               2.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 324/18

         P8_TA(2015)0086
   Request for waiver of the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich
   European Parliament decision of 25 March 2015 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich (2014/2095(IMM))
   (2016/C 324/04)

      The European Parliament,

               —

               having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich, forwarded on 21 July 2014 by the Lithuanian judicial authorities in connection with criminal proceedings pending before the court of appeal of the Republic of Lithuania, and announced in plenary on 15 September 2014,

               —

               having heard Viktor Uspaskich on 24 March 2015 in accordance with Rule 9(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (‘the Protocol’), and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,

               —

               having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 May 1964, 10 July 1986, 15 and 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010, 6 September 2011 and 17 January 2013 (1),

               —

               having regard to Article 62 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,

               —

               having regard to the European Parliament decision of 7 September 2010 (2) ,

               —

               having regard to Rule 5(2), Rule 6(1) and Rule 9 of its Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0061/2015),

               A.

               whereas Vilnius Regional Court has delivered a judgment, which has not yet become final, finding Viktor Uspaskich, MEP, guilty;

               B.

               whereas proceedings in the same case are now pending before the court of appeal of the Republic of Lithuania;

               C.

               whereas the charges against Viktor Uspaskich do not relate to an opinion expressed or vote cast by him in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament and whereas Article 8 of the Protocol is therefore not applicable;

               D.

               whereas, pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol, during the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members shall enjoy, in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament, but immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and is not to prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members;

               E.

               whereas, under Article 62 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, a Member of the national Parliament (Seimas) may not be held criminally liable, arrested, nor may his freedom be otherwise restricted without the consent of the Seimas;

               F.

               whereas criminal proceedings were brought against Viktor Uspaskich, MEP, who, in the proceedings brought before Vilnius Regional Court, was charged with having committed criminal offences pursuant to Article 24(4) in conjunction with Article 222(1), Article 220(1), Article 24(4) in conjunction with Article 220(1), Article 205(1) and Article 24(4) in conjunction with Article 205(1) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania;

               G.

               whereas on 14 July 2009 the Prosecutor-General of the Republic of Lithuania requested that the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich be waived in connection with the above-mentioned criminal proceedings;

               H.

               whereas on 27 January 2010 Viktor Uspaskich was heard by the Committee on Legal Affairs for the first time pursuant to Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure and, on 2 September 2010, after clarification of two legal issues by replies from the Lithuanian authorities, was again heard by the Committee on Legal Affairs, so that he was afforded the right to a fair hearing at every possible level;

               I.

               whereas on 7 September 2010 (3) the European Parliament decided to waive the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich;

               J.

               whereas on 5 April 2011 Viktor Uspaskich applied for defence of his immunity, asserting, inter alia, that he had not been sufficiently heard by the Committee on Legal Affairs, and in addition claimed that the criminal proceedings against him were politically motivated and that he was being hampered in his attempts to perform his parliamentary duties;

               K.

               whereas in his letter of 11 April 2011 Viktor Uspaskich requested a reconsideration of Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010 because of allegedly new facts which had been published by WikiLeaks, which, he contended, showed that he had fallen victim to fumus persecutionis;

               L.

               whereas this application was rejected because no adequate link between the allegedly new facts and the initiation of the proceedings against Viktor Uspaskich for false accounting had been established;

               M.

               whereas the European Parliament decided not to defend the immunity and privileges of Viktor Uspaskich (4);

               N.

               whereas on 12 July 2013 Vilnius Regional Court found Viktor Uspaskich guilty of infringing Article 24(4) in conjunction with Articles 182(2) and 222(1) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania and whereas Viktor Uspaskich was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment;

               O.

               whereas both Viktor Uspaskich and the Public Prosecutor’s Office subsequently appealed, so that the same legal proceedings on the basis of which the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich has already been waived are now pending on appeal;

               P.

               whereas at the appeal stage of the proceedings a further decision by the European Parliament is required because, pursuant to Article 62 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, a Member of the national Parliament (Seimas) may not be held criminally liable without the consent of the Seimas;

               Q.

               whereas, pursuant to Article 9(a) of the Protocol, the extent and implications of the immunity which Members enjoy in the territory of their own State are determined by the respective national rules;

               R.

               whereas Viktor Uspaskich claims that the legal basis of the charges has altered, but whereas it is perfectly admissible for prosecuting and judicial authorities to undertake such redefinitions provided that the conduct giving rise to the proceedings is the same;

               S.

               whereas it is at all events clear from the documents that the definition of the offences giving rise to the charges has always remained the same;

               T.

               whereas Viktor Uspaskich claims that two cases relating to him are pending before the European Court of Human Rights, but whereas, upon examination, these two cases have been found to be unrelated to the present case;

               U.

               whereas a case may be brought before the European Court of Human Rights only after all domestic remedies have been exhausted and it is therefore impossible that proceedings which are pending before the court of appeal of the Republic of Lithuania could at the same time be the subject of proceedings pending before the European Court of Human Rights;

               V.

               whereas, in his letter of 24 October 2014, Viktor Uspaskich communicated fresh facts intended to demonstrate that he had fallen victim to an instance of fumus persecutionis;

               W.

               whereas in addition Viktor Uspaskich refers to WikiLeaks documents as new evidence, but these documents were already discussed as part of the defence-of-immunity procedure initiated on 5 April 2011 and they neither constitute conclusive evidence nor are relevant;

               X.

               whereas once again it has not proved possible to establish any sufficient connection between the new facts adduced and the procedure against Viktor Uspaskich for false accounting;

               Y.

               whereas therefore no convincing evidence is available to demonstrate fumus persecutionis and whereas the offences of which Viktor Uspaskich is accused have nothing to do with his work as a Member of the European Parliament;

               Z.

               whereas the decision on the waiver of immunity pursuant to Rule 9(7) of the Rules of Procedure in no way constitutes a statement of opinion regarding guilt or innocence, as this is the subject of national proceedings;

               AA.

               whereas moreover in the context of proceedings relating to immunity it is not the task of the Committee on Legal Affairs to examine the judicial systems of individual Member States;

               1.

               Decides to waive the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich;

               2.

               Instructs its President to forward this decision, and the report of its committee responsible, immediately to the appropriate authority of the Republic of Lithuania.

      (1)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 1964, Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier, 101/63, ECLI:EU:C:1964:28; judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 July 1986, Wybot v Faure and others, 149/85, ECLI:EU:C:1986:310; judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2008, Mote v Parliament, T-345/05, ECLI:EU:T:2008:440; judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2008, Marra v De Gregorio and Clemente, C-200/07 and C-201/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:579; judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2010, Gollnisch v Parliament, T-42/06, ECLI:EU:T:2010:102; judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2011, Patriciello, C-163/10, ECLI: EU:C:2011:543; judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013, Gollnisch v Parliament, T-346/11 and T-347/11, ECLI:EU:T:2013:23.

      (2)  OJ C 308 E, 20.10.2011, p. 90.

      (3)  OJ C 308 E, 20.10.2011, p. 90.

      (4)  OJ C 165 E, 11.6.2013, p. 80.


title: Decision (EU) 2015/1641 of the European Parliament of 29 April 2015 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2013

text:
               30.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 255/183

      DECISION (EU) 2015/1641 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
      of 29 April 2015
      on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2013
      THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

                  —

                  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2013,

                  —

                  having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2013, together with the College's replies (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 2013, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

                  —

                  having regard to the Council's recommendation of 17 February 2015 on discharge to be given to the College in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2013 (05304/2015 — C8-0054/2015),

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3),

                  —

                  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 (4), and in particular Article 208 thereof,

                  —

                  having regard to Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL) and repealing Decision 2000/820/JHA (5), and in particular Article 16 thereof,

                  —

                  having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (6),

                  —

                  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 (7), and in particular Article 108 thereof,

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0086/2015),

         1.

            Grants the Director of the European Police College discharge in respect of the implementation of the College's budget for the financial year 2013;

         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 Police College, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

               The President

            Martin SCHULZ

               The Secretary-General

            Klaus WELLE

         (1)  OJ C 442, 10.12.2014, p. 51.

         (2)  See footnote 1.

         (3)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

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

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

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

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


title: 2013/406/EU: Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 24 July 2013 appointing a Judge to the General Court

text:
               30.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 203/15

         DECISION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
   of 24 July 2013
   appointing a Judge to the General Court
   (2013/406/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 254 and 255 thereof,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The terms of office of 13 Judges of the General Court are due to expire on 31 August 2013. New appointments should therefore be made for the period from 1 September 2013 to 31 August 2019.

               (2)

               It has been proposed that the term of office of Mr Miro PREK as Judge of the General Court be renewed.

               (3)

               The panel set up under Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given an opinion on the suitability of Mr PREK to perform the duties of Judge of the General Court,

         HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Mr Miro PREK is hereby appointed Judge of the General Court for the period from 1 September 2013 to 31 August 2019.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 24 July 2013.

            The President

         R. KAROBLIS


Avis juridique important

|

31993D0158

93/158/EEC: Council Decision of 26 October 1992 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Economic Comunity and the United States of America concerning the application of the Community third country Directive, Council Directive 72/462/EEC, and the corresponding United States of America regulatory requirements with respect to trade in fresh bovine and porcine meat

Official Journal L 068 , 19/03/1993 P. 0001 - 0002 Finnish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 21 P. 0085  Swedish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 21 P. 0085

COUNCIL DECISION of 26 October 1992 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Economic Community and the United States of America concerning the application of the Community third country  Directive, Council Directive 72/462/EEC, and the corresponding United States of America regulatory requirements with respect to trade in fresh bovine and porcine meatTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,  Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine animals and swine and ovine and caprine animals and fresh meat or meat products from third countries (1), hereafter  referred to as 'the Community third country Directive',  Having regard to Commission Decision 87/257/EEC of 28 April 1987 on the list of establishments in the United States of America approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community (2),  Having regard to the recommendation from the Commission,  Whereas, under an exchange of letters signed on 7 May 1991, as referred to in Article 2 (2) of Decision 91/552/EEC, the Commission and the Government of the United States of America commenced a comparative examination of the Community third country  Directive and corresponding United States of America regulatory requirements with respect to trade in fresh bovine and porcine meat, with the objective of determining whether Community and United States of America requirements are equivalent;  Whereas, this comparative examination has been completed and has shown that the regulatory requirements of the Community and the United States of America basically provide equivalent safeguards against public health risks;  Whereas, to ensure recognition of equivalency, it is desirable to establish an agreed process for the application of the regulatory requirements of both the Community and the United States of America in order to safeguard and facilitate future trade in  fresh bovine and porcine meat; whereas an Agreement has been reached to that end;  Whereas, in the context of the establishment of such a process, the Commission will submit appropriate proposals to the Council on the Community third country Directive;  Whereas, in the intervening period between conclusion of the Agreement and full implementation of the measures contained therein, interim measures are required to allow for the approval of additional establishments in the United States of America for  the purpose of importing fresh bovine and porcine meat into the Community;  Whereas the Agreement should be approved,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  The Agreement between the European Economic Community and the United States of America in the form of an exchange of letters concerning the application of the Community third country Directive, Council Directive 72/462/EEC and the corresponding United  States of America regulatory requirements with respect to trade in fresh bovine and porcine meat is hereby approved on behalf of the European Economic Community.  The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.  Article 2  The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community.  This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.  Done at Luxembourg, 26 October 1992.  For the Council The President J. GUMMER (1) OJ No L 302, 31. 12. 1972, p. 28. Directive as last amended by Regulation EEC No 1601/92 (OJ No L 173, 27. 6. 1992, p. 13).(2) OJ No L 121, 9. 5. 1987, p. 46. Decision as last amended by Council Decision 91/522/EEC (OJ No L 283, 11. 10.  1991, p. 14).


title: 2007/2/EC,Euratom: Council Decision of 1 January 2007 appointing members of the Court of Auditors

text:
               4.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 1/5

      COUNCIL DECISION

   of 1 January 2007
   appointing members of the Court of Auditors
   (2007/2/EC, Euratom)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 247(1), (2) and (3) thereof,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 160b(3) thereof,
   Having regard to the Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, and in particular Article 47 thereof,
   Having regard to the Opinions of the European Parliament,
   Whereas:
   In accordance with Article 47 of the said Act of Accession, the Court of Auditors should be enlarged by the appointment of two additional members for a term of office of six years,
   HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The following are hereby appointed members of the Court of Auditors for a period of six years with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision:

               Ms Nadezhda SANDOLOVA

               Mr Ovidiu ISPIR.

         Article 2
   This Decision shall take effect on 1 January 2007.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 1 January 2007.

            For the Council

            The President

         F.-W. STEINMEIER


title: 73/257/EEC: Council Decision of 24 July 1973 on the conclusion of the Protocol relating to the Agreement on Trade and Technical Cooperation between the European Economic Community and the Member States, of the one part, and the Lebanese Republic, of the other part

text:
31 . 8 . 73                              Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No L 244/ 1
                                                                  II
                                          (Acts whose publication is not obligatory)
                                                      COUNCIL
                                                     COUNCIL DECISION
                                                         of 24 July 1973
              on the conclusion of the Protocol relating to the Agreement on Trade and Technical
              Cooperation between the European Economic Community and the Member States, of
                              the one part, and the Lebanese Republic, of the other part
                                                           ( 73 /257/EEC )
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,                             Whereas consequently a Protocol on the Accession
                                                                      of new Member States to the said Agreement should
                                                                      be concluded ;
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro
pean Economic Community, and in particular Article
 113 thereof;                                                         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :
Leaving regard to the recommendation of the Com                                                Sole Article
mission ;
                                                                      The Protocol (3) and the declaration annexed thereto
                                                                      relating to the Agreement on Trade and Technical
Whereas the European Economic Community and                           Cooperation between the European Economic Com
 the Member States, of the one part, and the Lebanese                 munity and the Member States, of the one part, and
Republic, of the other part, have concluded an Agree                 the Lebanese Republic, of the other part shall be
 ment ( x) on Trade and Technical Cooperation,                        concluded, on behalf of the Community. The text of
 signed at Brussels on 21 May 1965 ;                                  the Protocol is annexed to this Decision .
Whereas, under the terms of Article 4 (2) of the                      Done at Brussels, 24 July 1973 .
Act (2) concerning the Conditions of Accession and
the Adjustments to the Treaties, the new Member                                                               For the Council
 States undertook to accede to agreements or con
                                                                                The President
 ventions concluded by the original Member States
 and any of the Communities, acting jointly ;                                                                 I. N0RGAARD
 H OJ No L 146, 27. 6. 1968 , p . 2 .                                  (3) The date on which this Protocol shall enter into force
 (2) OJ No L 73 , 27. 3 . 1972 , p . 14.                                   shall be published in the Official Journal of the European
                                                                           Communities .


Avis juridique important

|

31984D0512

84/512/EEC: Commission Decision of 23 October 1984 accepting an undertaking given in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of paraformaldehyde originating in Spain and terminating the investigation

Official Journal L 282 , 26/10/1984 P. 0058 - 0060

*****COMMISSION  DECISION  of 23 October 1984  accepting an undertaking given in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of paraformaldehyde originating in Spain and terminating the investigation  (84/512/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 consultations within the Advisory Committee as provided for by the above Regulation,  Whereas:  A. Procedure  (1) In April 1984 the Commission received a complaint lodged by the European Council of Chemical Manufacturers' Federations (CEFIC) on behalf of producers representing all Community production of the product in question. 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 paraformaldehyde falling within subheading 29.11 G of the Common Customs Tariff, corresponding to NIMEXE code 29.11-97, originating in Spain and commenced an investigation.  (2) The Commission officially so advised the exporter and importers 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) All of the known Community producers, exporter and importers made their views known in writing. None of them requested a hearing.  (4) No submissions were made by or on behalf of Community purchasers of paraformaldehyde.  (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:  (1) EEC producers:  - Organichim SA (CDF - Chimie group), Paris, France,  - Degussa AG, Frankfurt, Federal Republic of Germany,  - Synthite Ltd, West Bromwich, United Kingdom,  - Alder SpA, Trieste, Italy;  (b) exporter:  - Formol y Derivados SA, Barcelona, Spain;  (c) EEC importer:  - Chimilux SA, Paris, France.  (6) The investigation of dumping covered the period 1 June 1983 to 31 May 1984.  B. Normal value  (7) Normal value was provisionally determined on the basis of the domestic prices of the Spanish producer who exported to the Community and who provided sufficient evidence concerning sales to unrelated customers.  C. Export price  (8) Export prices were determined on the basis of the prices actually paid for the product sold for export to the Community.  D. Comparison  (9) In comparing normal value with export prices the Commission took account, where appropriate, of differences in conditions and terms of sale affecting price comparability and allowances were made for differences in credit terms, commissions and transport.  (10) A request was made by the exporter for an adjustment to take account of a price differential resulting from a price discount for quantity sales given to the main customer on the Spanish domestic market. The Commission granted this request with regard to the qualities concerned since the conditions laid down in Article 2 (10) (b) (i) of Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 were considered to be fulfilled.  (11) Furthermore, a request was made by the exporter for an adjustment to take account of the fact that quantities exported to the Community had been considerably larger than those sold on the Spanish domestic market. The Commission refused this claim for an adjustment on the grounds that the exporter did not prove that savings were made in the cost of producing different quantities exported as is provided for under Article 2 (10) (b) (ii) of the above Regulation.  (12) The Spanish exporter also requested the Commission on the basis of Article 2 (10) (d) of the above Regulation to take account of the export tax rebate ('Desgravación fiscal'), being the refund by the Spanish authorities of an amount corresponding to the taxes incurred during the production process, when the product concerned was exported. However, without prejudice to the question whether and to what extent this claim could be taken into consideration, the Commission did not grant this request, since the Spanish exporter did not submit satisfactory evidence concerning the amount of taxes refunded by the Spanish authorities with regard to the exports of the product concerned.  Furthermore, the question whether the tax rebate constitutes an export subsidy could only be examined if a complaint were lodged concerning the subsidy and a proceeding initiated accordingly.  (13) All comparisons were made at ex-works level.  E. Margin  (14) The above preliminary examination of the facts shows the existence of dumping in respect of the Spanish exporter, the margin of dumping being equal to the amount by which the normal value as established exceeds the price for export to the Community. The weighted average margin amounts to 17,4 %.  F. Injury  (15) With regard to the injury caused by the dumped imports, the evidence available to the Commission shows that imports into the Community from Spain of paraformaldehyde increased from 853 tonnes 1980 to 2 776 tonnes in 1982. In 1983 these imports increased to 3 392 tonnes and during the first five months of 1984 they amounted to 1 461 tonnes which corresponds to 3 506 tonnes on an annual basis.  (16) The development of these imports represents an increase in market share held by the exporting country from 3,4 % to 11,2 % between 1980 and 1982. Furthermore, it represents a further increase of the market share to 12,9 % in 1983; the market share achieved subsequently for the first five months of 1984 is estimated to have been 11,3 %.  (17) The resale prices of the dumped imports undercut the prices of the Community producers during the investigation period by 18 %.  (18) The consequent impact on the Community industry concerned has been a reduction of production and of sales within the Community of 2 % and 9,5 % respectively between 1980 and 1982. This development corresponds to a decrease in the market share of the Community producers from 96,2 % to 88,5 % in the same period, as opposed to the increase in the market share held by the dumped imports. (19) It has been argued that in 1983 and during the first five months of 1984 production and sales of the Community producers increased. However, this was due more to their sales outside the Community than on the Community market. Moreover, despite this increase, the market share held by the Community producers dropped further to 85,9 % in 1983. During the first five months of 1984 their market share is estimated to have increased, but not enough to compensate for the loss suffered in 1983.  (20) Most of the Community producers have also suffered significant price depression, which made it impossible to increase their sales prices in order to cover their increased costs of production. Some of them had to lower their sales prices.  (21) Since 1980 the profit and loss situation of most of the Community producers developed in a negative way, although some improvement seems to have taken place since the beginning of 1984.  (22) The Commission has considered whether injury has been caused by other factors such as the development of the consumption of this product. In this respect the Commission found that, whilst consumption in the Community dropped by 1,4 % between 1980 and 1982, the market share of the imported products rose by 7,8 %, whereas the market share of the Community producers decreased by 7,7 % during the same period. Therefore, the decline in consumption during this period is considered to have affected the Community producers but not the imported products. Furthermore, although consumption in the Community increased by 6,6 % in 1983, the market share held by the Community producers further declined, whilst there was a further increase of the market share held by the dumped imports.  The volume of the dumped imports, their market share 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 paraformaldehyde originating in Spain taken in isolation have to be considered as constituting material injury to the Community industry concerned.  G. Community interests  (23) The Spanish exporter argued that it is not in the Community's interest that action be taken, since it would only serve to protect Community producers with a less efficient technology and production process. However, if action is to be taken, it would not be aimed at protecting Community producers against more efficient producers in third countries, but it would serve as a protection against unfair competition from an exporter who sold his products in the Community at dumped prices and who caused material injury to the Community industry concerned.  (24) In view of the particularly serious difficulties facing the Community industry, the Commission has come to the conclusion that it is in the Community's interests that action be taken.  H. Undertaking  (25) The exporter concerned was informed of the main findings of the provisional investigation and commented on them. An undertaking was subsequently offered by Formol y Derivados SA concerning their exports of paraformaldehyde to the Community.  The effect of said undertaking will be to increase prices to the Community to the level necessary to eliminate the dumping. The weighted average of this increase in no case exceeds the weighted average dumping margin found in the investigation.  In these circumstances the undertaking offered is considered acceptable and the investigation may therefore be terminated without imposition of an anti-dumping duty.  (26) No objection to this course was raised in the Advisory Committee,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  The undertaking given by Formol y Derivados SA, Barcelona in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of paraformaldehyde falling within subheading 29.11 G of the Common Customs Tariff, corresponding to NIMEXE code 29.11-97 and originating in Spain is hereby accepted.  Article 2  The investigation in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding referred to in Article 1 is hereby terminated.  Done at Brussels, 23 October 1984.  For the Commission  Antonio GIOLITTI  Member of the Commission  (1) OJ No L 201, 30. 7. 1984, p. 1.  (2) OJ No C 145, 1. 6. 1984, p. 7.


Avis juridique important

|

31999D0031

Decision of the European Central Bank of 9 June 1998 on the method to be applied for determining the national central banks' percentage shares in the key for the capital of the European Central Bank (ECB/1998/1)

Official Journal L 008 , 14/01/1999 P. 0031 - 0032

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK of 9 June 1998 on the method to be applied for determining the national central banks' percentage shares in the key for the capital of the European Central Bank (ECB/1998/1) (1999/31/EC)THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,Having regard to Article 29 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'Statute`),Having regard to the contribution of the General Council of the European Central Bank provided in accordance with Article 47.2 of the Statute,Whereas the statistical data to be used for the determination of the key have been provided by the Commission in accordance with the rules adopted by the EU Council on 5 June 1998 (1);Whereas the Governing Council of the European Central Bank agreed - recognising the impossibility of adhering to a literal interpretation of Article 29.1 of the Statute - to the application of the original (unrounded) four-decimal-place Commission figures for determining the shares of the national central banks (hereinafter referred to as the 'NCBs`) in the initial key for the capital of the European Central Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'ECB`) as the most precise and thus fairest method;Whereas, in the event that the Commission's figures do not equal 100 %, the deviation shall be accommodated by adding 0,0001 percentage point, in ascending order, to the smallest share(s) until exactly 100 % is reached, if the initial total were below 100 %; or by subtracting 0,0001 percentage point, in descending order, from the largest share(s) until exactly 100 % is reached, if the initial total were above 100 %;Whereas the data provided by the Commission will be subject to a revision in October 1998;Whereas the weighting of the NCBs in the key may be adjusted in the event that the revised data would result in a change of 0,01 % or more in an NCB's share,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Article 1 The weighting of the NCBs in the key referred to in Article 29.1 of the Statute shall be as follows:>TABLE>Article 2 The key may be revised before the start of Stage Three in the event that the Commission provides revised statistical data to be used for the determination of the key before December 1998 which would result in a change of 0,01 % or more in an NCB's share.Article 3 This Decision shall take retroactive effect from 1 June 1998.Done at Frankfurt am Main, 9 June 1998.The President of the ECBWillem F. DUISENBERG(1) See Council Decision 98/382/EC (OJ L 171, 17 6. 1998, p. 33).


title: 2012/508/EU: Council Decision of 24 February 2011 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports

text:
               21.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 255/3

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 24 February 2011
   on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports
   (2012/508/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 77(2)(a) in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Having regard to the consent of the European Parliament,
   Whereas:

               (1)

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

               (2)

               That Agreement was signed, on behalf of the European Union, on 8 November 2010 subject to its conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2010/622/EU (1).

               (3)

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

               (4)

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

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports (‘the Agreement’) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.
   The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   The President of the Council shall give the notification provided for in Article 9(1) of the Agreement (4).
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 24 February 2011.

            For the Council

            The President

         PINTÉR S.

      (1)  OJ L 275, 20.10.2010, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ L 131, 1.6.2000, p. 43.

      (3)  OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 20.

      (4)  The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the General Secretariat of the Council.
   Joint Declaration on the information of the citizens about the visa waiver Agreement
   Recognising the importance of transparency for the citizens of the European Union and Brazil, the Contracting Parties agree to ensure full dissemination of information about the content and consequences of the visa waiver Agreement and related issues, such as the travel documents valid for visa-free travel, the territorial application, including the list of Member States fully implementing the Schengen acquis, the allowed period of stay and the entry conditions, including the right of appeal in case of refusal.
    ---documentbreak---

               21.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 255/4

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

               (a)

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

               (b)

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

               (c)

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

               (d)

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

               (e)

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

         Article 3
   Scope of application
   1.   For the purposes of this Agreement tourism and business purposes shall mean:

               —

               touristic activities,

               —

               visiting relatives,

               —

               prospection of commercial opportunities, attending meetings, signing contracts and financial, management and administrative activities,

               —

               attending meetings, conferences, seminars provided that no remuneration is received from respective Brazilian/Union sources for those activities (other than the cost of stay directly or via a daily income),

               —

               participation in sports competitions and artistic contests, provided that the participants do not receive any remuneration from respective Brazilian/Union sources, even if they compete for prizes, including prizes with money reward.

         2.   Citizens of the Union and nationals of Brazil who wish to carry out remunerated activities or be employed, engage in research, traineeships, studies and social work, as well as undertake technical assistance, missionary, religious or artistic activities, are not covered by this Agreement.
   Article 4
   Conditions of visa waiver and stay
   1.   The visa waiver provided by this Agreement shall apply without prejudice to the laws of the Contracting Parties relating to the conditions of entry and short stay. The Member States and Brazil reserve the right to refuse entry into and short stay in their territories if one or more of these conditions are not met.
   2.   The citizens of the Union benefiting from this Agreement shall comply with the laws and regulations in force in the territory of Brazil during their stay.
   3.   The nationals of Brazil benefiting from this Agreement shall comply with the laws and regulations in force in the territory of each Member State during their stay.
   4.   The visa waiver applies regardless of the mode of transport used to cross the borders open to international passenger traffic of the Contracting Parties.
   5.   Without prejudice to Article 7, visa issues not covered by this Agreement shall be governed by Union law, the national law of the Member States and by the national law of Brazil.
   Article 5
   Duration of stay
   1.   For the purposes of this Agreement the citizens of the Union may stay in the territory of Brazil for a maximum period of three months during a six months period following the date of first entry into the territory of the country.
   2.   For the purposes of this Agreement the citizens of Brazil may stay in the Schengen area for a maximum period of three months during a six months period following the date of first entry into the territory of any Member State fully applying the Schengen acquis. This period of three months during a period of six months shall be calculated independently of any stay in a Member State which does not yet apply the Schengen acquis in full.
   3.   The citizens of Brazil may stay for a maximum period of three months during a six months period following the date of first entry in the territory of each of the Member States that do not yet apply the Schengen acquis in full, independently of the period of stay calculated for the Schengen area.
   4.   This Agreement does not affect the possibility for Brazil and for the Member States to extend the period of stay beyond three months in accordance with national law and Union law.
   Article 6
   Management of the Agreement
   1.   The Contracting Parties shall set up a Committee of experts (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Committee’).
   The Committee shall be composed of representatives of the Union and of Brazil. The Union shall be represented by the European Commission.
   2.   The Committee shall be convened, whenever necessary, at the request of one of the Contracting Parties, to monitor the implementation of this Agreement and settle disputes arising from the interpretation or application of the provisions of this Agreement.
   Article 7
   Relation between this Agreement and existing bilateral visa agreements between the Member States and Brazil
   This Agreement shall be without prejudice to existing bilateral agreements or arrangements concluded between individual Member States and Brazil, in so far as their provisions cover issues falling outside the scope of this Agreement.
   Article 8
   Exchange of specimen of passports
   1.   If they have not done so already, Brazil and the Member States shall exchange, through diplomatic channels, specimens of their valid ordinary passports no later than thirty (30) days after the date of signature of this Agreement.
   2.   In case of introduction of new ordinary passports or modification of the existing ones, the Parties shall convey to each other, through diplomatic channels, specimens of these new or modified passports, accompanied by detailed information on their specifications and applicability, not later than thirty (30) days prior to its application.
   Article 9
   Final provisions
   1.   This Agreement shall be ratified or approved by the Contracting Parties in accordance with their respective internal procedures and shall enter into force on the first day of the second month following the date on which the Contracting Parties notify each other that the procedures referred to above have been completed.
   2.   This Agreement is concluded for an indefinite period of time, unless terminated in accordance with paragraph 5.
   3.   This Agreement may be amended by written agreement of the Contracting Parties. Amendments shall enter into force after the Contracting Parties have notified each other of the completion of their internal procedures necessary for this purpose.
   4.   Each Contracting Party may suspend in whole or in part this Agreement, the decision on suspension shall be notified to the other Contracting Party not later than two months before its entry into force. The Contracting Party that has suspended the application of this Agreement shall immediately inform the other Contracting Party once the reasons for suspension no longer exist.
   5.   Each Contracting Party may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to the other Party. This Agreement shall cease to be in force 90 days after the date of such notification.
   6.   Brazil may suspend or terminate this Agreement only in respect of all the Member States of the Union.
   7.   The Union may suspend or terminate this Agreement only in respect of all of its Member States.

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

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

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


Avis juridique important

|

32001D0584

2001/584/EC: Council Decision of 18 June 2001 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and Romania concerning the participation of Romania in the European Environment Agency and the European environment information and observation network

Official Journal L 213 , 07/08/2001 P. 0020 - 0020

Council Decisionof 18 June 2001on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and Romania concerning the participation of Romania in the European Environment Agency and the European environment information and observation network(2001/584/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 175(1), in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),Whereas:(1) The European Environment Agency and the European environment information and observation network were established by Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90(3).(2) The Luxembourg European Council (December 1997) made participation in the Community programmes and agencies a way of stepping up the pre-accession strategy for the central and east European countries. In the case of the agencies, the European Council's conclusions provide that "the Community agencies in which applicant countries will be able to participate will be determined on a case-by-case basis".(3) The Helsinki European Council (December 1999) reaffirmed the inclusive nature of the accession process, which now comprises 13 candidate countries within a single framework with the candidate countries participating in the accession process on an equal footing.(4) The Council, on 14 February 2000, authorised the Commission to conduct negotiations on the participation in the European Environment Agency of the countries applying for accession. The Commission signed the Final Act of the negotiations on 9 October 2000.(5) The Agreement as referred to in this Decision should be approved,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The Agreement between the European Community and Romania concerning the participation of Romania in the European Environment Agency and the European environment information and observation network is approved on behalf of the Community.The text of the Agreement is set out as an Annex to this Decision.Article 2The President of the Council is authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to deposit the notification provided for in Article 18 of the Agreement.Article 3This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.Done at Luxembourg, 18 June 2001.For the CouncilThe PresidentM. Winberg(1) OJ C 120 E, 24.4.2001, p. 227.(2) Opinion delivered 31.5.2001 (not yet published in the Official Journal).(3) OJ L 120, 11.5.1990, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 933/1999 (OJ L 117, 5.5.1999, p. 1).


title: EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 36/16/COL of 9 February 2016 to partially repeal Decision No 227/04/COL as regards the status for Iceland for Viral Haemorrhagic Septicaemia (VHS) [2016/1862]

text:
               20.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 284/35

         EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION
   No 36/16/COL
   of 9 February 2016
   to partially repeal Decision No 227/04/COL as regards the status for Iceland for Viral Haemorrhagic Septicaemia (VHS) [2016/1862]
   THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,
   Having regard to the Act referred to at point 5a of Part 4.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals (1)), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by point 4(d) of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement and Article 1(2) and Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement,
   Having regard to Decision No 494/13/COL of the EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘the Authority’) of 11 December 2013 empowering the College Member with special responsibility for veterinary and phytosanitary matters to take certain decisions in that field (Document No 683826),
   Whereas:
   By Decision No 227/04/COL, the Authority recognised the whole continental and coastal area of Iceland as free from Infectious Haematopoietic Necrosis (IHN) and Viral Haemorraghic Septicaemia (VHS).
   On 23 October 2015, Iceland notified through the Animal Disease Notification System an outbreak of VHS in lumpfish of wild origin used as brood fish in the Landnamsholf region. Further information regarding the measures taken were provided by letter of 13 November 2015 (Document No 780869, IS ref. ANR15110004/20.5).
   In light of the above, the VHS-free status for Iceland, as recognised by Decision No 227/04/COL, should be withdrawn.
   No changes have occurred as regards Iceland's status for IHN.
   It is therefore appropriate to repeal Decision No 227/04/COL as regards Iceland's VHS-status only.
   This Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the EFTA Veterinary and Phytosanitary Committee.
   HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

               1.

               Decision No 227/04/COL is repealed as regards Iceland's status for Viral Haemorrhagic Septicaemia.

               2.

               Decision No 227/04/COL remains in force as regards Iceland's status for Infectious Haematopoietic Necrosis.

               3.

               This Decision is addressed to Iceland.

      Done at Brussels, 9 February 2016.

            For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

         Helga JÓNSDÓTTIR

            College Member

         Carsten ZATSCHLER

            Director

      (1)  OJ L 328, 24.11.2006, p. 14.


title: Council Decision (EU) 2016/1877 of 17 October 2016 on the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, in the Group of Experts on the European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport (AETR), and in the Working Party on Road Transport, of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
               22.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 288/49

         COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2016/1877
   of 17 October 2016
   on the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, in the Group of Experts on the European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport (AETR), and in the Working Party on Road Transport, of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91, in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               In its judgment of 31 March 1971 in Case 22/70 (1), AETR, the Court of Justice recognized that the area of the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport is an exclusive external competence of the Union. This competence has been exercised since then in numerous Union legal acts, namely in Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3). Since the subject matter of the European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport (AETR) (4) falls within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, the power to negotiate and conclude the AETR lies with the Union.

               (2)

               A Group of Experts has been established by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) in the framework of the AETR (‘Group of Experts’). It is a body which is empowered to develop and submit proposals for amending the AETR, including Article 22bis thereof.

               (3)

               The next meeting of the Group of Experts will take place on 24 October 2016 and the meeting of the UNECE Working Party on Road Transport (‘Working Party’) will take place on 25 October 2016. On that occasion the Group of Experts and the Working Party plan to examine proposals made by the Contracting Parties of the AETR (‘Contracting Parties’) which, if accepted by the Group of Experts, may lead to an amendment of the AETR, after a procedure for such amendment is launched and concluded. This will produce legal effects as referred to in Article 218(9) TFEU.

               (4)

               In order to achieve a pan-European harmonisation in the field of recording equipment in road transport (tachographs), it is necessary for a unique decision-making process to be put in place. Such a process ought to take into account the interests of the Union and those of third countries which are Contracting Parties.

               (5)

               Article 22bis of the AETR provides that changes to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 (5) concerning the digital tachograph are automatically taken over by all Contracting Parties, without any formal consultation or vote. The lack of participation of non-EU Contracting Parties in the process of development and adoption of technical specifications on the digital tachograph has been a cause of discontent among some of those Contracting Parties. The Commission's communication ‘Digital Tachograph: Roadmap for future activities’ acknowledges that this mechanism jeopardises the correct and harmonised implementation of the digital tachograph by non-EU Contracting Parties. It is therefore in the interest of the Union to modify the decision-making process as regards digital tachographs and to propose in the Group of Experts the deletion of Article 22bis of the AETR, and the application of the procedure set out in paragraphs 1 to 3 of Article 22 of the AETR for the amendment of the technical specifications of the digital tachograph.

               (6)

               Considering that any amendments of the digital tachograph specifications should not affect the principles and functioning of the AETR since they should only be subject to regular updates taking into account technological developments, the number of Contracting Parties necessary to object to those amendments should be increased from one third to at least one half.

               (7)

               There are several arguments for the accession of the Union to AETR. Firstly, the Union has exclusive competence in the area of the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport, as confirmed in Case 22/70. Secondly, such an accession would guarantee the effective representation of the Union's interests within the AETR. Finally, the specificities of the AETR and of the proposed decision-making process justify why the Union should be a Contracting Party.

               (8)

               Article 14 of the AETR does not allow the accession of bodies other than States members of the UNECE and States admitted to UNECE in a consultative capacity. For that reason, in order to allow for an accession of the Union to AETR, an amendment of Article 14 should be proposed providing for the accession of regional integration organisations to AETR. Accession by the Union to the AETR should not constitute a precedent as regards any future accession of the Union to other international organisations.

               (9)

               Once the AETR allows the accession of regional integration organisations, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, could adopt a decision concerning the accession of the Union to AETR. If the Union becomes a Contracting Party of the AETR, the positions to be adopted on the Union's behalf in the various AETR bodies would have to be established by the Council in accordance with Article 218(9) TFEU. Accordingly, the Commission would make a proposal to the Council setting out the Union position to be presented and defended and, where appropriate, the draft text to be voted in the framework of the AETR.

               (10)

               Article 10 of the AETR provides that a tachograph whose construction, installation, use and testing are carried out in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 is considered to comply with the requirements of the AETR. That principle applies to any modification of the tachograph specifications, irrespective of whether they are adopted on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 or another legal act. It therefore applies to Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 which repealed and replaced Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85, as well as to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/799 (6) laying down the technical specifications for the new smart tachograph. For those reasons Article 10 of the AETR should be amended in order to include references to Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/799, both of which should be applicable as from 15 June 2019.

               (11)

               In addition, a new appendix should be inserted in the Annex to the AETR containing the provisions of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/799 and any other subsequent adaptations to technical progress.

               (12)

               The approval certificate for digital tachographs set out in Appendix 2 to the Annex to the AETR should be amended so that it can also be used for the approval of smart tachographs and components thereof.

               (13)

               It is therefore appropriate to establish the position to be adopted on the Union's behalf in the Group of Experts and in the Working Party,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   1.   The position to be adopted on the Union's behalf in the Group of Experts on the European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport (AETR) and in the Working Party on Road Transport shall be in accordance with the position set out in the Addendum to this Decision and shall be expressed by the Member States, which are Contracting Parties of the AETR, acting jointly in the interest of the Union.
   2.   The Member States shall communicate the proposed amendments to the Group of Experts.
   3.   Formal and minor changes to the position referred to in paragraph 1 may be agreed without requiring that position to be amended.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Luxembourg, 17 October 2016.

            For the Council

            The President

         L. SÓLYMOS

      (1)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 31 March 1971, Commission v Council, 22/70, ECLI:EU:C:1971:32.

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ L 102, 11.4.2006, p. 1).

      (3)  Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on tachographs in road transport, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (OJ L 60, 28.2.2014, p. 1).

      (4)  OJ L 95, 8.4.1978, p. 1.

      (5)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport (OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 8).

      (6)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/799 of 18 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the requirements for the construction, testing, installation, operation and repair of tachographs and their components (OJ L 139, 26.5.2016, p. 1).

      ANNEX I

         Amendment of Article 22 and deletion of Article 22bis

                  (1)

                  Article 22 is amended as follows:

                              (a)

                              Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 22 are replaced by the following:
                              ‘1.   Appendices 1, 1B, 1C and 2 to the annex to this Agreement may be amended by the procedure specified in this article.
                              2.   At the request of a Contracting Party, any amendments proposed to the appendices 1, 1B, 1C or 2 to the annex to this Agreement shall be considered by the Principal Working Party on Road Transport of the Economic Commission for Europe.’

                              (b)

                              Paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:
                              ‘4.   The amendment shall be accepted if, within a period of six months following the date of notification, no more than one half of the competent administrations of the Contracting Parties notify the Secretary-General of their objection to the amendment.’

                              (c)

                              A new paragraph 6 is added:
                              ‘6.   If a proposal for the amendment of Appendix 1B or 1C to this Agreement requires amendment of other provisions of the Agreement, the amendments to the Appendices 1B or 1C cannot enter into force before date of entry into force of the amendments to those other provisions pursuant to Article 21. If, in such a case, the amendments to Appendix 1B or 1C are presented simultaneously with the amendments relating to other provisions of the Agreement, the date of their entry into force shall be the date resulting from the application of the procedure outlined in Article 21.’

                  (2)

                  Article 22bis is deleted.

      ANNEX II

         Amendment of Article 14

      Article 14 is amended as follows:

                  (a)

                  The following paragraph 1a is inserted after paragraph 1:
                  ‘1a.   This Agreement shall also be open for signature by regional integration organisations. For the purpose of this Agreement, a “regional integration organisation” means any organisation which is constituted by sovereign States of a given region, which has competence in respect of certain matters governed by this Agreement and has been duly authorized to sign and to ratify, accept, approve or accede to this Agreement.
                  For the purposes of amending Appendices 1, 1B, 1C, 2 and 3, the representative of a regional integration organisation Contracting Party to the Agreement delivers the votes of its constituent Member States without their presence being necessary in the vote.’

                  (b)

                  Paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:
                  ‘5.   In respect of each State or regional integration organisation which ratifies, or accedes to, this Agreement after the deposit of the eighth instrument of ratification or accession as referred to in paragraph 4 of this Article, the Agreement shall enter into force one hundred and eighty days after the deposit by that State or regional integration organisation of its instrument of ratification or accession.’

      ANNEX III

         Amendment of Article 10

      Paragraph 3 of Article 10 is replaced by the following:

         ‘3.   For vehicles registered for the first time until 14 June 2019, a control device conforming to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 and Appendix 1B to this Agreement as regards construction, installation, use and testing shall be considered as conforming to the requirements of this Agreement.
         For vehicles registered for the first time as from 15 June 2019, a control device conforming to Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of 4 February 2014 and Appendix 1C to this Agreement as regards construction, installation, use and testing shall be considered as conforming to the requirements of this Agreement.’

      ANNEX IV

         Appendix 1C
         Annex IC to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/799 is inserted as Appendix 1C to the Annex to the AETR.

      ANNEX V

         Approval certificate for products in accordance with appendix 1B/1C

      Chapter III of Appendix 2 ‘III. Approval certificate for products in accordance with Appendix IB’ is replaced by the following:

         ‘III.   Approval certificate for products in accordance with appendix 1B/1C
             (1)

         Once the Contracting Party has effected an approval it issues the applicant with an approval certificate, drawn up in accordance with the model below. Contracting Parties use copies of this document in order to communicate to other Contracting Parties approvals granted or any withdrawals.

            Approval certificate for products in accordance with appendix 1B/1C
             (1)

         Name of the competent administration
         Communication concerning (2):
         Approval
         Withdrawal of an approval
         Of a control device model
         Of a control device component (3)

         Of a driver card
         Of a workshop card
         Of a company card
         Of an inspector's card
         Approval No …

                     (1)

                     Manufacturing or commercial mark

                     (2)

                     Name of model

                     (3)

                     Name of manufacturer

                     (4)

                     Address of manufacturer

                     (5)

                     Submitted for approval on

                     (6)

                     Test laboratory or laboratories

                     (7)

                     Date and No. of reports

                     (8)

                     Date of approval

                     (9)

                     Date of withdrawal of approval

                     (10)

                     Model (s) of component(s) of control device with which the component is intended to be used

                     (11)

                     Place

                     (12)

                     Date

                     (13)

                     Descriptive documents annexed

                     (14)

                     Remarks (including the affixing of seals if required)

               …
         (Signature)


title: 2009/357/EC: Commission Decision of 27 April 2009 amending Decision 2007/134/EC establishing the European Research Council (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 110/37

      COMMISSION DECISION

   of 27 April 2009
   amending Decision 2007/134/EC establishing the European Research Council
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2009/357/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (1), and in particular Articles 2 and 3 thereof,
   Having regard to Council Decision 2006/972/EC of 19 December 2006 concerning the Specific Programme ‘Ideas’ implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (2), and in particular Article 4(2) and (3) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Under the Seventh Framework Programme, the Specific Programme ‘Ideas’ has the objective of supporting investigator-driven frontier research across all fields of science, engineering and scholarship carried out by researchers on subjects of their choice.

               (2)

               By Decision 2007/134/EC (3) the Commission established the European Research Council (hereinafter referred to as the ERC) which is the means for implementing the Specific Programme ‘Ideas’.

               (3)

               According to Article 1 of Decision 2007/134/EC, the ERC consists of an independent Scientific Council supported by a dedicated implementation structure.

               (4)

               The Scientific Council is composed of scientists, engineers and scholars of the highest repute, appointed by the Commission, and acting in their personal capacity, independent of any outside influence. It acts according to the mandate provided for it in Article 3 of Decision 2007/134/EC.

               (5)

               According to Article 4(1) of Decision 2007/134/EC, the Scientific Council is composed of up to 22 members.

               (6)

               Three members of the Scientific Council have resigned for personal reasons: Prof. Manuel CASTELLS, Open University of Catalonia; Prof. Paul J. CRUTZEN, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz; Prof. Lord MAY, University of Oxford.

               (7)

               According to Article 4(7) of Decision 2007/134/EC, upon resignation of a member or on the expiry of a term that cannot be renewed, the Commission shall appoint a new member.

               (8)

               According to Article 4(6) of Decision 2007/134/EC, members shall be appointed for a term of four years, renewable once on a basis of a rotating system, which shall ensure the continuity of the work of the Scientific Council.

               (9)

               According to Article 4(4) of Decision 2007/134/EC, future members shall be appointed by the Commission based on the factors and criteria set out in Annex I to that Decision, and following an independent and transparent procedure for their identification, agreed with the Scientific Council, including a consultation of the scientific community and a report to Parliament and Council; Such a procedure was carried out by means of an independent Identification Committee, whose report was sent to Parliament and Council. This Committee made recommendations for the three new members and these have been accepted.

               (10)

               According to Article 4(4) of Decision 2007/134/EC, the appointment of future members shall be published in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4),

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The persons listed in the Annex to this Decision are hereby appointed as members of the European Research Council Scientific Council for a term of four years.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 27 April 2009.

            For the Commission

         Janez POTOČNIK

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 412, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 400, 30.12.2006, p. 243; corrected by OJ L 54, 22.2.2007, p. 81.

      (3)  OJ L 57, 24.2.2007, p. 14.

      (4)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

      ANNEX

         NEW MEMBERS OF THE ERC SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL

      Prof. Sierd A.P.L. CLOETINGH, Free University of Amsterdam
      Prof. Carlos M. DUARTE, Spanish Council for Scientific Research, Majorca
      Prof. Henrietta L. MOORE, University of Cambridge


Avis juridique important

|

31999D0319

1999/319/CFSP: Council Decision of 10 May 1999 implementing Common Position 1999/318/CFSP concerning additional restrictive measures against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Official Journal L 123 , 13/05/1999 P. 0003 - 0011

COUNCIL DECISIONof 10 May 1999implementing Common Position 1999/318/CFSP concerning additional restrictive measures against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia(1999/319/CFSP)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to Common Position 1999/318/CFSP(1), adopted by the Council on 10 May 1999 concerning additional restrictive measures against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY),Whereas in order to implement Article 1(1) and (2) of Common Position 1999/318/CFSP an implementing Decision by the Council is needed,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Article 1The persons to which the obligation of non-admission referred to in Article 1 of Common Position 1999/318/CFSP applies are the following:>TABLE>Article 2This Decision shall take effect on the same date as Common Position 1999/318/CFSP.Article 3This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal.Done at Brussels, 10 May 1999.For the CouncilThe PresidentH. EICHEL(1) See page 1 of this Official Journal.


Avis juridique important

|

31988D0336

88/336/EEC: Decision of the European Parliament of 13 April 1988 granting a discharge to the Commission in respect of the financial management of the sixth European Development Fund during the 1986 financial year

Official Journal L 156 , 23/06/1988 P. 0051 - 0053

*****DECISION  OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  of 13 April 1988  granting a discharge to the Commission in respect of the financial management of the sixth European Development Fund during the 1986 financial year  (88/336/EEC)  THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,  - having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  - having regard to the third ACP-EEC Lomé Convention (1),  - having regard to the balance sheets and accounts of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth European Development Funds for the 1986 financial year (COM(87) 192 final),  - having regard to the report of the Court of Auditors concerning the 1986 financial year, accompanied by the replies of the Institutions (2),  - having regard to the Council recommendation relating to the granting of this discharge (Doc. C 2-8/88),  - whereas the Treaty of 22 July 1975 authorizes the European Parliament to grant a discharge in respect of the Community's financial activities,  - having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Development and Cooperation (Doc. A 2-6/88),  1. Grants a discharge to the Commission in respect of the financial management of the sixth European Development Fund during the 1986 financial year on the basis of the following figures:  - payments: 116 736 332,83 ECU;  2. Records its observations in the resolution (3) accompanying this Decision;  3. Instructs its President to forward this Decision and the resolution containing its observations to the Commission, the Council, the Court of Auditors and the European Investment Bank and to ensure that they are published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (L series).  Done at Strasbourg, 13 April 1988.  1.2.3 // The Secretary-General Enrico VINCI   //   // The President PLUMB  (1) OJ No L 86, 31. 3. 1986, p. 1.  (2) OJ No C 336, 15. 12. 1987, p. 1.  (3) See page 52 of this Official Journal.  RESOLUTION  containing the observations accompanying the Decisions granting a discharge in respect of the financial management of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth European Development Funds during the 1986 financial year  THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,  - having regard to Articles 137 and 206b of the Treaty establishing the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  - having regard to Articles 67, 70 and 73, respectively, of the Financial Regulations applicable to the fourth, fifth and sixth European Development Funds, pursuant to which the Commission must take all appropriate steps to act on the observations appearing in the discharge Decison,  - whereas the same Articles also require the Commission to report, at the request of the European Parliament, on the measures taken in the light of Parliament's observations and, in particular, on the instructions given to those of its departments responsible for the management of the European Development Funds,  - deciding to make the observations referred to in the above Articles 67, 70 and 73 in the form of this resolution which accompanies each discharge Decision relating to the financial management of the European Development Funds for the 1986 financial year,  - adopting this resolution at the same time through the exercise of the powers essential to the performance of its control function with a view to remedying the shortcomings noted during the examination prior to the discharge and to improving the management of the European Development Funds,  - having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Development and Cooperation (Doc. A 2-6/88),  The third EDF  1. Notes that the Commission has delayed closing the third EDF by taking financing decisions relating to this fund in 1986;  2. Notes that, during 1986, the Commission decided to transfer 19,7 million ECU (representing outstanding balances available from closed projects) from the third to the fifth EDF;  The fourth EDF  3. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has begun to use a large proportion of non-allocated resources to finances a rehabilitation and recovery plan to assist the most severely drought-stricken African countries;  Rate of utilization  4. Notes that, at 31 December 1986, 84,7 % of the aid available for programmes under the fifth EDF had been committed (as against 76,6 % in 1985) with payments running at 46,1 % (as against 34,7 % in 1985);  5. Notes the increasingly slow rate of implementation of the fifth EDF, which has not even been able to maintain the rate of implementation of the preceding funds, and criticizes the failure to comply with the principle of regular timing in the allocation of the sums to be committed under the indicative programme;  6. Notes once again that the Commission has failed to forward to Parliament a report containing a satisfactory analysis of the reasons for the low rate of implementation of EDF appropriations compared with the major international organizations responsible for development aid, as called for in the 1983 and 1985 discharge resolutions;  Shortcomings in financial management  7. Asks the Commission to comply with the observations of the Court of Auditors in its 1986 annual report on the recording and control over the use of advance funds in the EDF accounts in order to improve the transparency of management and the monitoring of advances that remain to be cleared;  8. Asks the Commission again, when approving the financial conditions for construction work contracts, to ensure compliance with the principle of annuality in the clearance of advances granted on the basis of estimates, particularly where the provisions concerning compensation for price variations are concerned;  Linking of training schemes with development projects  9. Notes that the funds earmarked for on-the-spot training of middle management and technical staff in direct connection with programmes and projects financed by the Community have been under-utilized and that this shortcoming has been accentuated by the small number of training experts in the Commission delegations;  10. Asks the Commission to make good the shortcomings noted by the Court of Auditors in the administration of awards for study and training courses by managing bodies in the Member States and calls on the Commission to establish a new computerized monitoring system for award programmes as well as other means of verification in connection with ex-post appraisal in order to gauge the cost-benefit effectiveness of EDF activities in the training sector;  Trade promotion programmes  11. Notes that, at the conclusion of the period during which the first two Lomé Conventions were implemented, the results obtained in the area of export promotion did not match up to legitimate expectations;  12. Asks the Commission to take account of the Court's observations in order to improve the effectiveness of this kind of measure by adopting first of all an integrated approach towards trade promotion programmes, by making wider use of the various means of action included in the legal framework of the Conventions and by encouraging private-sector involvement;  The sixth EDF  13. Notes the entry into force of the third Lomé Convention (sixth EDF) as well as the low volume of expenditure committed on account of the long time limits necessitated by the rate at which the indicative programmes were signed;  14. Notes that, in keeping with the new principles, the planning of Community aid, which is the first stage in the implementation of Lomé III, was practically completed in 1986 and asks the Commission, when implementing the indicative programmes, to take adequate account of the recommendations made by the Court of Auditors in its annual reports for 1986 and preceding years;  European Investment Bank  15. Notes that, as is clear from the opinion of Parliament's Legal Service on the extent of the Court of Auditors' powers in relation to the funds managed by the EIB, the Court of Auditors is entitled to ask for and obtain all the information enabling it to assess and monitor the administration of venture-capital financing managed by the EIB on a mandate from the Commission and to verify whether, in the case of loans benefiting from interest rebates, the aim of such rebates has been met;  16. Asks the Commission and the EIB to reach agreement with the Court of Auditors on the information to be supplied by the EIB concerning projects under its management that benefit from Community development aid;  EDF budgetization  17. Regrets the fact that, at the recent Brussels Summit, the European Council decided to leave the EDF outside the Community budget despite the proposals put forward by the Commission and reaffirms its determination to use all the means at its disposal, including legal remedies, to budgetize the EDF;  18. Asks the Commission to report on the measures taken to act on the observations accompanying the discharge Decisions.