title: 2008/274/EC: Council Decision of 17 March 2008 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on certain aspects of air services

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 87/9

      COUNCIL DECISION

   of 17 March 2008
   on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on certain aspects of air services
   (2008/274/EC)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 80(2), in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2), and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3),
   Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
   Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament (1),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community Agreement.

               (2)

               The Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Community, an Agreement with the Kingdom of Morocco on certain aspects of air services (the Agreement) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community Agreement.

               (3)

               The Agreement was signed on behalf of the European Community subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in conformity with Council Decision 2006/953/EC (2).

               (4)

               The Agreement should be approved,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on certain aspects of air services is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.
   Article 2
   The President of the Council is authorised to designate the person empowered to make the notification provided for in Article 8(1) of the Agreement.

      Done at Brussels, 17 March 2008.

            For the Council

            The President

         I. JARC

      (1)  Opinion of 16.5.2006 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

      (2)  OJ L 386, 29.12.2006, p. 17.


title: 2009/461/EC: Commission Decision of 12 June 2009 appointing a Commission representative to the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency

text:
               13.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 150/20

      COMMISSION DECISION

   of 12 June 2009
   appointing a Commission representative to the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency
   (2009/461/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (1), and in particular Article 65 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the Management Board of the European Medicine Agency (hereinafter ‘the Agency’) is to include two representatives of the Commission.

               (2)

               Due to the expiry on 2 June 2009 of the current mandate of the Commission representative and alternate from the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry, it is necessary to appoint a member of the Management Board of the Agency from the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry and an alternate who will replace the member in his/her absence and vote on his/her behalf,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The representative of the Commission to the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency shall be the person occupying the following position and exercising the following functions:

               (a)

               Director-General of the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry.

         The alternate representative shall be the person occupying the following position and exercising the following functions:

               (b)

               Director heading the Directorate which is responsible for the authorisation of medicinal products on the basis of the work program of the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry.

         Article 2
   This Decision shall apply to the persons occupying, including on a temporary basis, the positions referred to in Article 1 at the date of adoption of this Decision, or to any successor of those persons in those positions.
   Article 3
   The Director-General of the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry shall inform the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency of the names of the persons occupying the positions referred to in Article 1, and any changes thereof.

      Done at Brussels, 12 June 2009.

            For the Commission

         Günter VERHEUGEN

            Vice-President

      (1)  OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1.


European Parliament decision on the request for waiver of the immunity of Jean-Charles Marchiani (2003/2115(IMM))


title: Council Decision 2014/480/CFSP of 21 July 2014 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 215/4

         COUNCIL DECISION 2014/480/CFSP
   of 21 July 2014
   amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 26 July 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) concerning restrictive measures against Iran.

               (2)

               On 24 November 2013, China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, supported by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, reached an agreement with Iran on a Joint Plan of Action which sets out an approach towards reaching a long-term comprehensive solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. It was agreed that the process leading to this comprehensive solution would include, as a first step, initial mutually-agreed measures to be taken by both sides for a duration of six months and renewable by mutual consent.

               (3)

               As part of this first step, Iran would undertake a number of voluntary measures as specified in the Joint Plan of Action. In return, a number of voluntary measures would be undertaken which would include, for the Union, the suspension of restrictive measures concerning the prohibition on the provision of insurance and reinsurance and transport for Iranian crude oil, the prohibition on the import, purchase or transport of Iranian petrochemical products and on the provision of related services, and the prohibition on trade in gold and precious metals with the Government of Iran, its public bodies and the Central Bank of Iran, or persons and entities acting on their behalf. The suspension of those restrictive measures would last for a duration of six months during which the relevant contracts would have to be executed.

               (4)

               Furthermore, the Joint Plan of Action also foresees a tenfold increase of the authorisation thresholds in relation to the transfers of funds to and from Iran.

               (5)

               On 20 January 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/21/CFSP (2) amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP in order to implement the provisions concerning the Union restrictive measures contained in the Joint Plan of Action.

               (6)

               On 19 July 2014, China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, supported by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, agreed with Iran to extend the implementation of the measures of the Joint Plan of Action until 24 November 2014.

               (7)

               The suspension of the Union restrictive measures specified in the Joint Plan of Action should therefore be extended until 24 November 2014. Relevant contracts would have to be executed within that date.

               (8)

               Decision 2010/413/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Article 26a of Decision 2010/413/CFSP is replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 26a
      1.   The prohibition set out in Article 3a(1) shall be suspended until 24 November 2014 insofar as it concerns the transport of Iranian crude oil.
      2.   The prohibition set out in Article 3a(2) shall be suspended until 24 November 2014 insofar as it concerns the provision of insurance and reinsurance, related to the import, purchase, or transport of Iranian crude oil.
      3.   The prohibition set out in Article 3b shall be suspended until 24 November 2014.
      4.   The prohibition set out in Article 4c shall be suspended until 24 November 2014 insofar as it concerns gold and precious metals.
      5.   Article 10(3)(a), (b) and (c) are replaced by the following points until 24 November 2014:

                  “(a)

                  transfers due on transactions regarding foodstuffs, healthcare, medical equipment, or for agricultural or humanitarian purposes below EUR 1 000 000, as well as transfers regarding personal remittances, below EUR 400 000, shall be carried out without any prior authorisation. The transfer shall be notified to the competent authority of the Member State concerned if above EUR 10 000;

                  (b)

                  transfers due on transactions regarding foodstuffs, healthcare, medical equipment, or for agricultural or humanitarian purposes above EUR 1 000 000, as well as transfers regarding personal remittances, above EUR 400 000, shall require the prior authorisation from the competent authority of the Member State concerned. The relevant Member State shall inform the other Member States of any authorisation granted;

                  (c)

                  any other transfer above EUR 100 000 shall require the prior authorisation from the competent authority of the Member State concerned. The relevant Member State shall inform the other Member States of any authorisation granted.”.

            6.   Article 10(4)(b) and (c) are replaced by the following points until 24 November 2014:

                  “(b)

                  any other transfer below EUR 400 000 shall be carried out without any prior authorisation. The transfer shall be notified to the competent authority of the Member State concerned if above EUR 10 000;

                  (c)

                  any other transfer above EUR 400 000 shall require the prior authorisation from the competent authority of the Member State concerned. The authorisation shall be deemed granted within four weeks unless the competent authority of the Member State concerned has objected within that time-limit. The relevant Member State shall inform the other Member States of any authorisation rejected.”.

            7.   The prohibitions set out in Article 18b shall be suspended until 24 November 2014.
      8.   The prohibitions set out in Article 20(1)(b) and (c) and in Article 20(2) to the Ministry of Petroleum, listed in Annex II, shall be suspended until 24 November 2014, insofar as necessary for the execution, until 24 November 2014, of contracts for the import or purchase of Iranian petrochemical products.’.

   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 21 July 2014.

            For the Council

            The President

         S. GOZI

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

      (2)  Council Decision 2014/21/CFSP of 20 January 2014 amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 15, 20.1.2014, p. 22).


title: 2013/544/EU, Euratom: Decision of the European Parliament of 17 April 2013 on the closure of the accounts of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, Section III — Commission

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 308/116

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 17 April 2013
   on the closure of the accounts of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, Section III — Commission
   (2013/544/EU, Euratom)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011 (1),

               —

               having regard to the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2011 (COM(2012) 436 — C7-0224/2012) (2),

               —

               having regard to the Commission’s report on the follow-up to the discharge for the 2010 financial year (COM(2012) 585), and to the Commission staff working documents accompanying that report (SWD(2012) 340 and SWD(2012) 330),

               —

               having regard to the Commission communication of 6 June 2012 entitled ‘Synthesis of the Commission’s management achievements in 2011’ (COM(2012) 281),

               —

               having regard to the Commission’s annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2011 (COM(2012) 563), and to the Commission staff working document accompanying that report (SWD(2012) 283),

               —

               having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2011, together with the institutions’ replies (3), and to the Court of Auditors’ special reports,

               —

               having regard to the statement of assurance (4) 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 2011 pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 12 February 2013 on discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2011 (05752/2013 — C7-0038/2013),

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 12 February 2013 on discharge to be given to the executive agencies in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2011 (05754/2013 — C7-0039/2013),

               —

               having regard to Articles 317, 318 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty,

               —

               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 (5), and in particular Articles 55, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,

               —

               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 (6), and in particular Articles 62, 164, 165 and 166 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (7), and in particular Article 14(2) and (3) thereof,

               —

               having regard to Rule 76 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinions of the other committees concerned (A7-0116/2013),

               1.

               Approves the closure of the accounts of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the resolution that forms an integral part of its Decisions on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, Section III — Commission and executive agencies, and in its Resolution of 17 April 2013 on the Court of Auditors’ special reports in the context of the 2011 Commission discharge (8);

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this Decision to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court of Auditors and the European Investment Bank, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

            The President

         Martin SCHULZ

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ L 68, 15.3.2011.

      (2)  OJ C 348, 14.11.2012, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ C 344, 12.11.2012, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ C 348, 14.11.2012, p. 130.

      (5)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

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

      (7)  OJ L 11, 16.1.2003, p. 1.

      (8)  Texts adopted, P7-TA(2013)0123 (see page 68 of this Official Journal).


title: Council Decision (EU) 2017/1191 of 16 June 2017 abrogating Decision 2014/56/EU on the existence of an excessive deficit in Croatia

text:
               5.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 172/8

         COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2017/1191
   of 16 June 2017
   abrogating Decision 2014/56/EU on the existence of an excessive deficit in Croatia
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 126(12) thereof,
   Having regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 28 January 2014, following a recommendation from the Commission, the Council decided, by Decision 2014/56/EU (1), in accordance with Article 126(6) of the Treaty, that an excessive deficit existed in Croatia. The Council noted that the general government deficit planned for 2014 was 5,5 %, thus above the 3 %-of-GDP Treaty reference value. The general government gross debt was foreseen to reach 62 % of GDP in 2014, thus above the 60 %-of-GDP Treaty reference value.

               (2)

               On 28 January 2014, in accordance with Article 126(7) of the Treaty and Article 3(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 (2), the Council, based on a recommendation from the Commission, addressed a recommendation to Croatia with a view to bringing the excessive deficit situation to an end by 2016 at the latest.

               (3)

               On 2 July 2014, the Commission concluded that Croatia had taken effective action in compliance with the Council recommendation of 28 January 2014 under Article 126(7) of the Treaty.

               (4)

               In accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaties, the Commission provides the statistical data for the implementation of the procedure. As part of the application of that Protocol, Member States are to notify statistical data on government deficits and debt and other associated variables twice a year, namely before 1 April and before 1 October, in accordance with Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 (3).

               (5)

               The Council has to take a decision to abrogate a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit on the basis of notified statistical data. Moreover, a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit should be abrogated only if the Commission forecasts indicate that the deficit will not exceed the 3 %-of-GDP Treaty reference value over the forecast horizon and the debt ratio fulfils the forward looking element of the debt reduction benchmark (4).

               (6)

               Based on data provided by the Commission (Eurostat) in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 479/2009, following the April 2016 notification by Croatia, the convergence programme for 2017-2020 and the Commission 2017 spring forecast, the following conclusions are justified:

                           —

                           In 2016, the general government deficit reached 0,8 % of GDP, from 3,4 % in 2015. That improvement was mainly driven by: (i) rising revenue on the back of strong GDP growth; and (ii) a restraint on the expenditure side. Thus, the deficit was brought below the 3 %-of-GDP Treaty reference value within the deadline set by the Council.

                           —

                           The convergence programme for 2017-2020, submitted by the Croatian government on 27 April 2017, is planning for the general government deficit to rise to 1,3 % of GDP in 2017 and decline to 0,8 % of GDP in 2018. The Commission 2017 spring forecast projects a deficit of 1,1 % of GDP in 2017 and 0,9 % of GDP in 2018. Thus, the deficit is set to remain below the 3 %-of-GDP Treaty reference value over the forecast horizon.

                           —

                           The structural balance, which is the general government balance adjusted for the economic cycle and net of one-off and other temporary measures, improved by 3,0 % of GDP over the period 2014-2016.

                           —

                           The gross government debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 86,7 % in 2015 and decreased to 84,2 % in 2016, on account of strengthening GDP and debt-reducing stock-flow adjustments. The Commission 2017 spring forecast projects the debt ratio to decrease further to 79,4 % in 2018, backed by strong nominal GDP growth. On that basis, the 2016 debt ratio fulfils the forward-looking element of the debt reduction benchmark.

               (7)

               In accordance with Article 126(12) of the Treaty, a Council decision on the existence of an excessive deficit is to be abrogated when the excessive deficit in the Member State concerned has, in the view of the Council, been corrected.

               (8)

               In the view of the Council, the excessive deficit in Croatia has been corrected and Decision 2014/56/EU should therefore be abrogated.

               (9)

               As from 2017, which is the year following the correction of the excessive deficit, Croatia is subject to the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact. Having reached its medium-term objective already in 2016, Croatia should avoid deviating from it and comply with the debt criterion, in accordance with Article 2(1a) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   From an overall assessment it follows that the excessive deficit situation in Croatia has been corrected.
   Article 2
   Decision 2014/56/EU is hereby abrogated.
   Article 3
   This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Croatia.

      Done at Luxembourg, 16 June 2017.

            For the Council

            The President

         E. SCICLUNA

      (1)  Council Decision 2014/56/EU of 28 January 2014 on the existence of an excessive deficit in Croatia (OJ L 36, 6.2.2014, p. 13).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 6).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 of 25 May 2009 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (OJ L 145, 10.6.2009, p. 1).

      (4)  In line with the specifications on the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact and guidelines on the format and content of stability and convergence programmes, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/pdf/coc/code_of_conduct_en.pdf


Avis juridique important

|

31989D0537

89/537/EEC: Commission Decision of 27 September 1989 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of mica originating in Japan

Official Journal L 284 , 03/10/1989 P. 0045 - 0048

*****COMMISSION  DECISION  of 27 September 1989  terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of mica originating in Japan  (89/537/EEC)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), and in particular Article 9 thereof,  After consultations within the Advisory Committee as provided for by that Regulation,  Whereas:  A. Procedure  (1) In 1988 the Commission received a complaint lodged by the Cie Royale Asturienne des Mines, Division Cogebi, representing the majority of Community production of mica. The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the product concerned originating in Japan and of material injury and threat of injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to warrant the opening of an investigation.  (2) The Commission accordingly announced, by notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of mica originating in Japan. The product concerned comprised agglomerated or reconstituted mica, whether or not on a support of paper, paperboard or other materials falling within CN codes 6814 10 00, 6814 90 10 and 6814 90 90. The Commission commenced an investigation.  (3) The Commission officially notified the producers/exporters and importers allegedly concerned, the representatives of the exporting country and the complainant and gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing.  (4) Most of the producers addressed by the Commission replied that they had not exported the product concerned to the Community; the only company which had exported mica products to the Community during the investigation period, i.e. Nippon Rika Kogyosho, Tokyo, Japan, and the two importers concerned requested and were granted hearings.  (5) The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary. On the spot investigations were carried out at the premises of the following companies:  (a) Community producer:  Cie Royale Asturienne des Mines (Division Cogebi), Lot, Belgium;  (b) producers/exporters:  Nippon Rika Kogyosho, Tokyo, Japan,  Okabe Mica Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan;  (c) importer in the Community:  AEG Isolier- und Kunststoff GmbH, Kassel-Walden, Germany.  (6) The investigation period set pursuant to Article 7 (1) (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 covered the period from 1 January to 30 November 1988.  B. The product  (7) Mica is generally available in the following three types:  - mica paper,  - mica heater sheets,  - mica fire resistant tape for cable.  It was found during the investigation that a special type of mica paper, called Ar-Mat, had been developed by Nippon Rika and was exported during the investigation period by this company to the Community. The complainant neither produced nor intends to produce this material in the near future. This special type has therefore been excluded from the investigation.  C. Dumping  (i) Normal value  (8) With regard to mica heater sheets, normal value was determined for each thickness on the basis of weighted average domestic prices charged by Nippon Rika to independent customers. In the absence of domestic sales of the thickness exported, normal value was determined on the basis of an arithmetic average price between the two thicknesses nearest to the exported product.  As far as fire resistant insulating tape, i.e. AMS 864 G, is concerned, which was not sold on the domestic market during the investigation period, normal value was based - in the absence of domestic sales of the same size as that of the exports to the Community - on constructed value determined by adding the average cost of production of all sizes of the like product, i.e. T 512 A, plus the average margin of profit realized for that product on the domestic market.  (ii) Export price  (9) Export prices were determined on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the products sold for export to the Community.  (iii) Comparison  (10) The normal value was compared with the export prices for the corresponding type and thickness of the product on a transaction by transaction basis. All comparisons were made at ex-works level.  (11) The exporting company claimed several adjustments pursuant to Article 2 (9) and (10) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 for differences affecting price comparability. To the extent that the company had proven its claims adjustments were made for directly related selling expenses, such a transport, insurance, loading, anciliary costs, credit terms and commissions.  (12) The exporting company also claimed an adjustment of the normal value pursuant to Article 2 (10) (c) (iv) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 for additional services rendered, when the product was sold on the domestic market. The company claimed that the amount of the adjustment should correspond to the direct costs incurred for cutting the product concerned into slices.  This adjustment could not be granted, since Article 2 (10) (c) (iv) only covers after-sales services, whereas the services allegedly being rendered related to pre-sales services. In addition, this request was made outside the time limit.  (iv) Dumping margin  (13) The weighted average dumping margin calculated on this basis amounts to 41,26 % for the mica heater sheets and to 5,7 % for the fire-resistant cable, the margins of dumping being equal to the amount by which the normal value exceeds the prices for exports to the Community, duly adjusted.  D. Injury  (14) As Italy was allegedly the only part of the Community market where losses were incurred by the complainant and to where 70 % of the Japanese exports were directed, the investigation concentrated particularly on this market.  With regard to the injury allegedly being caused by the dumped imports, the evidence available to the Commission showed that Japanese exports of mica to the Community increased from zero in 1984 to 40,5 tonnes in 1987 and to 102,5 tonnes during the investigation period.  Exports of mica from Japan into Italy increased from zero tonnes in 1984 through 1987 to 87 tonnes during the investigation period, with a consequent increase in market share held by the exporting country from 0 % in 1984 to 17,6 % during the same period.  When assessing the market shares held by the suppliers of mica to the Italian market, account has to be taken of the fact that the consumption of mica on this market increased from 448 tonnes in 1984 to 542 tonnes in 1985, i.e. by 20,9 % and decreased to 508 tonnes, i.e. by 6,3 % in 1986. In 1987 it increased to 634 tonnes, i.e. by 24,8 % and decreased to 618 tonnes, i.e. by 2,5 % during the investigation period.  This development shows an overall increase in the consumption of mica in Italy by 38 % from 1984 to the investigation period. In the absence of production of mica in Italy the figures relating to consumption and market shares were calculated on the basis of the imports from Japan and supplies from other Member States.  (15) With regard to the resale prices of these imports on the Italian market, it was found that during the period under investigation the Japanese product undercut the prices of the complainant Community producer by 21,5 % (weighted average margin).  (16) With regard to the possible impact of the dumped imports on the situation of the complainant Community producer, account has been taken of the following factors (the following figures cover the three types of mica products mentioned under recital 7):  (a) the complainant increased its production capacity by 18,3 % in 1985, by 29,8 % in 1986, by 32,5 % in 1987 and by 1,6 % during  the investigation period. This development corresponds to an increase of more than 100 % between 1984 and 1988.  The increase in production capacity took place mainly in order to meet estimated market requirements outside the Community, in particular in the Far East; (b) the complainant's production increased by 18,3 % in 1985, by 29,5 % in 1986 and by 21,7 % in 1987 and decreased by 2,8 % during the investigation period.  (c) after remaining stable between 1984 and 1986 the complainant's capacity utilization decreased by 7,9 % in 1987 but only by 2,9 % during the investigation period;  (d) with regard to the complainant's sales in the Community and in particular on the Italian market the following findings were made:  (i) Community-wide sales of all mica products increased steadily from 1984 to 1988 with an increase of 9 % during the investigation period;  (ii) Community-wide sales of mica heater sheets increased by 12,2 % in 1985, by 26,8 % in 1986, by 2,2 % in 1987 and by 2,4 % during the investigation period;  (iii) on the Italian market sales of mica heater sheets remained stable or even increased, with the exception of the sales to only one of the complainant's major customers. The latter decreased by 7,4 % in 1985 and by 9,1 % in 1986; they remained stable in 1987 and decreased by 48 % during the investigation period;  (e) as far as the development of the complainant's market share on a Community-wide basis and in Italy is concerned the following findings were made. (In the absence of figures concerning sales by non-complainant Community producers, market shares are based on the complainant's market knowledge.):  (i) it's market share for all mica products in the Community decreased from 44 % in 1984 to 42 % during the investigation period;  (ii) its market share for mica heater sheets in the Community decreased from 72 % in 1984 to 71,1 % in 1985, it increased again to 72,1 % in 1986 and decreased to 69,8 % in 1987 and to 65,2 % during the investigation period;  (iii) on the Italian market the complainant's market share for mica heater sheets decreased from 69 % in 1984 to 46 % during the investigation period, its market share for all mica products decreasing by only 7 %;  (f) with regard to the complainant's profitability it was found that its profits on sales of all mica products, and in particular of sales of mica heater sheets in the Community, were already significant in 1984 and further increased by 30 % and 20 % respectively between 1984 and 1988;  (g) the personnel employed by the complainant in the mica sector remained stable throughout the period 1984 to 1988.  (17) Although some injury has been established on the Italian market, where the complainant realized about 20 % of his turnover in mica heater sheets in the Community, it is considered that this does not constitute material injury.  E. Threat of injury  (18) In order to examine the allegations made by the complainant with regard to a situation of threat of injury, the Commission carefully examined the telexes sent to the complainant by one of the other Japanese producers of mica, i.e. Okabe Mica Co. Ltd, and the activities of this company, which threatened to retaliate against the complainant by selling huge quantities of mica at very low prices in the Community.  However, it was considered that, in the absence of any exports of mica by Okabe Mica Co. Ltd to the Community either during the investigation period or afterwards, there was insufficient evidence to indicate that the intention declared by this firm would lead to a situation wherein the threats are likely to develop into actual injury.  (19) With regard to Nippon Rika, the only Japanese producer who in fact exported mica to the Community, there is no evidence to indicate any probability of an increase in exports of mica to the Community by this company.  (20) In these circumstances it is considered that a change of circumstances which would create a situation in which the dumping could cause injury cannot at present be clearly foreseen and is not imminent.  F. Termination of the proceeding  (21) The proceeding concerning imports of mica originating in Japan should therefore be terminated without the imposition of measures.  (22) No objections to this course of action were raised in the Advisory Committee. (23) The complainant was informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission intended to terminate this proceeding. Subsequently, the complainant made its comments known to the Commission. However, these comments concerning the findings of threat of injury are not substantiated and cannot therefore be considered as affecting at present the findings outlined above with regard to injury and threat of injury.  The exporter was also informed of the dumping findings but did not significantly challenge the Commission's calculations,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Sole Article  The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of mica originating in Japan is hereby terminated.  Done at Brussels, 27 September 1989.  For the Commission  Karel VAN MIERT  Member of the Commission  (1) OJ No L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1.  (2) OJ No C 323, 16. 12. 1988, p. 3.