title: Commission Decision of 21 April 2016 on notifying a third country of the possibility of being identified as a non-cooperating third country in fighting illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing

text:
               23.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/4

         COMMISSION DECISION
   of 21 April 2016
   on notifying a third country of the possibility of being identified as a non-cooperating third country in fighting illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing
   (2016/C 144/05)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1936/2001 and (EC) No 601/2004 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1093/94 and (EC) No 1447/1999 (1), and in particular Article 32 thereof,
   Whereas:
   1.   INTRODUCTION

               (1)

               Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 (‘the IUU Regulation’) establishes a Union system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

               (2)

               Chapter VI of the IUU Regulation lays down the procedure to identify non-cooperating third countries, the démarches in respect of such countries, the establishment of a list of such countries, the removal from that list, the publicity of that list and any emergency measures.

               (3)

               In accordance with Article 32 of the IUU Regulation, the Commission is to notify third countries of the possibility of their being identified as non-cooperating countries. Such notification is of a preliminary nature. The notification is to be based on the criteria laid down in Article 31 of the IUU Regulation. The Commission is also to take all the démarches set out in Article 32 of that Regulation with respect to the notified third countries. In particular, the Commission is to include in the notification information concerning the essential facts and considerations underlying such identification, provide those countries with the opportunity to respond and provide evidence refuting the identification or, where appropriate, a plan of action to improve and measures taken to rectify the situation. The Commission is to give to the notified third countries adequate time to answer the notification and reasonable time to remedy the situation.

               (4)

               Pursuant to Article 31 of the IUU Regulation, the Commission is to identify third countries that it considers as non-cooperating countries in fighting IUU fishing. A third country is to be identified as non-cooperating if it fails to discharge the duties incumbent upon it under international law as flag, port, coastal or market State, to take action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing.

               (5)

               The identification of non-cooperating third countries is to be based on the review of all information as set out under Article 31(2) of the IUU Regulation.

               (6)

               In accordance with Article 33 of the IUU Regulation, the Council is to establish a list of non-cooperating third countries. The measures set out, inter alia, in Article 38 of the IUU Regulation apply to those countries.

               (7)

               Pursuant to Article 20(1) of the IUU Regulation, the acceptance of validated catch certificates from third country flag States is subject to a notification to the Commission of the arrangements for the implementation, control and enforcement of laws, regulations and conservation and management measures which must be complied with by the fishing vessels of the concerned third countries.

               (8)

               In accordance with Article 20(4) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission is to cooperate administratively with third countries in areas pertaining to the implementation of that Regulation.

         2.   PROCEDURE WITH RESPECT TO THE REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI

               (9)

               The Republic of Kiribati (hereafter ‘Kiribati’) has not submitted its notification as a flag State pursuant to Article 20 of the IUU Regulation to the Commission.

               (10)

               Between 2010 and 2016 the Commission cooperated administratively with the authorities of Kiribati. This cooperation covered issues pertaining to the implementation, control and enforcement of laws, regulations and conservation and management measures by Kiribati. It entailed exchange of oral and written comments as well as an on-the-spot visit. The Commission sought and verified all information deemed necessary concerning Kiribati’s arrangements for the implementation, control and enforcement of laws, regulations and conservation and management measures which must be complied with by its fishing vessels, as well as measures taken by Kiribati in order to implement its obligations in the fight against IUU fishing.

               (11)

               Kiribati is a member of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). Kiribati ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the 1995 United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFSA). It is a party to the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) Convention (FFA Convention) (2) and to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) concerning cooperation in the management of fisheries of common interest (3).

               (12)

               In order to evaluate the compliance of Kiribati with its international obligations as flag, port, coastal or market State set out in the international agreements referred to in recital (11) and established by the relevant RFMOs referred to in that recital, the Commission sought, collected and analysed all the information it deemed necessary for the purpose of such an exercise.

         3.   POSSIBILITY OF THE REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI BEING IDENTIFIED AS A NON-COOPERATING THIRD COUNTRY

               (13)

               Pursuant to Article 31(3) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission analysed the duties of Kiribati as flag, port, coastal or market State. For the purpose of that review the Commission took into account the criteria listed in Article 31(4) to (7) of the IUU Regulation.

         3.1.   Recurrence of IUU fishing activities and IUU trade flows (Article 31(4) of the IUU Regulation)

               (14)

               On the basis of information retrieved by the Commission during its on-the-spot visit and of publically available information, there are strong indications that Kiribati is not in a position to provide information on the characteristics of the highly migratory species caught by its fishing fleet or the fishing products landed or transhipped in its ports and what were the trade flows of those products. Indeed, Kiribati control in port appear to consist merely on a series of documentary checks (license status, Vessel Monitoring System tracks, observer reports, FFA Good standing record) before a fishing vessel is authorised to entry into the port. Similarly, it appears that there is a documentary cross-check on the quantities on the cargo manifest of the fishing vessel against the quantities in the mate receipt of the carrier before issuing the outward clearance document and the transhipment declaration. However, there would not exist further instructions for the physical control of the landing or transhipment operations.

               (15)

               Kiribati acknowledged not having a traceability system for fishery products caught by vessels flying its flag or for third country vessels fishing and transhipping in its waters and ports. Once the fish is landed or transhipped in the ports of Kiribati, there is no mechanism to trace the products in the next steps of the supply chain. Furthermore, the traceability of products would be hindered by the weak control performed by competent authorities on landings and transhipments taking place in Kiribati ports, as described in recital (14). Kiribati would therefore not be in a position to guarantee the transparency of its markets to allow the traceability of fish or fish products as established in point 71 of the FAO International Plan of Action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IPOA IUU) which advises States to take steps to improve transparency of their markets.

               (16)

               Account taken of the apparent lack of traceability and lack of information available to Kiribati authorities on the fish landed or transhipped in its ports, it is unlikely that the country can ensure that trade of fishery products conducted in this country do not stem from IUU fishing. In that regard, it would appear that Kiribati fails to comply with the port State obligation to take action to promote the effectiveness of international conservation and management measures, including port inspections of documents, gears or catches and the prohibition of landings and transhipments where it has been established that the catch has been taken in a manner which undermines the effectiveness of those international conservation and management measures, as established in Article 23 of UNFSA. Kiribati would also fail to take into consideration the recommendations in point 24 of the IPOA IUU which advises flag States to ensure comprehensive and effective monitoring, control and surveillance of fishing, through the point of landing to final destination.

               (17)

               In view of the situation explained in this section and on the basis of all factual elements gathered by the Commission as well as the statements made by Kiribati, it could be established that, pursuant to Article 31(3) and Article 31(4)(a) and (b) of the IUU Regulation, there are strong indications that Kiribati failed to discharge its duties under international law as a flag and market State to prevent access of fisheries products stemming from IUU fishing to its market.

         3.2.   Failure to cooperate and to enforce (Article 31(5) of the IUU Regulation)

               (18)

               The importance of efficient cooperation mechanisms is to be emphasised account taken of the importance of foreign-flagged vessels in waters under jurisdiction of Kiribati. According to the information provided by the authorities of Kiribati during the Commission’ visit in November 2015, there are a total of 13 bilateral agreements with fisheries associations. In that respect, the fleet authorised to operate in waters of Kiribati is composed by 178 purse seine and 195 longline vessels, from which only 13 purse seine vessels are flagged to Kiribati.

               (19)

               Whereas fishing vessels flagged to different 13 countries are licenced to operate within Kiribati waters, competent authorities acknowledged that no cooperation channels with the concerned flag States had been setup to ensure that Kiribati complies with its obligations to cooperate with flag States as described in recital (21).

               (20)

               Kiribati has been so far rather reluctant to cooperate with the Commission in the improvement of the transparency of the Vessels Day Scheme (VDS) for the management of the purse seine fishery in the Western and Central Pacific. The Commission sent a series of letters both to the coastal and flag States concerned requesting that the latter have access to the information on fishing effort consumed by their fishing vessels under VDS. With this objective, three letters were addressed to Kiribati authorities on 18 November 2014, 19 December 2014 and 27 April 2015. None of the three requests were replied before the Commission visited Kiribati. While Kiribati authorities expressed during the visit in November 2015 that they would be willing to share VDS information, they have not provided to date any evidence of the arrangements ensuring the access by the authorities of concerned flag States.

               (21)

               The performance of Kiribati described in recital (20) prevents the country from fulfilling its obligations pursuant to Articles 63 and 64 of UNCLOS establishing that coastal and flag States shall cooperate with regard to straddling and highly-migratory fish species. Articles 7 and 20 of UNFSA further develop the obligation to cooperate, respectively in setting compatible conservation and management measures and in ensuring compliance and enforcement with such measures. In addition, Article 7(1)(3) of the FAO Code of Conduct (4) recommends that States concerned by the exploitation of straddling and trans-boundary fish stocks establish bilateral agreements to guarantee effective cooperation in order to ensure effective conservation and management of resources. This is further specified in points 28 and 51 of the IPOA-IUU, setting out detailed practices for direct cooperation between States, including the exchange of data or information available to coastal States.

               (22)

               The legal framework, setup on the Fisheries Act 2010 as amended by Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2015 (5), is incomplete, in particular with regards to the sanctioning system. In concrete, the legal framework in force does not include a definition of IUU in line with IPOA IUU. The Act does not contain either explicit sanctions in case of breach of RFMO rules, transhipment at sea and fishing for a stock which is subject to a moratorium or for which fishing is prohibited.

               (23)

               The notion of ‘serious violations’ established in Article 19(2) of the UNFSA and adopted by WCPFC in CMM 2006-8 (6) on boarding and inspection procedures reinforces deterrence of a sanctioning system by means of adapting the level of the sanction to the seriousness of the illegal activity, the objective being to deprive the economic benefit obtained by the offender. The current legal framework however does not contain the notion of ‘serious violations’ nor any other criteria for the modulation of sanctions between minimum and maximum levels to tackle the economic benefit derived from the illegal activity.

               (24)

               In addition, it appears that the Fisheries Act does not address recidivism. The treatment of repeated offences is also crucial to ensure deterrence of the sanction system. The fact that repeated offences are not explicitly targeted with higher penalties undermines the proportionality and deterrence of the sanction system of Kiribati. The gains of a repeated illegal activity would not be neutralised with increased sanctions and thus, potential offenders would not be deterred to continue IUU activities.

               (25)

               In conclusion, it seems that the sanction system in its current form, as examined in recitals (22) to (24) is not comprehensive and severe enough to achieve its deterrent function. In this respect, it seems that the treatment of serious violations is not adequate to secure compliance, to discourage violations wherever they occur and to deprive offenders of the benefits accruing from their illegal activities, as required by Article 19(2) of UNFSA and Article 25(7) of the WCPFC Convention.

               (26)

               In view of the situation explained in this Section and on the basis of all the factual elements gathered by the Commission as well as all the statements made by Kiribati, it could be established that, pursuant to Article 31(3) and (5) of the IUU Regulation, there are strong indications that Kiribati failed to discharge its duties under international law in respect of cooperation and enforcement efforts.

         3.3.   Failure to implement international rules (Article 31(6) of the IUU Regulation)

               (27)

               The Commission analysed all information deemed relevant with respect to the status of Kiribati as contracting party of UNCLOS, UNFSA, WCPFC and IATTC.

               (28)

               According to the information provided by Kiribati during the visit in November 2015, tuna catches in Kiribati economic exclusive zone (EEZ) amounted in 2014 to approximately 600 000 metric tonnes (mt).

               (29)

               On the basis of the figures presented in recital (28) it appears that Kiribati manages important global tuna resources and thus has the responsibility, as coastal State, to ensure responsible and long-term sustainable management of this resource. Articles 61 to 64 of UNCLOS and Articles 7 and 8 of the UNFSA regulate the utilisation of living resources by the coastal State, which should promote the objective of optimum utilisation of the living resources in its EEZ, and ensure compliance of nationals of other States fishing in its EEZ with conservation and management measures, as well as cooperate with the relevant States and regional organisations involved in that fishery.

               (30)

               In that respect, it appears that the legal framework of Kiribati would not ensure efficient and effective management of vessels operating in waters under its jurisdiction, in apparent contravention of the obligations and recommendations detailed in recital (29). Furthermore, the legal framework appears not to provide with clear and transparent conservation and management measures for all types of waters under the jurisdiction of Kiribati. The Tuna Management Plan updated in 2014 contains a comprehensive overview of the tuna fisheries in the country but would fail to propose concrete management actions with clear benchmarks and objectives.

               (31)

               The general principles to be followed by coastal States for the management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks are established in Article 5 of UNFSA. In this respect, the Kiribati Fisheries Act establishes as objectives the promotion of sustainable management of fisheries and the protection of fish stocks and the marine environment. Nonetheless, it seems that other principles established in UNFSA such as the precautionary approach, the maximum sustainable yield or the avoidance of excess fishing capacity and overfishing, are not addressed in the legal framework.

               (32)

               Waters under Kiribati’ jurisdictions are referred to as territorial sea, archipelagic waters and EEZ. According to Article 3 of the WCPFC Convention, the WCPFC area of competence comprises in principle all waters of the Pacific Ocean, including waters under Kiribati’ jurisdiction. However, Kiribati would appear to exclude its territorial and archipelagic waters from the application of the VDS, a system that limits fishing effort of the purse seine fleet through the allocation of fishing days. Therefore, the main legal instrument for the conservation of fisheries resources in the waters of Kiribati appears not to apply to a considerable part of the waters under its jurisdiction.

               (33)

               The shortcomings as regards clarity and transparency of the applicable conservation and management rules described in recitals (30) to (32), including the control over fishing effort under VDS, in addition to the access of 360 foreign fishing vessels as detailed in recital (18), undermine the effective implementation of conservation and management measures, and compromise compliance with the obligations set out in Article 61(2) to (5), Article 62(1) and Article 64 of UNCLOS concerning optimum utilisation of resources through proper conservation and management measures.

               (34)

               Furthermore, according to public available information found in internet, it seems that Kiribati keeps an International Ship Registry (7) responsible for vessel registration which is located outside Kiribati. Considering the apparent low level of control by competent authorities to the registration process and the lack of relevant requirements such as those established in point 14 of the FAO Guidelines for Flag State Performance, Kiribati would be in a difficult position to ensure that vessels flying the flag of Kiribati have a genuine link with the country. The lack of such genuine link between the State and the vessels that are registered in its registry would be in contradiction with the conditions set out for the nationality of ships under Article 91 of the UNCLOS.

               (35)

               In view of the situation explained in this Section and on the basis of all the factual elements gathered by the Commission as well as all the statements made by Kiribati, it could be established that, pursuant to Article 31(3) and (6) of the IUU Regulation, there are strong indications that Kiribati failed to discharge its duties under international law with respect to international rules, regulations and conservation and management measures.

         3.4.   Specific constraints of developing countries

               (36)

               According to the United Nations Human Development Index (UNHDI) (8), Kiribati was considered in 2015 to be a medium human development country (ranked 137 out of 188 countries).

               (37)

               Although specific capacity constraints may exist in general with respect to control and monitoring, the specific constraints of Kiribati derived from its level of development cannot justify an absence of specific provisions in the national legal framework referring to international instruments to combat, deter and eliminate IUU fishing activities. In addition, it appears that the deficiencies of monitoring, control and surveillance system result from the imbalance between the limited capabilities of Kiribati to control fishing activities in its EEZ and the extent of the foreign fleet having access to its waters.

               (38)

               In view of the situation explained in this Section and on the basis of all factual elements gathered by the Commission as well as the statements made by Kiribati, it could be established, pursuant to Article 31(7) of the IUU Regulation, that the development status of Kiribati fisheries governance may be impaired by its level of development. However, account taken of the nature of the established shortcomings of Kiribati and actions taken to rectify the situation, Kiribati’ development level cannot fully excuse or otherwise justify its overall performance as flag, coastal or port State and the insufficiency of its action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing.

         4.   CONCLUSION ON THE POSSIBILITY OF IDENTIFICATION AS A NON-COOPERATING THIRD COUNTRY

               (39)

               In view of the conclusions reached with regard to Kiribati’s failure of to discharge its duties under international law as flag, port, coastal or market State and to take action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing, that country should be notified, in accordance with Article 32 of the IUU Regulation, of the possibility of being identified by the Commission as a non-cooperating third country in fighting IUU fishing.

               (40)

               In accordance with Article 32(1) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission should notify Kiribati of the possibility of being identified as a non-cooperating third country. The Commission should also take all the démarches set out in Article 32 of the IUU Regulation with respect to Kiribati. In the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which that country may respond in writing to the notification and rectify the situation.

               (41)

               Furthermore, the notification to Kiribati of the possibility of being identified as a country which the Commission considers to be non-cooperating for the purposes of this Decision does neither preclude nor automatically entail any subsequent step taken by the Commission or the Council for the purpose of the identification and the establishment of a list of non-cooperating countries,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Sole Article
   The Republic of Kiribati shall be notified of the possibility of being identified by the Commission as a non-cooperating third country in fighting illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

      Done at Brussels, 21 April 2016.

            For the Commission

         Karmenu VELLA

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 286, 29.10.2008, p. 1.

      (2)  http://www.ffa.int/

      (3)  Nauru Agreement (http://www.ffa.int/node/93#attachments).

      (4)  Code of Conduct for responsible fisheries, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1995.

      (5)  Republic of Kiribati (No 6 of 2010) Act for the conservation, management and development of Kiribati fisheries and control of foreign fishing and connected purposes, amended by Republic of Kiribati (No 1 of 2015) Act to amend the Fisheries Act 2010.

      (6)  https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/Conservation%20and%20Management%20Measure-2006-08%20%5BHSB%26I%20Procedures%5D.pdf

      (7)  Kiribati Ship Registry, http://www.kiribaship.com/EN/Default.aspx

      (8)  Information retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics


Avis juridique important

|

31978D0827

78/827/EEC: Council Decision of 10 October 1978 on the provisional application to Tuvalu after its independence of the arrangements provided for in Decision 76/568/EEC

Official Journal L 287 , 13/10/1978 P. 0032 - 0032

****( 1 ) OJ NO L 176 , 1 . 7 . 1976 , P . 8 .  ( 2 ) OJ NO L 147 , 3 . 6 . 1978 , P . 39 .    COUNCIL DECISION   OF 10 OCTOBER 1978   ON THE PROVISIONAL APPLICATION TO TUVALU AFTER ITS INDEPENDENCE OF THE ARRANGEMENTS PROVIDED FOR IN DECISION 76/568/EEC  ( 78/827/EEC )   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN   COMMUNITIES ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY ,   HAVING REGARD TO COUNCIL DECISION 76/568/EEC OF 29 JUNE 1976 ON THE ASSOCIATION OF THE OVERSEAS COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES WITH THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY ( 1 ), AS LAST AMENDED BY DECISION 78/465/EEC ( 2 ), AND IN PARTICULAR THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 55 ( 2 ) THEREOF ,   WHEREAS , PURSUANT TO THE ABOVEMENTIONED PROVISION OF DECISION 76/568/EEC THE ARRANGEMENTS PROVIDED FOR THEREIN MAY CONTINUE TO APPLY PROVISIONALLY , UNDER CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE COUNCIL , TO COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES WHICH BECOME INDEPENDENT ;   WHEREAS TUVALU , WHICH APPEARS IN ANNEX I RELATING TO THE LIST OF COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES REFERRED TO BY THAT DECISION , ACHIEVED INDEPENDENCE ON 1 OCTOBER 1978 ;   WHEREAS IT SHOULD BE DECIDED TO CONTINUE TO APPLY PROVISIONALLY THE ARRANGEMENTS PROVIDED FOR IN THE ABOVEMENTIONED DECISION TO THAT STATE AND TO LAY DOWN THE CONDITIONS FOR SUCH APPLICATION , WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO SUBSEQUENT RECOURSE TO THE FIRST SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 55  ( 2 ) AND TO ARTICLE 56 THEREOF ;   WHEREAS THE ACP-EEC CONVENTION OF LOME IS OPEN , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 89 THEREOF , TO THE ACCESSION OF A COUNTRY OR TERRITORY TO WHICH PART FOUR OF THE TREATY APPLIES AND WHICH HAS BECOME INDEPENDENT ; WHEREAS SUCH ACCESSION CAN TAKE PLACE ONLY FOLLOWING A REQUEST BY THE STATE CONCERNED AND WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE ACP-EEC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS ;   WHEREAS TUVALU HAS SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR ACCESSION TO THE ACP-EEC CONVENTION OF LOME ;   WHEREAS THE PERIOD OF PROVISIONAL APPLICATION OF DECISION 76/568/EEC TO THAT STATE SHOULD BE LIMITED ;   WHEREAS , IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY BREAK IN CONTINUITY IN THE FINANCING OF DECISIONS IN FAVOUR OF TUVALU BETWEEN ITS ACCESSION TO THE ACP-EEC CONVENTION OF LOME AND THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE DECISION ADJUSTING THE AMOUNTS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT FUND WHICH THE COUNCIL IS TO TAKE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 1 ( 4 ) OF THE INTERNAL AGREEMENT ON THE FINANCING AND ADMINISTRATION OF COMMUNITY AID SIGNED ON 11 JULY 1975 , TUVALU SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO CONTINUE TO BENEFIT UNTIL THE DATE OF THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THAT DECISION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF DECISION 76/568/EEC RELATING TO FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION ,   HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :   ARTICLE 1   THE ARRANGEMENTS LAID DOWN BY DECISION 76/568/EEC SHALL REMAIN PROVISIONALLY APPLICABLE TO TUVALU UNTIL THE LATTER ACCEDES TO THE ACP-EEC CONVENTION OF LOME BUT UNTIL 30 SEPTEMBER 1979 AT THE LATEST .   HOWEVER , TUVALU SHALL CONTINUE TO BENEFIT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID DECISION RELATING TO FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION UNTIL THE DATE OF ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE DECISION ADJUSTING THE AMOUNTS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT FUND WHICH THE COUNCIL IS TO TAKE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 1 ( 4 ) OF THE INTERNAL AGREEMENT ON THE FINANCING AND ADMINISTRATION OF COMMUNITY AID SIGNED ON 11 JULY 1975 .   ARTICLE 2   QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF DECISION 76/568/EEC TO TUVALU AFTER IT HAS BECOME INDEPENDENT SHALL BE DEALT WITH AS NECESSARY BY DIRECT CONTACT BETWEEN THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES OF THAT STATE AND OF THE COMMUNITY .   ARTICLE 3   THIS DECISION SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE ON THE DAY OF ITS PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .   IT SHALL APPLY FROM 1 OCTOBER 1978 .   DONE AT LUXEMBOURG , 10 OCTOBER 1978 .   FOR THE COUNCIL   THE PRESIDENT   R . OFFERGELD


title: Commission Decision of 3 June 2014 establishing a Commission expert group on Cancer Control and repealing Decision 96/469/EC

text:
               4.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/4

         COMMISSION DECISION
   of 3 June 2014
   establishing a Commission expert group on Cancer Control and repealing Decision 96/469/EC
   2014/C 167/05
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Under Article 168(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States are required, in liaison with the Commission, to coordinate among themselves their policies and programmes in the areas referred to in paragraph 1. The Commission may, in close contact with the Member States, take any useful initiative to promote such coordination, in particular initiatives aiming at the establishment of guidelines and indicators, the organisation of exchange of best practice, and the preparation of the necessary elements for periodic monitoring and evaluation.

               (2)

               The Commission White Paper ‘Together for Health: A strategic approach for the EU 2008-2013’ (1) adopted by the Commission on 23 October 2007, developing the EU health strategy, identified cancer as a priority for action.

               (3)

               The Council adopted on 2 December 2003 a Recommendation on cancer screening (2).

               (4)

               The Council adopted on 10 June 2008 Conclusions on ‘Reducing the burden of Cancer’ (3) and on 13 September 2010 on ‘Action against Cancer’ (4).

               (5)

               The European Commission adopted on 24 June 2009 a ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Action Against Cancer: European Partnership’ (5).

               (6)

               The Communication from the President to the Commission of 10 November 2010 entitled ‘Framework for Commission Expert Groups: Horizontal rules and public register’ (6) (hereinafter, the ‘the framework for Commission expert groups’) sets out a revised set of rules for all Commission expert groups.

               (7)

               The preparation and implementation of activities in the field of cancer require close cooperation with the specialized bodies in Member States and with the interested parties. This would respond to demands from Member State representatives and stakeholders for an improved coordination in the light of the expanding cancer work. In addition, sharing knowledge and information can help resolve some of the difficulties that Member States are facing in cancer control and will facilitate cooperation with other significant actors such as patient’s organisations.

               (8)

               Advice from high-level European experts in the field of cancer should be constantly made available in the form of an expert group established by the Commission. The expert group on cancer control should, at the request of the Commission, provide advice and expertise to the Commission in formulating and implementing the Union’s activities in the field of cancer and foster exchanges of relevant experience, policies and practices between the Member States and the various parties involved.

               (9)

               This group should be composed of representatives of Member States, representatives of patients’ organisations in the field of cancer, representatives from European associations acting in the field of cancer prevention, European professional associations or scientific societies acting in the field of cancer, a representative of producers of products or service providers in the field of cancer and a representative of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in order to allow a wide representation of stakeholders and experts in the area of cancer.

               (10)

               The expert group on cancer control should not act as a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (7).

               (11)

               Personal data should be processed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (8).

               (12)

               Commission Decision 96/469/EC of 30 July 1996 (9) establishing an advisory committee for cancer prevention should thereby be repealed,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   Establishment of the expert group
   The Commission expert group on cancer control, hereinafter referred to as ‘the expert group’, is hereby set up.
   Article 2
   Tasks of the expert group
   1.   At the request of the Commission or the Commission services, the expert group shall carry out the following tasks in the field of cancer:

               (a)

               assist the Commission in the drawing up of legal instruments and policy documents, guidelines and recommendations on cancer control, as well as cancer data including epidemiology, early detection of cancer and cancer screening, information of the public on cancer prevention, quality assurance procedure in cancer management and preventive aspects which may be developed on the basis of the results of fundamental, translational and clinical cancer research carried out under the EU research programmes and other international or national research initiatives, as well as on cross cutting themes related to cancer;

               (b)

               advise the Commission in the implementation of Union actions and suggest improvements to the measures taken;

               (c)

               advise the Commission in the monitoring, evaluation and dissemination of the results of measures taken at Union and national level;

               (d)

               advise the Commission on international cooperation;

               (e)

               facilitate coordination and exchange of information between Member States;

               (f)

               provide an overview to the Commission on Union and national policies;

               (g)

               gathering information of relevant experience, policies and practices of the Member States and the various parties involved.

         2.   In order to carry out the tasks referred to in paragraph 1, the expert group may at the request of the Commission services submit opinions, recommendations and reports.
   3.   The tasks of the expert group shall not overlap with issues covered by the Advisory Committee on safety and health at work (ACSH) set up by Council Decision 2003/C 218/01 (10) by the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits for Chemical Agents set up by Commission Decision 2014/113/EU (11) or under Directive 2004/37/EC on the protection of workers from the risks related to carcinogens and mutagens at work (12), nor issues that fall under the tasks of the Pharmaceutical Committee, set up by Council Decision 75/320/EEC (13).
   Article 3
   Consultation
   The Commission may consult the expert group on any matters relating to cancer.
   Article 4
   Membership — Appointment
   1.   The expert group shall be composed of the following members:

               (a)

               Member States’ competent authorities;

               (b)

               three representatives of patients’ organisations in the field of cancer;

               (c)

               two representatives of European associations acting in the field of cancer prevention;

               (d)

               three representatives of European professional associations or scientific societies acting in the field of cancer;

               (e)

               one representative of producers of products or service providers in the field of cancer;

               (f)

               one representative of the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

         2.   Competent authorities of the EFTA States which are party to the European Economic Area Agreement may also be members of the group, at the request of the EFTA States concerned.
   3.   Competent authorities of the candidate countries for accession to the European Union may also be members of the group, at the request of the States concerned.
   4.   Members shall be appointed by the Director-General for Health and Consumers.
   5.   The members referred to in points (b), (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 1 shall be appointed from a list of suitable candidates established following publication of a call for expressions of interest. The call for expressions of interests shall specify the required qualifications and conditions to become member of the expert group.
   6.   The members referred to in paragraph 1(a) to (f) and paragraphs 2 and 3 shall nominate representatives and alternates to replace the representative when absent or indisposed. Alternates shall be nominated in accordance with the same conditions as representatives. Alternates shall automatically replace any members who are absent or indisposed.
   7.   The Director-General for Health and Consumers may refuse a representative or an alternate proposed by an organisation if he or she does not meet the profile required in the call for expressions of interest referred to in paragraph 5. In such cases, the organisation concerned shall be asked to nominate another representative or alternate.
   8.   The term of office of members of the expert group shall be three years and may be renewed after having responded to a further call for expressions of interest.
   9.   A member’s term of office shall come to an end before the expiry of the three-year period in case of resignation.
   10.   Members referred to in paragraph 1(b) to (f), or their representatives, may be excluded and replaced for the remainder of their term of office in any of the following cases:

               (a)

               permanent incapacity to attend the meetings;

               (b)

               incapacity to contribute effectively to the group’s deliberations;

               (c)

               non-compliance with the conditions set out in Article 339 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               (d)

               subsequent non-compliance with the qualifications and conditions specified in the call for expression of interests as referred to in paragraph 5.

         11.   The Director-General for Health and Consumers may ask a member referred to in paragraph 1(b) to (f) to nominate another representative or another alternate in the cases referred to in paragraph 10.
   12.   Members whose term of office comes to an end before the expiry of the three-year period pursuant to paragraphs 8 and 9 may be replaced for the remaining period of their mandate.
   13.   The names of members and their representatives shall be published in the Register of Commission expert groups and other similar entities (‘the Register’) (14). The names of Member States’ authorities may be published in the Register.
   14.   Personal data shall be collected, processed and published in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.
   Article 5
   Operation
   1.   The expert group shall be chaired by the Director in charge of the policy on public health in the Directorate-General for Health and Consumers of the Commission. The Director may delegate chairmanship to another Commission official.
   2.   In agreement with the Commission, the expert group may set up subgroups to examine specific questions on the basis of terms of reference defined by the group. Such subgroups shall be disbanded as soon as their mandate is fulfilled.
   3.   The Commission may invite experts from outside the expert group with specific competence in a subject on the agenda to participate in the work of the group. In addition, the Commission may give observer status to individuals or organisations, as defined in Rule 8(3) of the framework for Commission expert groups, and candidate countries for accession to the EU.
   4.   Members of expert groups and their representatives and alternates, as well as invited experts and observers, shall comply with the obligations of professional secrecy laid down by the Treaties and their implementing rules, as well as with the Commission’s rules on security regarding the protection of EU classified information, laid down in the Annex to Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom (15). Should they fail to respect these obligations, the Commission may take all appropriate measures.
   5.   The meetings of the expert group and subgroups shall be held on Commission premises, unless where exceptionally meetings are organised elsewhere for duly motivated reasons. The Commission shall provide secretarial services. The agenda and the minutes of the expert group’s meetings shall be drawn up by the Commission. Other Commission officials with an interest in the proceedings may attend meetings of the expert group and its subgroups.
   6.   The expert group shall adopt its rules of procedure on the basis of the Commission standard rules of procedures for experts groups.
   7.   The Commission shall make available all relevant documents (such as agendas, minutes and participants’ submissions) on the activities carried out by the expert group either by including it in the Register or via a link from the Register to a dedicated website, where information can be found. A document shall not be published where disclosure would undermine the protection of a public or private interest as defined in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (16).
   Article 6
   Meeting expenses
   1.   Participants in the activities of the expert group shall not be remunerated for the services they render.
   2.   Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by participants in the activities of the expert group shall be reimbursed by the Commission in accordance with the provisions in force within the Commission.
   3.   The expenses referred to in paragraph 2 shall be reimbursed within the limits of the available appropriations allocated under the annual procedure for the allocation of resources.
   Article 7
   Repeal
   Decision 96/469/EC is repealed.
   Article 8
   This Decision shall apply as from the date of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 3 June 2014.

            For the Commission

         Tonio BORG

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  COM(2007) 630 final, 23.10.2007.

      (2)  OJ L 327, 16.12.2003, p. 34.

      (3)  2876th Employment, Social policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council meeting, 10.6.2008.

      (4)  3032nd General Affairs Council meeting, 13.9.2010.

      (5)  COM(2009) 291 final, 24.6.2009.

      (6)  C(2010) 7649 final, 10.11.2010.

      (7)  OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13.

      (8)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

      (9)  OJ L 192, 2.8.1996, p. 31 and OJ L 204, 14.8.1996, p. 20.

      (10)  OJ C 218, 13.9.2003, p. 1.

      (11)  OJ L 62, 4.3.2014, p. 18.

      (12)  OJ L 229, 29.6.2004, p. 23.

      (13)  OJ L 147, 9.6.1975, p. 23.

      (14)  Members who do not wish to have their names disclosed may apply for derogation from this rule. The request not to disclose the name of a member of an expert group shall be considered justified whenever publication could endanger his or her security or integrity or unduly prejudice his or her privacy.

      (15)  Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 29 November 2001 amending its internal Rules of Procedure (OJ L 317, 3.12.2001, p. 1).

      (16)  These exceptions are intended to protect public security, military affairs, international relations, financial, monetary or economic policy, privacy and integrity of the individual, commercial interests, court proceedings and legal advice, inspections/investigations/audits and the institution’s decision-making process.


title: Council Decision 2008/974/CFSP of 18 December 2008 in support of the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

text:
               23.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 345/91

      COUNCIL DECISION 2008/974/CFSP
   of 18 December 2008
   in support of the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 13(3) and Article 23(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 12 December 2003, the European Council adopted the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Chapter III of which contains a list of measures that need to be taken both within the European Union (EU) and in third countries to combat such proliferation.

               (2)

               The EU is actively implementing this Strategy and giving effect to the measures listed in Chapters II and III thereof, for example by releasing financial resources to support specific projects leading to the enhancement of a multilateral non-proliferation system and multilateral confidence building measures. The Hague Code of Conduct against ballistic missile proliferation (hereinafter ‘the Code’ or ‘HCoC’ is an integral part of that system. It aims at preventing and curbing the proliferation of ballistic missile systems capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction and related technologies.

               (3)

               On 17 November 2003, the Council adopted Common Position 2003/805/CFSP (1) on the universalisation and reinforcement of multilateral agreements in the field of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and means of delivery. That Common Position calls, inter alia, for the promotion of the subscription of as many countries as possible to the Code, especially those with ballistic missile capabilities, as well as for the further development and implementation of the Code, especially its confidence building measures, and for the promotion of a closer relationship between the Code and the UN multilateral non-proliferation system.

               (4)

               On 23 May 2007, the Council decided to take action to promote the universality of the Code and compliance with its principles. To that end, a workshop was organised in the margins of the 2007 Annual Meeting of Subscribing States which brought together States with major ballistic missile capabilities, including those which did not subscribe to the Code. It is a priority of the EU to continue this dialogue among subscribing and non-subscribing States with the aim of further promoting the universality of the Code as well as its better implementation and enhancement. This Decision should contribute to this process,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   1.   For the purposes of ensuring the continuous and practical implementation of certain elements of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the EU shall support the activities of subscribing States to the Code in order to further the following objectives:

               (a)

               promoting the universality of the Code, and in particular the subscription to the Code by all States with ballistic missile capabilities;

               (b)

               supporting the implementation of the Code;

               (c)

               promoting further enhancement of the Code.

         2.   In this context, the projects to be supported by the European Union shall cover the following specific activities:

               (a)

               providing means for the organisation of targeted outreach, for example in the form of a workshop, aiming at the promotion of new subscriptions to the Code for the region with the lowest level of subscription to the Code;

               (b)

               providing financial and technical means to facilitate, on the one hand, the exchange of information among subscribing States, and, on the other, a visit by international observers to Space Launch Vehicles (SLV) testing launching sites, which subscribing States have resolved to consider on a voluntary basis under Article 4a (ii) of the Code;

               (c)

               providing means to pursue a debate among subscribing States on how to preserve the relevance and the viability of the Code. The debate shall in particular take into account new developments in the area of ballistic missile proliferation and the developments in international institutional and legal frameworks related to ballistic missiles.

         These projects shall be carried out for the benefit of subscribing and non-subscribing States to the Code.
   A detailed description of the projects is set out in the Annex.
   Article 2
   1.   The Presidency, assisted by the Secretary-General of the Council/High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (SG/HR), shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision. The Commission shall be fully associated.
   2.   The technical implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be carried out by the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris (FRS).
   The FRS shall perform this task under the control of the SG/HR, in support of the Presidency and in close consultation with the Chair of the Annual Meetings of the subscribing States to the Code as well as with Austria in its capacity as Immediate Central Contact (ICC)/Executive Secretariat of the Code. For this purpose, the SG/HR shall enter into the necessary arrangements with the FRS.
   3.   The Presidency, the SG/HR and the Commission shall keep each other regularly informed about the implementation of this Decision, in accordance with their respective competences.
   Article 3
   1.   The financial reference amount for the implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be 1 015 000 EUR.
   2.   The expenditure financed by the amount stipulated in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
   3.   The Commission shall supervise the proper management of the expenditure referred to in paragraph 2, which shall take the form of a grant. For this purpose, it shall conclude a financing agreement with the FRS. The financing agreement shall stipulate that the FRS is to ensure visibility of the EU contribution, appropriate to its size.
   4.   The Commission shall endeavour to conclude the financing agreement referred to in paragraph 3 as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Decision. It shall inform the Council of any difficulties in that process and of the date of conclusion of the financing agreement.
   Article 4
   The Presidency, assisted by the SG/HR, shall report to the Council on the implementation of this Decision on the basis of regular reports prepared by the FRS. These reports shall form the basis for the evaluation carried out by the Council. The Commission shall be fully associated. It shall report on the financial aspects of the implementation of this Decision.
   Article 5
   This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.
   It shall expire 6 months after the date of its taking effect, unless the Commission concludes a financing agreement with FRS before expiry of that period, in which case this Decision shall expire 24 months after the date of conclusion of the financing agreement.
   Article 6
   This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 18 December 2008.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. BARNIER

      (1)  OJ L 302, 20.11.2003, p. 34.

      ANNEX
      EU support to the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
      1.   Objectives
      The European Union has strongly supported the Code from its inception. The European Union considers the Code as an important multilateral instrument which aims at curbing the proliferation of ballistic missiles systems and related technologies through transparency and confidence building measures. All the European Union Member States have subscribed to the Code and are implementing the Code in good faith.
      In the past, the European Union tried to overcome remaining loopholes in the implementation of the Code and its universality by organising a workshop of subscribing and non-subscribing States to the Code in the margins of the 2007 Annual Meeting. Encouraged by the outcome of the workshop, the European Union wishes to pursue this initiative and support three aspects of the Code as follows:

                  —

                  Universality of the Code,

                  —

                  Implementation of the Code,

                  —

                  Enhancement and improved functioning of the Code.

            2.   Description of the projects
      2.1.   Project 1: Promotion of the universality of the Code
      2.1.1.   Purpose of the project
      While the number of subscribing States has attained the level of two thirds of all UN Member States, more needs to be done to achieve universality of the Code. At the Annual Meetings, the subscribing States noted that the reasons behind the reluctance of non-subscribing States to subscribe to the Code vary extensively, from general lack of awareness and understanding of the Code to more political reasons.
      2.1.2.   Results of the project

                  —

                  increase awareness about, understanding and support of the Code,

                  —

                  enhance interaction among subscribing and non-subscribing States to the Code,

                  —

                  increase the number of subscribing States to the Code.

            2.1.3.   Description of the project
      The project provides for the organisation of two workshops:

                  —

                  an awareness raising workshop for the region with the greatest number of non-subscribing States.
                  In Africa, the following countries have not subscribed to the Code: Algeria, Angola, Botswana, Central African Republic, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Lesotho, Namibia, Republic of Congo, Somalia, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe.

                  —

                  a general workshop, following the model of the workshop that was organised in the margins of the 2007 Annual Meeting of subscribing States with focused and structured exchanges on technical and politico-security considerations related to ballistic missile proliferation and the relevance of the Code.

            2.2.   Project 2: Support for the implementation of the Code among subscribing States
      2.2.1.   Purpose of the project
      While the Code represents an important instrument for curbing the proliferation of ballistic missiles and related technologies through confidence-building and transparency measures, more needs to be done to promote better exchanges among subscribing States. The project will focus on those aspects of exchanges where tangible results can be achieved.
      2.2.2.   Results of the project

                  —

                  creation of a prototype of a secure internet-based information and communication mechanism (e-ICC), which could enable faster, easier and securitized exchange of information among subscribing States and provide for the electronic distribution of documents,

                  —

                  in the event that the subscribing States decide to establish an e-ICC at their Annual Meeting, such a prototype could be made operational,

                  —

                  greater support for a visit by observers to SLV testing launch sites.

            2.2.3.   Description of the project
      The project provides for two types of measures:

                  (a)

                  Facilitation of the exchange of information and communication among subscribing States through the creation of an e-ICC. The experience of France with the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) e-POC system is of particular relevance to this project.
                  Given the fact that it is for the subscribing States of the Code at the Annual Meeting to decide whether to establish such a system, the project will be implemented in two phases. The implementation of the second phase will be subject to prior deliberation by the subscribing States on the e-ICC at the Annual Meeting.
                  Phase 1: Proposal of the EU to the subscribing States of the Code to create an e-ICC
                  A prototype of an e-ICC will be prepared with a view to presenting it to the subscribing States, possibly in 2009 and to receiving feedback on its operation from the subscribing States.
                  Phase 2: Operationalisation of the e-ICC prototype
                  In the event that the subscribing States decide to establish an e-ICC at the Annual Meeting, such a prototype could be made operational. To that end, the know-how and material aspects of the prototype would be transferred to the ICC/Executive secretariat for management and training would be provided to the ICC and the subscribing States;

                  (b)

                  Providing financial means for a visit of international observers to SLVs' testing launch sites of the EU Member States.

            2.3.   Project 3: Promotion of the further enhancement and improved functioning of the Code
      2.3.1.   Purpose of the project
      The security environment is evolving constantly, including in the area of proliferation of the means capable to deliver Weapons of Mass Destruction. The subscribing States meet annually and assess the implementation of the Code as well as the new trends in the proliferation of ballistic missiles and related technologies.
      The project will promote more in-depth discussion among subscribing States, and, when appropriate, include non-subscribing States in a more informal setting and will provide for access to technical expertise concerning ballistic missile proliferation outside governmental circles. The outcomes of the project could be submitted as a food-for-thought paper at the Annual Meeting of subscribing States.
      2.3.2.   Results of the project

                  —

                  better understanding of current trends in ballistic missile proliferation and SLV programmes with recommendations for the subscribing States,

                  —

                  analysis of options how to motivate the subscribing States to undergo the Ballistic Missile and SLV programmes,

                  —

                  better understanding of the interface between the Code, the MTCR and bilateral and regional arrangements concerning confidence building measures in pursuit of the goal of missile non-proliferation and a definition of policy recommendations,

                  —

                  working papers or other forms of documentation from the workshops, which could be submitted by the EU to the HCoC Annual Meeting.

            2.3.3.   Description of the project
      The project will provide for two types of activities:

                  (a)

                  Financing of a study on the current trends in ballistic missiles and the dynamics in their proliferation, as well as SLV programmes, which could be submitted as a food-for-thought paper at the Annual Meeting of the subscribing States. In conducting this study, FRS will ensure that there is no duplication of work with the UN Group of Governmental Experts;

                  (b)

                  Financing of workshops of experts from the subscribing and non-subscribing States, both from the governmental and non-governmental sectors. The workshops could be organised in the margins of the Annual Meetings. The outcomes could be submitted as a working paper to the Annual Meeting of the subscribing States. The workshops will address the following issues:

                              —

                              The interface between the Code, the MTCR and bilateral and regional confidence building measure arrangements in pursuit of the goal of missile non-proliferation as well as between the Code and the UN system (UNGA),

                              —

                              How to motivate the subscribing States to undergo the ballistic missile and SLV programmes.

            3.   Duration
      The total estimated duration of the implementation of the projects is 24 months.
      4.   Beneficiaries
      The beneficiaries of the projects in this Decision are both subscribing and non-subscribing States to the Code.
      The final choice of the beneficiary States will be made in consultation between the implementing entity and the Presidency, assisted by the SG/HR in close consultation with Member States and the Commission in the framework of the competent Council Working Party. The final decision will be based on proposals by the implementing entity in accordance with Article 2(2).
      5.   Implementing entity
      FRS will be entrusted with the technical implementation of the projects. The projects will be implemented directly by staff of the FRS or of its cooperative partners, the Institute of Peace Research and Security Policy of Hamburg University and the Polish Space Research Centre in Warsaw.
      The implementing entity will prepare:

                  (a)

                  Quarterly reports on the implementation of the projects;

                  (b)

                  A final report not later than one month after the end of the implementation of the projects.

            Reports will be sent to the Presidency, assisted by the SG/HR.
      The FRS will ensure the visibility of the EU contribution, appropriate to its size.
      6.   Third party participants
      The projects will be financed in their entirety by the Decision. Experts from subscribing States to the Code or non-subscribing States may be considered as third party participants. They will work in accordance with the standard rules of the FRS.


Avis juridique important

|

31985D0443

85/443/EEC: Commission Decision of 23 September 1985 accepting an undertaking given in connection with the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of container corner fittings of worked cast steel originating in Austria and terminating that investigation

Official Journal L 256 , 27/09/1985 P. 0044 - 0046

*****COMMISSION  DECISION  of 23 September 1985  accepting an undertaking given in connection with the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of container corner fittings of worked cast steel originating in Austria and terminating that investigation  (85/443/EEC)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 of 23 July 1984 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,  After consultation within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the above Regulation,  Whereas:  A. Procedure  (1) In November 1984 the Commission received a complaint lodged by the currently sole Community producer of container corner fittings, George Blair plc of Stanhope, United Kingdom. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding. The Commission accordingly announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of container corner fittings of worked cast steel, falling within Common Customs Tariff subheading ex 73.40 B, corresponding to NIMEXE code ex 73.40-84, originating in Austria and commenced an investigation.  (2) The Commission officially so advised the exporter known to be concerned, and the representatives of the exporting country and the complainants and gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing.  (3) The Austrian producer/exporter made its views known in writing.  (4) No submissions were made by Community purchasers of container corner fittings of worked cast steel.  (5) The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed to be necessary for the purposes of a preliminary determination and carried out investigations at the premises of the following:  - EEC producer:  George Blair plc, Stanhope, UK,  - non-EEC producers/exporters:  Voest-Alpine AG, Linz, Austria and its subsidiary Voest-Alpine (UK) Ltd, London, UK.  The Commission requested and received detailed written submissions from both the complainant Community producer and the exporter and verified the information therein to the extent considered necessary.  (6) The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 March 1984 to 28 February 1985.  B. Normal value  (7) In seeking to determine the normal value for Voest-Alpine AG the Commission had to take account of the fact that there are no sales of the like product on the domestic market. The Commission determined therefore that the normal value for this company should be established on the basis of its constructed value.  (8) The constructed value was determined by adding cost of production and a reasonable margin of profit. The costs of production were computed on the basis of all costs, in the ordinary course of trade, both fixed and variable, in the country of origin, of materials and manufacture, plus a reasonable amount for selling, administrative and other general expenses. A profit margin of 5 % considered to be reasonable was added to these costs.  (9) Voest-Alpine AG requested that special consideration be given to the fact that it had made important investments in its production plant recently. The Commission, however, does not consider that the circumstances of this case justify a deviation from the Community's general practice in this respect as outlined in detail in recitals 14 and 15 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2089/84 (1).  C. Export price  (10) Export prices were determined on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the products sold for export to the Community.  D. Comparison  (11) The comparison between normal value and export prices was made at ex-factory level.  E. Margins  (12) The above examination of the facts shows the existence of dumping in respect of exports made by Voest-Alpine AG, the margin of dumping being equal to the amount by which the normal value as established exceeds the price for export to the Community.  These margins vary according to the importing Member State, the weighted average margin being in excess of 10 %.  F. Injury  (13) With regard to the injury caused by the dumped imports the evidence available to the Commission shows that the quantities of container corner fittings of worked cast steel imported into the Community from Austria increased only marginally when comparing 1984 figures with those of 1981. However, the 1984 quantities represented an increase of 39 % and 255 % when compared respectively with those of 1982 and 1983. The market share held by imports in 1984 more than doubled that held in 1981.  The resale prices of these imports were lower than those required to cover the costs of the Community producer and provide a reasonable profit.  (14) The Community industry in respect of which the impact of the dumped imports must be assessed is that represented by the currently sole Community producer which at present serves the whole of the Community market. The consequent impact of the dumped imports on the Community market has been a reduction of the market share held by the Community industry which was the major supplier of the Community market in 1982; in 1984 this market share was reduced to only about 50 % for the total Community market with largely varying market shares for the individual markets concerned.  As a further consequence, competition by dumped imports contributed to the suspension of production by the two other Community producers, leading to total Community production in 1984 being about 50 % below the 1982 level with a resultant loss of employment.  The Community producer which did not suspend production was found to be faced with strong price competition by dumped imports which forced it to make substantial sales at below cost prices thus considerably eroding its profitability.  (15) The Commission has considered whether injury has been caused by other factors such as the stagnation of demand. Consumption in the Community has declined. It has, however, been established that this decline has affected Community production more than it has affected the dumped imports. The substantial increase in dumped imports and the prices at which they are offered for sale in the Community led the Commission to determine that the effects of the dumped imports of container corner fittings of worked cast steel originating in Austria taken in isolation, have to be considered as constituting material injury to the Community industry concerned.  G. Community interest  (16) After having considered the interest of the Community and both the dumping and the injury established, the Commission has come to the conclusion that action should be taken.  H. Undertaking  (17) The exporter concerned was informed of the main findings of the preliminary investigation and commented on them. An undertaking was subsequently offered by Voest-Alpine AG concerning its exports to the Community of container corner fittings of worked cast steel.  The effect of the said undertaking will be to increase export prices to the Community to the level which the Commission considered necessary to eliminate injury. For this purpose the Commission took into account the selling price necessary to provide an adequate return to the currently sole Community producer and to make it possible for the other Community producers which have suspended production to start production again. These increases in no case exceed the dumping margins found in the investigation. Moreover it appears that correct operation of the undertaking can be effectively monitored.  In these circumstances, the undertaking offered is considered acceptable and the investigation may, therefore, be terminated without imposition of anti-dumping duties.  No objection to this course was raised in the Advisory Committee,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  The undertaking given by Voest-Alpine AG in connection with the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of container corner fittings of worked cast steel falling within Common Customs Tariff subheading ex 73.40 B, corresponding to NIMEXE code ex 73.40-84, originating in Austria, is hereby accepted.  Article 2  The anti-dumping investigation referred to in Article 1 is hereby terminated.  Done at Brussels, 23 September 1985.  For the Commission  Willy DE CLERCQ  Member of the Commission  (1) OJ No L 201, 30. 7. 1984, p. 1.  (2) OJ No C 56, 2. 3. 1985, p. 2.  (1) OJ No L 193, 21. 7. 1984, p. 1.


title: Council Decision of 2 October 1974 on the conclusion of the Agreement amending, for the third year of application (1974/75), the contributions provided for in the convention between the European Economic Community and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) concerning aid to refugees in the countries of the Middle East

text:
7 . 12 . 74                       Official Journal of the European Communities                          No L 328 /41
                                                 COUNCIL DECISION
                                                  of 2 October 1974
            on the conclusion of the Agreement amending, for the third year of application ( 1974/75 ),
            the contributions provided for in the convention between the European Economic
            Community and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees
                     (UNRWA) concerning aid to refugees in the countries of the Middle East
                                                     (74/593 /EEC )
            THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,
            Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in
            particular Articles 113 , 114 and 228 thereof;
            Having regard to the recommendation from the Commission ;
            Whereas on 18 December 1972 the European Economic Community concluded a
            convention (1 ) with UNRWA concerning aid to refugees in the countries of the Middle
            East for a period of three years ;
            Whereas under Article XII amendments may be made every year to this convention ;
             whereas in the light of information supplied by UNRWA on the second year of
             application of the convention , certain of the Community contributions should be
             amended,
             HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :
                                                        Article 1
             The Agreement, in the form of an exchange of letters, between the European Economic
             Community and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees
             ( UNRWA), amending, for the third year of application ( 1974/75 ), the contributions
             provided for in the convention concluded with that agency on 18 December 1972, the
             text of which is annexed to this Decision, is hereby concluded on behalf of the
             Community.
                                                        Article 2
             The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the persons empowered
             to sign the exchange of letters and to confer on them the necessary powers to bind the
             Community.
             Done at Luxembourg, 2 October 1974.
                                                                         For the Council
                                                                           The President
                                                                            Ch . BONNET
              (4) OJ No L 304, 31. 12. 1972, p. 23.
                  OJ No L 63, 9. 3. 1973, p. 32.


Avis juridique important

|

31998D0716(03)

Council Decision of 29 June 1998 appointing members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on the Training of Midwives

Official Journal C 222 , 16/07/1998 P. 0006 - 0007

COUNCIL DECISION of 29 June 1998 appointing members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on the Training of Midwives (98/C 222/03)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Council Decision 80/156/EEC of 21 January 1980 setting up an Advisory Committee on the Training of Midwives (1), and in particular Articles 3 and 4 thereof,Having regard to the Act of Accession of 1994, and in particular Article 165(1) thereof,Whereas under the terms of Article 3 of that Decision the said Committee shall consist of three experts from each Member State and an alternate for each of these experts; whereas under the terms of Article 4 of that same Decision the terms of office of these experts and alternates shall be three years;Whereas by its Decision of 7 November 1995 (2) the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on the Training of Midwives for the period from 23 October 1995 to 22 October 1998;Whereas the Belgian and Italian Governments have each submitted a list of candidates for the appointment, replacement or renewal of the terms of office of the members and alternate members of that Committee,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Sole Article The following are hereby appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on the Training of Midwives for the period to 22 October 1998:A. >TABLE>B. >TABLE>C. >TABLE>Done at Luxembourg, 29 June 1998.For the CouncilThe PresidentR. COOK(1) OJ L 33, 11.2.1980, p. 13.(2) OJ C 292, 7.11.1995, p. 2.


Avis juridique important

|

31974D0215

74/215/EEC: Council Decision of 20 July 1972 concluding the Additional Agreement to the Agreement concerning products of the clock and watch industry between the European Economic Community and its member states and the Swiss confederation

Official Journal L 118 , 30/04/1974 P. 0011 - 0011 Finnish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 2 P. 0003  Spanish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 5 P. 0109  Swedish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 2 P. 0003  Portuguese special edition Chapter 11 Volume 5 P. 0109

COUNCIL DECISION of 20 July 1972 concluding the Additional Agreement to the Agreement concerning products of the clock and watch industry between the European Economic Community and its Member States and the Swiss Confederation (74/215/EEC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof;Having regard to the recommendation from the Commission;Whereas it is necessary, for the proper functioning of the Agreement concerning products of the clock and watch industry between the European Economic Community and its Member States and the Swiss Confederation, signed in Geneva on 30 June 1967, that additional provisions be adopted,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The Additional Agreement to the Agreement concerning products of the clock and watch industry between the European Economic Community and its Member States and the Swiss Confederation, is hereby concluded on behalf of the Community and the text thereof appears in the Annex.>Article 2Mr Th. C. Hijzen, acting Director-General for External Trade of the Commission of the European Communities is hereby authorized to sign, on behalf of the Council, the Agreement specified in Article 1. This Agreement shall be binding on the Community.Done at Brussels, 20 July 1972.For the CouncilThe PresidentTh. E. WESTERTERP


Avis juridique important

|

32002D1001

2002/1001/EC: Council Decision of 19 December 2002 on trade in certain steel products between the European Community and Ukraine

Official Journal L 349 , 24/12/2002 P. 0100 - 0102

Council Decisionof 19 December 2002on trade in certain steel products between the European Community and Ukraine(2002/1001/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,Whereas:(1) The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, on the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part(1), provides in its Article 22(1), that trade in some steel products shall be the subject of a specific agreement.(2) The previous bilateral agreement between the ECSC and the Government of Ukraine on trade for certain steel products expired on 31 December 2001.(3) The Parties agreed to conclude a new agreement and the negotiations of this new agreement have not yet been completed.(4) The European Community (EC) has taken over the international obligations of the ECSC since the expiry of the ECSC Treaty, and measures relating to trade in steel products with third countries now fall under the competence of the EC in the field of trade policy.(5) Quantitative limits for the year 2002 have been fixed by Decision 2001/933/ECSC of the representatives of the Government of the Member States meeting within the Council of 19 December 2001(2).(6) Pending the signature and the entry into force of the new agreement, quantitative limits for the year 2003 must be established.(7) The Ukrainian Parliament passed a law imposing a tax of EUR 30/tonne on exports of ferrous scrap, to be applied as of 1 January 2003; this proposed tax will constitute an obstacle to the free trade of ferrous scrap and would seriously limit, if not block, exports of ferrous scrap, thereby penalising the Community steel industry and affecting adversely the Community ferrous scrap market. As a consequence, it is appropriate to reduce the quantitative limits for 2003 by 30 % compared to the quantitative limits set for 2002, pending a satisfactory solution to this issue and the conclusion of the negotiations of the new Agreement,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1During the period mentioned in Annex I, imports into the European Community of steel products referred to in Annex II originating in Ukraine shall be subject to licensing. Licenses shall be issued only within the limits defined in Article 2.Article 2Imports shall be authorised, for each product group and for the whole of the Community, up to the quantitative limits indicated in Annex I.The period of validity of the import licence is hereby fixed at four months. Unused or partially used import licences may be renewed for two months.Article 3Member States shall issue licences according to rules agreed within the Steel Liaison Committee and inform the Commission thereof immediately. The Commission shall keep the Member States regularly informed of the extent to which the quantities have been used up.The Member States and the Commission shall confer in order to ensure that these quantities are not exceeded.Article 4The provisions of the agreement on trade in certain steel products together with any measures to give effect to it, shall as from the date of entry into force of the agreement replace the provisions of this Decision.Article 5This Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.Done at Brussels, 19 December 2002.For the CouncilThe PresidentL. Espersen(1) OJ L 49, 19.2.1998, p. 3.(2) OJ L 345, 29.12.2001, p. 75. Decision amended by Decision 2002/476/ECSC (OJ L 164, 22.6.2002, p. 37).ANNEX IQUANTITATIVE LIMITS FIXED FOR THE PERIOD 1.1.2002-31.12.2003>TABLE>ANNEX IISA Flat-rolled productsSA1. Coils7208 10 007208 25 007208 26 007208 27 007208 36 007208 37 107208 37 907208 38 107208 38 907208 39 107208 39 907211 14 107211 19 207219 11 007219 12 107219 12 907219 13 107219 13 907219 14 107219 14 907225 20 207225 30 00SA2. Heavy Plate7208 40 107208 51 107208 51 307208 51 507208 51 917208 51 997208 52 107208 52 917208 52 997208 53 107211 13 007225 40 207225 40 507225 99 10SA3. Other flat rolled products7208 40 907208 53 907208 54 107208 54 907208 90 107209 15 007209 16 107209 16 907209 17 107209 17 907209 18 107209 18 917209 18 997209 25 007209 26 107209 26 907209 27 107209 27 907209 28 107209 28 907209 90 107210 11 107210 12 117210 12 197210 20 107210 30 107210 41 107210 49 107210 50 107210 61 107210 69 107210 70 317210 70 397210 90 317210 90 337210 90 387211 14 907211 19 907211 23 107211 23 517211 29 207211 90 117212 10 107212 10 917212 20 117212 30 117212 40 107212 40 917212 50 317212 50 517212 60 117212 60 917219 21 107219 21 907219 22 107219 22 907219 23 007219 24 007219 31 007219 32 107219 32 907219 33 107219 33 907219 34 107219 34 907219 35 107219 35 907225 40 80SB LongsSB1. Beams7207 19 317207 20 717216 31 117216 31 197216 31 917216 31 997216 32 117216 32 197216 32 917216 32 997216 33 107216 33 90SB2. Wire rod7213 10 007213 20 007213 91 107213 91 207213 91 417213 91 497213 91 707213 91 907213 99 107213 99 907221 00 107221 00 907227 10 007227 20 007227 90 107227 90 507227 90 95SB3 Other longs7207 19 117207 19 147207 19 167207 20 517207 20 557207 20 577214 20 007214 30 007214 91 107214 91 907214 99 107214 99 317214 99 397214 99 507214 99 617214 99 697214 99 807214 99 907215 90 107216 10 007216 21 007216 22 007216 40 107216 40 907216 50 107216 50 917216 50 997216 99 107218 99 207222 11 117222 11 197222 11 217222 11 297222 11 917222 11 997222 19 107222 19 907222 30 107222 40 107222 40 307224 90 317224 90 397228 10 107228 10 307228 20 117228 20 197228 20 307228 30 207228 30 417228 30 497228 30 617228 30 697228 30 707228 30 897228 60 107228 70 107228 70 317228 80 107228 80 907301 10 00


Avis juridique important

|

31989D0436

89/436/EEC: Council Decision of 3 May 1989 on the conclusion of the Third Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation consequent on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic to the Community

Official Journal L 206 , 18/07/1989 P. 0016 - 0016 Finnish special edition: Chapter 2 Volume 7 P. 0077  Swedish special edition: Chapter 2 Volume 7 P. 0077

COUNCIL DECISION of 3 May 1989 on the conclusion of the Third Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation consequent on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic  to the Community (89/436/EEC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,  Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,  Whereas a total suspension by the Swiss Confederation of duties on imports from Spain would facilitate trade between the two countries;  Whereas the Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation (1) consequent on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic to the Community, signed in Brussels on 22 July 1972  does not make provision for the Swiss Confederation to suspend customs duties on goods imported from Spain;  Whereas it is therefore necessary to approve a Third Additional Protocol to the abovementioned Agreement in order to provide for the total suspension of duties on products covered by that Agreement imported into Switzerland from Spain,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:    Article 1 The Third Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation consequent on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic to the Community is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.  The text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.  Article 2 The President of the Council shall give the notification provided for in Article 3 of the Protocol (2).  Article 3 This Decision shall take effect on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.   Done at Brussels, 3 May 1989.  For the Council The President P. SOLBES   (1) OJ No L 300, 31. 12. 1971, p. 189. (2) The date of entry into force of the Protocol will be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities by the General Secretariat of the Council.


Avis juridique important

|

32001D0691

2001/691/EC: Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2000 concerning the mobilisation of the flexibility instrument (paragraph 24 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure)

Official Journal L 246 , 15/09/2001 P. 0027 - 0027

Decision of the European Parliament and of the Councilof 14 December 2000concerning the mobilisation of the flexibility instrument(paragraph 24 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure)(2001/691/EC)THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure(1), and in particular paragraph 24 thereof,Having regard to the Commission proposal,Having regard to the conclusions of the conciliation meeting between the Council and a European Parliament delegation, with the Commission also taking part, on 23 November 2000 when the Council gave the 2001 budget its second reading,Whereas:(1) As a result of developments in Serbia, the political conditions are now satisfied for Serbia to qualify for the programme of assistance for reconstruction, development and stabilisation mounted for the entire western Balkans region.(2) The aid initially earmarked for Serbia in the preliminary draft budget presented by the Commission for 2001 totalling EUR 40 million and designed to assist the democratic forces in the country and the towns administered by the opposition must be extended to cover the financing of reconstruction work and the amount raised to EUR 240 million for that year.(3) After examining the allocations for all the actions covered by heading 4 (External action) of the financial perspective, the two arms of the budgetary authority agree that this additional expenditure cannot be financed in 2001 within the limits of the ceiling set for this heading.(4) The conditions for using the flexibility instrument as set out in paragraph 24 of the abovementioned Interinstitutional Agreement are satisfied,HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The flexibility instrument shall be used to provide EUR 200 million for the 2001 budget.Article 2This amount shall be used to finance reconstruction work in Serbia within Chapter B7-54 of the 2001 budget.Article 3This decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities at the same time as the budget for 2001.Done at Strasbourg, 14 December 2000.For the European ParliamentThe PresidentN. FontaineFor the CouncilThe PresidentF. Parly(1) OJ C 172, 18.6.1999, p. 1.


title: 2012/244/EU: Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 25 April 2012 appointing Judges and Advocates-General to the Court of Justice

text:
               8.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 121/21

         DECISION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
   of 25 April 2012
   appointing Judges and Advocates-General to the Court of Justice
   (2012/244/EU)
   THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 253 and 255 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The terms of office of the following Judges of the Court of Justice are due to expire on 6 October 2012: Messrs Alexander ARABADJIEV, George ARESTIS, Ms Maria BERGER, Messrs Jean-Claude BONICHOT, Anthony BORG BARTHET, José Narciso CUNHA RODRIGUES, Carl Gustav FERNLUND, Egidijus JARAŠIŪNAS, Egils LEVITS, Jiří MALENOVSKÝ, Ms Alexandra PRECHAL, Messrs Konrad SCHIEMANN, Antonio TIZZANO and Thomas VON DANWITZ; and the terms of office of the following Advocates-General of the Court of Justice are due to expire on the same date: Messrs Yves BOT, Ján MAZÁK, Paolo MENGOZZI and Ms Verica TRSTENJAK.

               (2)

               The Governments of the Member States have proposed the reappointment as Judges of the Court of Justice of Messrs Alexander ARABADJIEV, George ARESTIS, Ms Maria BERGER, Messrs Jean-Claude BONICHOT, Carl Gustav FERNLUND, Egidijus JARAŠIŪNAS, Egils LEVITS, Jiří MALENOVSKÝ, Ms Alexandra PRECHAL and Mr Thomas VON DANWITZ and the reappointment as an Advocate-General of the Court of Justice of Yves BOT. In addition, the Governments of the Member States have proposed the appointment of Mr José Luís DA CRUZ VILAÇA as a Judge of the Court of Justice and the appointment of Messrs Nils WAHL and Melchior WATHELET as Advocates-General of the same Court. The panel set up by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given an opinion on the suitability of the aforementioned candidates to perform the duties of Judge or Advocate-General of the Court of Justice.

               (3)

               Eleven Judges and three Advocates-General of the Court of Justice should therefore be appointed for the period from 7 October 2012 to 6 October 2018. The remaining posts of three Judges and one Advocate-General of the Court of Justice will be filled at a later date,

         HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   1.   The following are hereby appointed Judges to the Court of Justice for the period from 7 October 2012 to 6 October 2018:

               Mr Alexander ARABADJIEV

               Mr George ARESTIS

               Ms Maria BERGER

               Mr Jean-Claude BONICHOT

               Mr José Luís DA CRUZ VILAÇA

               Mr Carl Gustav FERNLUND

               Mr Egidijus JARAŠIŪNAS

               Mr Egils LEVITS

               Mr Jiří MALENOVSKÝ

               Ms Alexandra PRECHAL

               Mr Thomas VON DANWITZ.

         2.   The following are hereby appointed Advocates-General to the Court of Justice for the period from 7 October 2012 to 6 October 2018:

               Mr Yves BOT

               Mr Nils WAHL

               Mr Melchior WATHELET.

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

      Done at Brussels, 25 April 2012.

            The President

         J. TRANHOLM-MIKKELSEN


title: Decision (EU) 2017/1672 of the European Parliament of 27 April 2017 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Institute for Gender Equality for the financial year 2015

text:
               29.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 252/232

         DECISION (EU) 2017/1672 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 27 April 2017
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Institute for Gender Equality for the financial year 2015
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Institute for Gender Equality for the financial year 2015,

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the Council's recommendation of 21 February 2017 on discharge to be given to the Institute in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2015 (05873/2017 — C8-0071/2017),

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1922/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality (4), and in particular Article 15 thereof,

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A8-0106/2017),

               1.

               Grants the Director of the European Institute for Gender Equality discharge in respect of the implementation of the Institute's budget for the financial year 2015;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this decision, and the resolution forming an integral part of it, to the Director of the European Institute for Gender Equality, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

            The President

         Antonio TAJANI

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ C 449, 1.12.2016, p. 102.

      (2)  See footnote 1.

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

      (4)  OJ L 403, 30.12.2006, p. 9.

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