointment of Danièle Nouy as the Chair of the Supervisory Board of the ECB for a term of office of five years;

               D.

               whereas Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs then proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the proposed candidate, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 26(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013; whereas in carrying out that evaluation, the Committee received a curriculum vitae from the proposed candidate as well as her replies to a written questionnaire;

               E.

               whereas the Committee held a hearing with the proposed candidate on 27 November 2013, at which she made an opening statement and then responded to questions from the members of the Committee;

               1.

               Approves the ECB’s proposal for the appointment of Danièle Nouy as Chair of the Supervisory Board of the ECB;

               2.

               Instructs its President to forward this decision to the European Central Bank, the Council and the governments of the Member States.

      (1)  OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 63.

      (2)  OJ L 320, 30.11.2013, p. 1.


Avis juridique important

|

31997D0165(01)

Decision of the Committee of the Regions of 17 September 1997 concerning public access to documents of the Committee of the Regions

Official Journal L 351 , 23/12/1997 P. 0070 - 0071

DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS of 17 September 1997 concerning public access to documents of the Committee of the RegionsTHE BUREAU OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Declaration 17 attached to the Final Act thereof,Whereas provisions should be adopted governing public access to documents of the Committee of the Regions (hereinafter 'the Committee`);Whereas these measures should be in harmony with the code of conduct agreed and adopted by the Commission and the Council in this area on 6 December 1993, in order to ensure the consistency and continuity of the activities if the institutions in accordance with Article C of the Treaty on European Union;Whereas these provisions are applicable to any document held by the Committee, whatever its medium, excluding documents written by a person, body or institution outside the Committee;Whereas the principle of allowing the public wide access to the Committee's documents, as part of greater transparency in the Committee's work, must however be subject to exceptions, particularly as regards protection of the public interest, the individual and privacy;Whereas this Decision must apply with due regard for provisions governing the protection of classified information,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1 1. The public shall have access to Committee documents under the conditions laid down in this Decision.2. 'Committee document` means any written text, whatever its medium, containing existing data and held by the Committee, subject to Article 2 (2).Article 2 1. An application for access to a Committee document shall be sent in writing to the Secretary-General of the Committee (1). It must be made in a sufficiently precise manner and must contain information enabling the document or documents requested to be identified. Where necessary, the applicant shall be asked for further details.2. Where the requested document was written by a natural or legal person, a Member State, another Community institution or body, or any other national or international body, the application must not be sent to the Committee, but direct to the author.Article 3 1. The applicant shall have access to a document of the Committee either by consulting it on the spot or by having a copy sent at his own expense. A fee of ECU 10, plus ECU 0,036 per sheet of paper, may be charged by the General Secretariat of the Committee for copies of printed documents exceeding 30 pages. Charges for information in other formats shall be set on a case-by-case basis but shall not exceed what is reasonable.2. The relevant departments of the General Secretariat shall endeavour to find a fair solution to deal with repeat applications and/or those which relate to very large documents.3. Anyone given access to a document of the Committee may not reproduce or circulate the document for commercial purposes through direct sale without prior authorization from the Secretary-General.Article 4 1. Access to a document of the Committee shall not be granted where its disclosure could undermine:- the protection of the public interest (public security, international relations, monetary stability, court proceedings, inspections and investigations),- the protection of the individual and of privacy,- the protection of commercial and industrial secrecy,- the protection of the Community's financial interests,- the protection of confidentiality as requested by the natural or legal person who supplied any of the information contained in the document or as required by the legislation of the Member State which supplied any of that information.2. Access to a document of the Committee may be refused in order to protect the confidentiality of the Committee's proceedings.Article 5 Any application for access to a Committee document shall be examined by the relevant departments of the General Secretariat, which shall suggest what action is to be taken on it.Article 6 1. The relevant director or head of department, or an official acting on their behalf, shall inform the applicant in writing, within one month, whether the application has been approved or whether the intends to reject it. In the latter case, the applicant shall also be notified of the reasons for this intention and that he has one month to make a confirmatory application to the Secretary-General for that position to be reconsidered, failing which he will be deemed to have withdrawn his original application.2. Failure to reply to an application for access to a document within one month of submission shall constitute an intention to refuse access.3. The President shall be empowered to decide on confirmatory applications. He may delegate this authority to the Secretary-General.4. Any decision to reject a confirmatory application, which shall be taken within a month of submission of such application, shall state the grounds on which it is based. The applicant shall be notified of the decision in writing as soon as possible and at the same time informed of the content of Articles 138e and 173 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, relating respectively to the conditions for referral to the Ombudsman by natural persons and review by the Court of Justice of the legality of acts of the Committee.5. Failure to reply to a confirmatory application within one month of submission shall constitute a refusal.6. Exceptionally, the Secretary-General, having notified the applicant in advance, may extend by one month the time limits laid down in the first sentence of paragraph 1 and in paragraph 4.Article 7 This Decision shall apply with due regard for provisions governing the protection of classified information.Article 8 Every two years, the Secretary-General shall submit a report to the Bureau on the implementation of this Decision.Article 9 This Decision shall take effect from the date of its signature.Done at Brussels, 17 September 1997.For the BureauPasqual MARAGALL i MIRAPresident(1) The Secretary-General of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union, 79 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.


title: 2011/157/EU: Council Decision of 24 February 2011 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of diplomatic, service or official passports

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 66/1

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 24 February 2011
   on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of diplomatic, service or official passports
   (2011/157/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 77(2)(a) in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Having regard to the consent of the European Parliament,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Commission has negotiated on behalf of the European Union an Agreement with the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of diplomatic, service or official passports.

               (2)

               That Agreement was signed, on behalf of the European Union, on 8 November 2010 subject to its conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2010/621/EU (1).

               (3)

               This Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis
                   (2); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

               (4)

               This Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland’s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis
                   (3), Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of diplomatic, service or official passports (‘the Agreement’) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.
   The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   The President of the Council shall give the notification provided for in Article 8(1) of the Agreement (4).
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 24 February 2011.

            For the Council

            The President

         PINTÉR S.

      (1)  OJ L 273, 19.10.2010, p. 2.

      (2)  OJ L 131, 1.6.2000, p. 43.

      (3)  OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 20.

      (4)  The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the General Secretariat of the Council.
    ---documentbreak---

               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 66/1

         AGREEMENT
   between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of diplomatic, service or official passports
   THE EUROPEAN UNION, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Union’
   and
   THE FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL, hereinafter referred to as ‘Brazil’
   hereinafter referred to together as the Contracting Parties;
   DESIRING to safeguard the principle of reciprocity and to facilitate travel by ensuring visa free entry and short stay for the citizens of all Member States of the European Union and for the nationals of Brazil who are holders of valid diplomatic, official or service passports;
   REITERATING their commitment to ensure reciprocal visa-free travel swiftly, fully respecting the completion of the respective parliamentary and other internal procedures;
   WITH A VIEW to further developing friendly relations and continuing to strengthen close ties between the Contracting Parties;
   TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland and the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and confirming that the provisions of this agreement do not apply to the United Kingdom and Ireland,
   HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   Purpose and scope
   Citizens of the Union and citizens of Brazil, holders of a valid diplomatic, service or official passport, are allowed to enter, transit through and stay without a visa in the territory of the other Contracting Party for a maximum period of stay of three months during a six months period in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
   Article 2
   Definitions
   For the purpose of this Agreement:

               (a)

               ‘Member State’ shall mean any Member State of the Union, with the exception of the United Kingdom and Ireland;

               (b)

               ‘a citizen of the Union’ shall mean a national of a Member State as defined in point (a);

               (c)

               ‘a national of Brazil’ shall mean any person who holds the Brazilian nationality;

               (d)

               ‘Schengen area’ shall mean the area without internal borders comprising the territories of the Member States as defined in point (a) applying the Schengen acquis in full;

               (e)

               Schengen acquis shall mean all measures aimed at ensuring the free movement of persons in an area without internal borders, in conjunction with directly related flanking measures with respect to external border controls, asylum and immigration and measures to prevent and combat crime.

         Article 3
   Conditions of visa waiver and stay
   1.   The visa waiver provided by this Agreement shall apply without prejudice to the laws of the Contracting Parties relating to the conditions of entry and short stay. The Member States and Brazil reserve the right to refuse entry into and short stay in their territories if one or more of these conditions are not met.
   2.   The citizens of the Union benefiting from this Agreement shall comply with the laws and regulations in force in the territory of Brazil during their stay.
   3.   The nationals of Brazil benefiting from this Agreement shall comply with the laws and regulations in force in the territory of each Member State during their stay.
   4.   The visa waiver applies regardless of the mode of transport used to cross the borders open to international passenger traffic of the Contracting Parties.
   5.   Without prejudice to Article 6, visa issues not covered by this Agreement shall be governed by Union law, the national law of the Member States and by the national law of Brazil.
   Article 4
   Duration of stay
   1.   The citizens of the Union holding a valid diplomatic, official or service passport may stay in the territory of Brazil for a maximum period of three months during a six months period following the date of first entry into the territory of the country.
   2.   The citizens of Brazil holding a valid diplomatic, official or service passport may stay in the Schengen area for a maximum period of three months during a six months period following the date of first entry into the territory of any Member State fully applying the Schengen acquis. This period of three months during a period of six months shall be calculated independently of any stay in a Member State which does not yet apply the Schengen acquis in full.
   The citizens of Brazil holding a valid diplomatic, official or service passport may stay for a maximum period of three months during a six months period following the date of first entry in the territory of each of the Member States that do not yet apply the Schengen acquis in full, independently of the period of stay calculated for the Schengen area.
   3.   This Agreement does not affect the possibility for Brazil and the Member States to extend the period of stay beyond three months in accordance with national law and Union law.
   Article 5
   Management of the Agreement
   1.   The Contracting Parties shall make use of the Committee of Experts (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Committee’) mentioned in the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on the short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports to settle disputes arising from the interpretation or application of the provisions of this Agreement.
   2.   The Committee shall be convened, whenever necessary, at the request of one of the Contracting Parties.
   Article 6
   Relation between this Agreement and existing bilateral visa waiver agreements between the Member States and Brazil
   This Agreement shall take precedence over the provisions of any bilateral agreements or arrangements concluded between individual Member States and Brazil, in so far as their provisions cover issues falling within the scope of this Agreement.
   Article 7
   Exchange of specimens of passports
   1.   If they have not done so already, Brazil and the Member States shall exchange, through diplomatic channels, specimens of their valid diplomatic, official or service passports no later than thirty (30) days after the date of signature of this Agreement.
   2.   In case of introduction of new diplomatic, official or service passports or modification of the existing ones, the Parties shall convey to each other, through diplomatic channels, specimens of these new or modified passports, accompanied by detailed information on their specifications and applicability, not later than thirty (30) days prior to its application.
   Article 8
   Final provisions
   1.   This Agreement shall be ratified or approved by the Contracting Parties in accordance with their respective internal procedures and shall enter into force on the first day of the second month following the date on which the Contracting Parties notify each other that the procedures referred to above have been completed.
   2.   This Agreement is concluded for an indefinite period of time, unless terminated in accordance with paragraph 5.
   3.   This Agreement may be amended by written agreement of the Contracting Parties. Amendments shall enter into force after the Contracting Parties have notified each other of the completion of their internal procedures necessary for this purpose.
   4.   Each Contracting Party may suspend in whole or in part this Agreement. The decision on suspension shall be notified to the other Contracting Party not later than 2 months before its entry into force. The Contracting Party that has suspended the application of this Agreement shall immediately inform the other Contracting Party once the reasons for suspension no longer exist.
   5.   Each Contracting Party may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the other Party. This Agreement shall cease to be in force 90 days after the date of such notification.
   6.   Brazil may suspend or terminate this Agreement only in respect of all the Member States of the Union.
   7.   The Union may suspend or terminate this Agreement only in respect of all of its Member States.

      Done at Brussels, in duplicate each in the Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish languages, each of these texts being equally authentic.
      Съставено в Брюксел на осми ноември две хиляди и десета година.
      Hecho en Bruselas, el ocho de noviembre de dos mil diez.
      V Bruselu dne osmého listopadu dva tisíce deset.
      Udfærdiget i Bruxelles den ottende november to tusind og ti.
      Geschehen zu Brüssel am achten November zweitausendzehn.
      Kahe tuhande kümnenda aasta novembrikuu kaheksandal päeval Brüsselis.
      'Εγινε στις Βρυξέλλες, στις οκτώ Νοεμβρίου δύο χιλιάδες δέκα.
      Done at Brussels on the eighth day of November in the year two thousand and ten.
      Fait à Bruxelles, le huit novembre deux mille dix.
      Fatto a Bruxelles, addì otto novembre duemiladieci.
      Briselē, divi tūkstoši desmitā gada astotajā novembrī.
      Priimta du tūkstančiai dešimtų metų lapkričio aštuntą dieną Briuselyje.
      Kelt Brüsszelben, a kétezer-tizedik év november havának nyolcadik napján.
      Magħmul fi Brussell, fit-tmien jum ta' Novembru tas-sena elfejn u għaxra.
      Gedaan te Brussel, de achtste november tweeduizend tien.
      Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia ósmego listopada roku dwa tysiące dziesiątego.
      Feito em Bruxelas, em oito de Novembro de dois mil e dez.
      Întocmit la Bruxelles la opt noiembrie două mii zece.
      V Bruseli ôsmeho novembra dvetisícdesať.
      V Bruslju, dne osmega novembra leta dva tisoč deset.
      Tehty Brysselissä kahdeksantena päivänä marraskuuta vuonna kaksituhattakymmenen.
      Som skedde i Bryssel den åttonde november tjugohundratio.

         За Европейския съюз
         Por la Unión Europea
         Za Evropskou unii
         For Den Europæiske Union
         Für die Europäische Union
         Euroopa Liidu nimel
         Για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση
         For the European Union
         Pour l'Union européenne
         Per l'Unione europea
         Eiropas Savienības vārdā –
         Europos Sąjungos vardu
         Az Európai Unió részéről
         Għall-Unjoni Ewropea
         Voor de Europese Unie
         W imieniu Unii Europejskiej
         Pela União Europeia
         Pentru Uniunea Europeană
         Za Európsku úniu
         Za Evropsko unijo
         Euroopan unionin puolesta
         För Europeiska unionen

         За Федеративна република Бразилия
         Por la República Federativa de Brasil
         Za Brazilskou Federativní republiku
         For Den Føderative Republik Brasilien
         Für die Föderative Republik Brasilien
         Brasiilia Liitvabariigi nimel
         Για την Ομοσπονδιακή Δημοκρατία της Βραζιλίας
         For the Federative Republic of Brazil
         Pour la République fédérative du Brésil
         Per la Repubblica federativa del Brasile
         Brazīlijas Federatīvās Republikas vārdā –
         Brazilijos Federacinės Respublikos vardu
         A Brazil Szövetségi Köztársaság részéről
         Għar-Repubblika Federattiva tal-Brażil
         Voor de Federale Republiek Brazilië
         W imieniu Federacyjnej Republiki Brazylii
         Pela República Federativa do Brasil
         Pentru Republica Federativă a Braziliei
         Za Brazílsku federatívnu republiku
         Za Federativno republiko Brazilijo
         Brasilian liittotasavallan puolesta
         För Förbundsrepubliken Brasilien


Avis juridique important

|

31987D0078

87/78/EEC: Commission Decision of 7 January 1987 on the setting-up of an Advisory Committee on Raw Tobacco

Official Journal L 045 , 14/02/1987 P. 0025 - 0027 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 22 P. 0161  Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 22 P. 0161

COMMISSION DECISION of 7 January 1987 on the setting-up of an Advisory Committee on Raw Tobacco (87/78/EEC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Whereas the Advisory Committee on Raw Tobacco was set up by Commission Decision 71/31/EEC (1), as last amended by Decision 86/58/EEC (2);  Whereas, following the accession of new Member States to the Community, the number of seats on the Committee should be increased and they should be reallocated; whereas the procedure for the replacement of members should also be adjusted;  Whereas the provisions concerning the Advisory Committee on Raw Tobacco have been amended several times and have therefore become difficult to apply; whereas they should therefore be consolidated;  Whereas the Commission should seek the views of producers, traders and consumers on matters arising in connection with the operation of the common organization of the market in raw tobacco;  Whereas all the occupations directly involved in the implementation of the market organization in question, and also consumers, must have an opportunity to participate in the drafting of the opinions requested by the Commission;  Whereas the trade associations concerned and the consumer groups in the Member States have set up organizations at Community level which are in a position to represent those concerned in all the Member States;  Considering that, furthermore, it is necessary to modify the number of members of the joint working party to take account of enlargement,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:    Article 1 1.  There shall be attached to the Commission an Advisory Committee on Raw Tobacco, hereinafter called the 'Committee'.  2.  The Committee shall be composed of representatives of the following interests: producers, cooperatives, the (3) OJ No L 14, 18. 1. 1971, p. 8.  (4) OJ No L 68, 11. 3. 1986, p. 21.  tobacco industry, the tobacco trade, workers in the relevant sectors, consumers.  Article 2 1.  The Committee may be consulted by the Commission on any problem concerning the operation of Regulations on the common organization of the market in raw tobacco and in particular on measures to be adopted under those Regulations.  2.  The chairman of the Committee may indicate to the Commission the desirability of consulting the Committee on any matter within the latter's competence on which its opinion has not been sought. He shall do so, in particular, at the request of one of  the interests represented.  3.  In respect of problems concerning the sale of leaf tobacco under Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 (5) and in particular as regards the terms of the contracts referred to in that Article, the Commission may, through the joint working party  provided for in Article 5 of this Decision, consult only the representatives of raw tobacco producers and the representatives of the tobacco industry and the tobacco trade.  Article 3 1.  The Committee shall consist of 44 members.  2.  Seats on the Committee shall be apportioned as follows:  - 22 to agricultural producers and cooperatives in the sector,  - four to representatives of the tobacco trade,  - nine to representatives of the tobacco industry, of which four seats to be allocated to public undertakings,  - six to representatives of agricultural workers and of workers in the tobacco industry,  - three to consumers' representatives.  Article 4 1.  Members of the Committee shall be appointed by the Commission on proposals from the trade workers' organizations set up at Community level which are most representative of the interests specified in Article 1 (2) and (6) OJ No L 94, 28. 4. 1970, p. 1.  whose activities come within the scope of the common organization of the market in raw tobacco; consumers' representatives shall be appointed on proposals from the Consumers' Advisory Committee.  Those bodies shall for each seat to be filled put forward the names of two candidates of different nationality.  2.  The term of office for members of the Committee shall be three years. Their appointments may be renewed. Members shall not be remunerated for their services.  After expiry of the three years, members of the Committee shall remain in office until they are replaced or until their appointments are renewed.  In the event of the resignation or decease of a member or a request from the body having proposed a member that he be replaced, he shall be replaced in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 1.  3.  A list of the members of the Committee shall be published by the Commission, for informations purposes, in the Official Journal of the European Communities.  Article 5 1.  There shall be set up under the auspices of the Committee a joint working party consisting of nine producers' representatives and nine representatives of the tobacco trade and the tobacco industry, appointed by the Commission on proposals from the trade organizations concerned in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 4.  Members of the working party need not be members of the Committee.  The trade and industry representatives shall be as follows:  - two representatives of the raw tobacco trade,  - seven representatives of the tobacco industry, of whom four shall represent public undertakings.  2.  In the event of a member of the joint working party being unable to attend a meeting, and in this event only, another person may attend in his stead. The trade organization which proposed the absent member may propose a substitute for him to the  chairman.  3.  The Chairman of the joint working party may indicate to the Commission the desirability of consulting the working party on any matter within Article 2 (3) on which it has not been consulted. He shall do so, in particular, at the request of either of  the two sides represented on the working party.  Article 6 1.  After consulting the Commission, the Committee shall elect a chairman for a period of three years.  The chairman shall be elected, in the case of the first ballot, by a two-thirds majority of the members present and, in the case of subsequent ballots, by a simple majority of the members present. In the event of a tie, the Commission shall provide a  chairman on a temporary basis.  2.  The Committee shall elect two vice-chairmen for a period of three years. The vice-chairman may not represent the same interest as the chairman.  The election shall take place in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 1.  The Committee may, in accordance with the same procedure, elect other officers. In that case, the officers other than the chairman shall include not more than one representative of each interest represented on the Committee.  The officers shall prepare and organize the work of the Committee.  3.  The joint working party shall elect from among its members a chairman and a vice-chairman for a period of one year. The election shall take place in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 1.  The vice-chairman may not represent the same interest as the chairman. They shall be chosen alternately from among the two interests represented.  Article 7 1.  Only the Commission representatives, the members of the Committees or persons replacing them in their absence, and persons invited in accordance with paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 may participate in or attend meetings.  2.  Only the Commission representatives, the members of the joint working party or persons replacing them in their absence, the chairman of the Committee and persons invited in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 7 may participate in or attend meetings of  the joint working party.  3.  Should a Committee member be unable to attend a meeting, the organization or organizations to which a seat is allocated may appoint a person to take his place. This person shall be selected from a list drawn up by mutual agreement between the  Commission and the organization or organizations in question and containing a number of names equal to half the total number of members representing the organization or organizations in question.  This number shall be not less than one and not more than 12.  Each of the members representing public undertakings may be replaced, on submission of written notification by the public undertaking which they represent.  The secretariat of the Committee must be informed of such replacement of a member at least seven days before a meeting.  4.  At the request of an organization to which one or more seats are allocated in the Committee, the chairman of the Committee may, in agreement with the Commission staff, invite its general secretary or a member of its secretariat to attend the  meetings of the Committee as an observer.  Should he be unable to attend, however, the general secretary may have his seat as an observer taken by another person designated by him. Observers shall not have the right to speak. They may, however, be invited to do so by the chairman in agreement  with the Commission staff.  5.  At the request of an organization to which one or more seats are allocated in the joint working party, the chairman of the joint working party may invite its general secretary or a member of its secretariat to attend the meetings of the joint  working party as an observer.  Should he be unable to attend, however, the general secretary may have his seat as an observer taken by another person designated by him.  6.  Observers shall not have the right to speak. They may, however, be invited to do so by the chairman in agreement with the Commission staff.  7.  At the request of an organization to which one or more seats are allocated, and when the matters on the agenda are of a highly technical nature outside the normal framework of the deliberations of the Committee or joint working party, the chairman  may, in agreement with the Commission staff, invite one or more experts to take part in the deliberations of the Committee or joint working party.  The Commission may, on its own initiative, invite any person particularly well qualified in one of the subjects on the agenda to take part in the deliberations of the Committee or joint working party as an expert.  However, experts shall participate only in the discussion of the matter concerning which they were invited to attend.  Article 8 In agreement with the Commission staff, the Committee or joint working party may set up working groups to facilitate its work.  Article 9 1.  The Committee and the joint working party shall be convened by the Commission and shall meet at Commission headquarters. Meetings of the officers shall be convened by the chairman by arrangement with the Commission.  2.  Representatives of the Commission departments concerned shall take part in meetings of the Committee, its officers, the joint working party and the working groups.  3.  Secretarial services for the Committee, its officers, the joint working party and the working groups shall be provided by the Commission.  Article 10 The Committee shall discuss matters on which the Commission has requested an opinion. No vote shall be taken.  The Commission may, when seeking the opinion of the Committee, set a time limit within which such opinion shall be given.  The views expressed by the various interests represented shall be included in a report forwarded to the Commission.  In the event of unanimous agreement being reached in the Commission on the opinion to be given, the Commission shall formulate joint conclusions and attach them to the report.  The outcome of the Committee's discussions shall on request be communicated by the Commission to the Council and to the Management Committee.  Article 11 The Chairman of the joint working party shall report to the Committee on the work of the working party.  Article 12 Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 214 of the Treaty, where the Commission informs them the opinion requested or the question raised is on a matter of a confidential nature, members of the Committee and members of the joint  working party, or those attending in their stead pursuant to Article 5 (2), shall be under an obligation not to disclose information which has come to their knowledge through the work of the Committee, the joint working party or the working groups.  In such cases, only members of the Committee, members of the joint working party, those attending in their stead as mentioned above and representatives of the Commission departments concerned may be present at meetings.  Article 13 Commission Decision 71/31/EEC is hereby repealed.  Article 14 This Decision shall enter into force on 1 January 1987.   Done at Brussels, 7 January 1987.  For the Commission Frans ANDRIESSEN Vice-President EWG:L111UMBE08.95 FF: 1UEN;   SETUP: 01;   Hoehe: 1448 mm;   271 Zeilen;   12770 Zeichen;  Bediener: MIKE   Pr.: C;  Kunde: ................................