title: 2012/441/EC: Council Decision of 9 October 2009 on the signing and provisional application of a Protocol amending the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, to take account of the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania#Protocol amending the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, to take account of the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania

text:
               27.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 200/24

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 9 October 2009
   on the signing and provisional application of a Protocol amending the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, to take account of the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania
   (2012/441/EC)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 80(2) thereof in conjunction with Article 300(2), the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) and Article 300(4),
   Having regard to the Act of Accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 5 December 2004, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and the Kingdom of Morocco.

               (2)

               The Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and the Kingdom of Morocco (‘the Agreement’) was signed in Brussels on 12 December 2006 (1).

               (3)

               The Treaty concerning the Accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union was signed in Luxembourg on 25 April 2005 and entered into force on 1 January 2007.

               (4)

               A Protocol amending the Agreement is necessary in order to take account of the accession of those two new Member States.

               (5)

               The Protocol was negotiated by the parties on 19 March 2007.

               (6)

               The Protocol should be signed and applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for its formal conclusion,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   1.   The signing of the Protocol amending the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, to take account of the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania (‘the Protocol’) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Community, subject to its conclusion.
   2.   The text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol on behalf of the European Community and its Member States subject to its conclusion.
   Article 3
   Subject to reciprocity, and pending its formal conclusion, the Protocol shall be applied on a provisional basis as from signature thereof by the parties.
   Article 4
   The notification provided for in Article 4(1) of the Protocol shall be given by the Council.

      Done at Luxembourg, 9 October 2009.

            For the Council

            The President

         Å. TORSTENSSON

      (1)  OJ L 386, 29.12.2006, p. 55.

      PROTOCOL
      amending the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, to take account of the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania
      THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM,
      THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA,
      THE CZECH REPUBLIC,
      THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK,
      THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY,
      THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA,
      IRELAND,
      THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC,
      THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN,
      THE FRENCH REPUBLIC,
      THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC,
      THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS,
      THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA,
      THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA,
      THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG,
      THE REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY,
      MALTA,
      THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS,
      THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA,
      THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND,
      THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC,
      ROMANIA,
      THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA,
      THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC,
      THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND,
      THE KINGDOM OF SWEDEN,
      THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND,
      hereinafter referred to as "the Member States", and
      THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY,
      hereinafter referred to as "the Community",
      represented by the Council of the European Union,
      of the one part, and
      THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF MOROCCO,
      hereinafter referred to as "Morocco",
      of the other part,
      Having regard to the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union and hence to the Community on 1 January 2007,
      HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
      Article 1
      The Republic of Bulgaria and Romania are Parties to the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement concluded between the European Community and its Member States and the Kingdom of Morocco ("the Agreement") signed in Brussels on 12 December 2006.
      Article 2
      1.   The following provisions are added to Annex II to the Agreement (Bilateral Agreements between Morocco and the Member States of the European Community):

                  a)

                  after the first indent:

                              "—

                              Aviation Agreement between the People's Republic of Bulgaria and the Kingdom of Morocco signed at Rabat on 14 October 1966;";

                  (b)

                  after the sixteenth indent:

                              "—

                              Civil Aviation Agreement between the Socialist Republic of Romania and the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco signed at Bucharest on 6 December 1971,
                              as last amended by the Memorandum of Understanding concluded at Rabat on 29 February 1996;".

            2.   The following provisions are added to the first paragraph of Annex III to the Agreement (operating authorisations and technical permissions: competent authorities):

                  (a)

                  after the section on Belgium:
                  "Bulgaria:
                  General Directorate Civil Aviation Administration
                  Ministry of Transport, Information Technologies and Communications";

                  (b)

                  after the section on the Slovak Republic:
                  "Romania:
                  Directorate General of Infrastructure and Air Transport
                  Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure".

            Article 3
      The texts of the Agreement in Bulgarian and Romanian, which are attached to this Protocol, shall be authentic under the same conditions as the other language versions.
      Article 4
      1.   This Protocol shall be approved by the Parties in accordance with their own procedures. It shall enter into force on the date of entry into force of the Agreement. However, should this Protocol be approved by the Contracting Parties after the date of entry into force of the Agreement the Protocol would then enter into force, in accordance with Article 27(1) of the Agreement, on the date on which the Parties notify each other of the completion of their internal approval formalities.
      2.   This Protocol shall be applied on a provisional basis as from signature thereof by both parties.
      Article 5
      Done at Brussels, in duplicate, on 18 June 2012, in the Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish, Swedish and Arabic languages, each text being equally authentic.

            За дьржавите-членки
            Por los Estados miembros
            Za členské státy
            For medlemsstaterne
            Für die Mitgliedstaaten
            Liikmesriikide nimel
            Για τα κράτη μέλη
            For the Member States
            Pour les États membres
            Per gli Stati membri
            Dalīvalstu vārdā –
            Valstybių narių vardu
            A tagállamok részéről
            Għall-Istati Membri
            Voor de lidstaten
            W imieniu Państw Członkowskich
            Pelos Estados-Membros
            Pentru statele membre
            Za členské štáty
            Za države članice
            Jäsenvaltioiden puolesta
            För medlemsstaternas

            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 Кралство Мароко
            Por el Reino de Marruecos
            Za Marocké království
            For Kongeriget Marokko
            Für das Königreich Marokko
            Maroko Kuningriigi nimel
            Για το Βασίλειο του Μαρόκου
            For the Kingdom of Morocco
            Pour le Royaume du Maroc
            Per il Regno del Marocco
            Marokas Karalistes vārdā –
            Maroko Karalystės vardu
            A Marokkói Királyság nevében
            Għar-Renju tal-Marokk
            Voor het Koninkrijk Marokko
            W imieniu Królestwa Maroka
            Pelo Reino de Marrocos
            Pentru Regatul Maroc
            Za Marocké kráľovstvo
            Za Kraljevino Maroko
            Marokon kuningaskunnan puolesta
            För Konungariket Marocko


title: Commission Decision of 31 July 1975 to take no action on tenders submitted for 31 July 1975 in response to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EEC) No 1840/75

text:
29 . 8 . 75                                     Official Journal of the European Communities                            No L 228 / 27
                                                          COMMISSION DECISION
                                                                of 31 July 1975
                  to take no action on tenders submitted for 31 July 1975 in response to the invita
                                         tion to tender issued in Regulation ( EEC) No 1840/75
                                                                  (75/505/ EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN                                              67/ EEC, or to fix a minimum export levy, taking
COMMUNITIES,                                                                account in particular of the criteria laid down in
                                                                            Article 3(1 ) (b) and (d) of Regulation (EEC) No
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European                       1968 /73 , or to discontinue the invitation to tender ;
Economic Community ;
                                                                            Whereas      none   of the   tenders   submitted    make   it
Having regard to Council Regulation No 120/                                 possible, given the present market situation for the
67/ EEC (') of 13 June 1967 on the common organiza                         cereal in question , to fix a maximum refund in accor
tion of the market in cereals, as last amended by Regu                     dance with the criteria laid down in Articles 2 and 3
lation ( EEC) No 665/75 (2);                                                of Regulation No 139/ 67/ EEC or a minimum levy in
                                                                            accordance     with   the criteria  laid down    in  Article
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No
1 968 /73 (3) of 19 July 1973 laying down general rules                     3 ( 1 ) (b) and (d) of Regulation (EEC) No 1968 /73 ;
                                                                            whereas the invitation to tender should therefore be
to be applied in the event of the cereals market being
disturbed , as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No                          discontinued ;
86/75 (4 ), and in particular Article 4(2) thereof ;                        Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision
Having regard to Council Regulation No 139/                                 are in accordance with the Opinion of the Manage
67/ EEC (5) of 21 June 1967 laying down general rules                       ment Committee for Cereals,
for granting export refunds on cereals and criteria for
fixing the amount of such refunds, as last amended by                       HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION :
Regulation (EEC) No 87/75 (6), and in particular
Article 4a thereof ;                                                                                Article 1
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No                             No action shall be taken on the tenders submitted for
 1 840 / 75 ( 7) of 17 July 1975 on an invitation to tender                 31 July 1975 in response to the invitation to tender
for the "levy and/or the refund for the export of                           for the export levy and/or refund on common wheat
common wheat to the countries of Zone VII (a), and                          referred to in Regulation (EEC) No 1840/75 .
in particular Article 10(1 ) thereof ;
Whereas an invitation to tender for the export levy                                                   Article 2
and /or refund on common wheat was issued under
                                                                            This Decision is addressed to the Member States .
Regulation (EEC) No 1840/75 ;
Whereas Article               10(1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No
 1 840 /75 allows the Commission to decide , in accor                      Done at Brussels, 31 July 1975 .
dance with the procedure laid down in Article 26 of
                                                                                For the Commission
Regulation No 120/67/ EEC, and on the basis of
tenders submitted , either to fix a maximum export                                                         P.J. LARDINOIS
refund, taking account in particular of the criteria laid
down in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation No 139/                                                       Member of the Commission
(!)  OJ   No    117, 19 . 6 . 1967, p . 2269 / 67 .
(-') OJ   No    L 72, 20 . 3 . 1975 , p. 14 .
O    OJ   No    L 201 , 21 . 7 . 1973 , p. 10 .
(4 ) OJ   No    L 1 1 , 1 6 . 1 . 1 975 , p. 2.
(5 ) OJ   No    125, 26 . 6 . 1967, p . 2453 /67 .
( b) OJ   No    L 11 , 16 . 1 . 1975 , p. 3 .
( 7) OJ   No    L 187, 18 . 7 . 1975 , p. 16 .


title: Council Decision 2011/640/CFSP of 12 July 2011 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the Republic of Mauritius and on the conditions of suspected pirates after transfer#Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the Republic of Mauritius and on the conditions of suspected pirates after transfer

text:
               30.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 254/1

         COUNCIL DECISION 2011/640/CFSP
   of 12 July 2011
   on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the Republic of Mauritius and on the conditions of suspected pirates after transfer
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 37 thereof, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 218(5) and (6) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (‘HR’),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 2 June 2008, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 1816 (2008) calling upon all States to cooperate in determining jurisdiction, and in the investigation and prosecution of persons responsible for acts of piracy and armed robbery off the coast of Somalia. Those provisions were reaffirmed by successor UNSC Resolutions.

               (2)

               On 10 November 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1) (operation ‘Atalanta’).

               (3)

               Article 12 of Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP provides that persons suspected of intending to commit, committing or having committed acts of piracy or armed robbery in Somali territorial waters, who are arrested and detained, with a view to their prosecution, and property used to carry out such acts, may be transferred to a third State which wishes to exercise its jurisdiction over the aforementioned persons and property, provided that the conditions for the transfer have been agreed with that third State in a manner consistent with relevant international law, notably international law on human rights, in order to guarantee in particular that no-one is subjected to the death penalty, to torture or to any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

               (4)

               Following the adoption of a Decision by the Council on 22 March 2010 authorising the opening of negotiations, the HR in accordance with Article 37 TEU negotiated an Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the Republic of Mauritius and on the conditions of suspected pirates after transfer (‘the Agreement’).

               (5)

               The Agreement should be approved,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the Republic of Mauritius and on the conditions of suspected pirates after transfer (‘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 is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.
   Article 3
   The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 11(1) of the Agreement (2).
   Article 4
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 12 July 2011.

            For the Council

            The President

         J. VINCENT-ROSTOWSKI

      (1)  OJ L 301, 12.11.2008, p. 33.

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

      AGREEMENT
      between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the Republic of Mauritius and on the conditions of suspected pirates after transfer
      THE EUROPEAN UNION (EU),
      of the one part, and
      THE REPUBLIC OF MAURITIUS,
      hereinafter referred to as ‘Mauritius’,
      of the other part,
      together hereinafter referred to as the ‘Parties’,
      TAKING INTO ACCOUNT:

                  —

                  United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) 1814 (2008), 1838 (2008), 1846 (2008), 1851 (2008) and successor UNSCRs,

                  —

                  the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), in particular Articles 100 to 107 and Article 110 thereof,

                  —

                  EU Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1) (Operation EUNAVFOR Atalanta), as amended by Council Decision 2009/907/CFSP of 8 December 2009 (2),

                  —

                  International Human Rights Law, including the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,

                  —

                  that this Agreement will not affect the Parties’ rights and obligations under international agreements and other instruments establishing international courts and tribunals, including the Statute of the International Criminal Court,

            HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
      Article 1
      Aim
      This Agreement defines the conditions and modalities for

                  (a)

                  the transfer of persons suspected of attempting to commit, committing or having committed acts of piracy within the area of operation of EUNAVFOR, on the high seas off the territorial seas of Mauritius, Madagascar, the Comoros Islands, Seychelles and Réunion Island, and detained by EUNAVFOR;

                  (b)

                  the transfer of associated property seized by EUNAVFOR from EUNAVFOR to Mauritius; and

                  (c)

                  the treatment of transferred persons.

            Article 2
      Definitions
      For the purposes of this Agreement:

                  (a)

                  ‘European Union-led naval force (EUNAVFOR)’ shall mean EU military headquarters and national contingents contributing to the EU operation ‘Atalanta’, their ships, aircrafts and assets;

                  (b)

                  ‘Operation’ shall mean the preparation, establishment, execution and support of the military mission established by EU Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP and/or its successors;

                  (c)

                  ‘national contingents’ shall mean units and ships belonging to the Member States of the European Union and, as indicated by the EU, to other States participating in the operation;

                  (d)

                  ‘Sending State’ shall mean a State providing a national contingent for EUNAVFOR;

                  (e)

                  ‘piracy’ shall mean piracy as defined in Article 101 of UNCLOS;

                  (f)

                  ‘transferred person’ shall mean any person suspected of attempting to commit, committing or having committed acts of piracy, transferred by EUNAVFOR to Mauritius under this Agreement.

            Article 3
      General principles
      1.   Mauritius may accept, upon request by EUNAVFOR, the transfer of persons detained by EUNAVFOR in connection with piracy and associated property seized by EUNAVFOR and submit such persons and property to its competent authorities for the purpose of investigation and prosecution. Agreement on acceptance of a proposed handover will be made on a case to case basis by Mauritius, taking into account all relevant circumstances including the location of the incident.
      2.   EUNAVFOR shall only transfer persons to the competent law enforcement authorities of Mauritius.
      3.   Transfer shall not be carried out before the competent law enforcement authorities of Mauritius decide within 5 working days as of the date of receipt of evidence as forwarded by EUNAVFOR that there are reasonable prospects of securing a conviction of persons detained by EUNAVFOR.
      4.   The decision as to whether there are reasonable prospects of securing a conviction shall be taken by the competent law enforcement authorities of Mauritius on the basis of evidence forwarded by EUNAVFOR through relevant communication channels.
      5.   Any transferred person shall be treated humanely and in accordance with international human rights obligations, embodied in the Constitution of Mauritius, including the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment, the prohibition of arbitrary detention and in accordance with the requirement to have a fair trial.
      Article 4
      Treatment, prosecution and trial of transferred persons
      1.   In accordance with international human rights obligations, embodied in the Constitution of Mauritius, any transferred person shall be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, shall receive adequate accommodation, nourishment and access to medical treatment and shall be able to carry out religious observance.
      2.   Any transferred person shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, who shall decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and shall order his release if the detention is not justified.
      3.   Any transferred person shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release.
      4.   In the determination of any criminal charge against him, any transferred person shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
      5.   Any transferred person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
      6.   In the determination of any criminal charge against him, every transferred person shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:

                  (a)

                  to be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him;

                  (b)

                  to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choice;

                  (c)

                  to be tried without undue delay;

                  (d)

                  to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choice; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it;

                  (e)

                  to examine, or have examined, all evidence against him, including affidavits of witnesses who conducted the arrest, and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

                  (f)

                  to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court;

                  (g)

                  not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.

            7.   Any transferred person convicted of a crime shall be permitted to have the right to his conviction and sentence reviewed by, or appealed to, a higher tribunal in accordance with the law of Mauritius.
      8.   Mauritius may, after consultation with the EU, transfer such persons convicted and serving sentence in Mauritius to another State guaranteeing the respect of the above mentioned human rights standards, with a view to serving the remainder of the sentence in that other State. In case of serious concerns about the human rights situation in that other State, no transfer shall take place before a satisfactory solution will have been found through consultations between the Parties to address the concerns expressed.
      Article 5
      Death penalty
      No transferred person shall, in accordance with Mauritius Abolition of Death Penalty Act, be charged with an offence that carries the death penalty, be sentenced to death or be the subject of an application of the death penalty.
      Article 6
      Records and notifications
      1.   Any transfer shall be the subject of an appropriate document signed by a representative of EUNAVFOR and a representative of the competent Mauritius law enforcement authorities.
      2.   EUNAVFOR shall provide detention records to Mauritius with regard to any transferred person. These records shall include, so far as possible, the physical condition of the transferred person while in detention, the time of transfer to Mauritius authorities, the reason for his detention, the time and place of the commencement of his detention, and any decisions taken with regard to his detention.
      3.   Mauritius shall be responsible for keeping an accurate account of all transferred persons, including but not limited to keeping records of any seized property, the persons’ physical condition, the location of their places of detention, any charges against them and any significant decisions taken in the course of their prosecution and trial.
      4.   These records shall be available to representatives of the EU and EUNAVFOR upon request in writing to the Mauritius Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
      5.   In addition, Mauritius shall notify the EU and EUNAVFOR of the place of detention of any person transferred under this Agreement, of any deterioration of his physical condition and of any allegations of alleged improper treatment. Representatives of the EU and EUNAVFOR shall have access to any persons transferred under this Agreement as long as such persons are in custody and shall be entitled to question them.
      6.   National and international humanitarian agencies shall, at their request, be allowed to visit persons transferred under this Agreement.
      7.   For the purposes of ensuring that EUNAVFOR is able to provide timely assistance to Mauritius with attendance of witnesses from EUNAVFOR and the provision of relevant evidence, Mauritius shall notify EUNAVFOR of its intention to initiate criminal trial proceedings against any transferred person and the timetable for provision of evidence, and the hearing of evidence.
      Article 7
      EU and EUNAVFOR assistance
      1.   EUNAVFOR, within its means and capabilities, shall provide all assistance to Mauritius with a view to the investigation and prosecution of transferred persons.
      2.   In particular, EUNAVFOR shall:

                  (a)

                  hand over detention records drawn up pursuant to Article 6(2) of this Agreement;

                  (b)

                  process any evidence in accordance with the requirements of the competent authorities of Mauritius as agreed in the implementing arrangements described in Article 10;

                  (c)

                  produce statements or affidavits by witnesses belonging to EUNAVFOR involved in any incident in relation to which persons have been transferred under this Agreement;

                  (d)

                  endeavour to produce statements of witnesses or affidavits by other witnesses who are not in Mauritius;

                  (e)

                  preserve or hand over all relevant seized property, exhibits, photographs and any article of evidential value in the possession of EUNAVFOR;

                  (f)

                  secure the attendance of witnesses belonging to EUNAVFOR, where necessary, for the purpose of giving evidence in Court (or by live TV link or any other approved technological means) during the trial;

                  (g)

                  facilitate the attendance of other witnesses, where necessary, for the purpose of giving evidence in Court (or by live TV link or any other approved technological means) during the trial;

                  (h)

                  facilitate the attendance of such interpreters as may be required by the Mauritius competent authorities for the purpose of assisting in investigations and trials involving transferred persons.

            3.   As far as such resources are not provided through other financial donors, the Parties shall develop, subject to the applicable procedures, implementing arrangements on financial, technical and other assistance to enable the transfer, detention, investigation, prosecution and trial of transferred persons. These implementing arrangements shall also aim at covering technical and logistical assistance to Mauritius in the fields of revision of legislation, training of investigators and prosecutors, investigative and judicial procedures, and particularly, arrangements for storage and handing-over of evidence and appeal procedures. In addition, these implementing arrangements shall aim at providing for the repatriation of transferred persons in case of acquittal or non-prosecution, their transfer for completion of sentence in another State or their repatriation after serving their prison sentence in Mauritius.
      Article 8
      Relationship to other rights of transferred persons
      Nothing in this Agreement is intended to derogate, or may be construed as derogating, from any rights that a transferred person may have under applicable domestic or international law.
      Article 9
      Liaison and disputes
      1.   All issues arising in connection with the application of this Agreement shall be examined jointly by Mauritius and EU competent authorities.
      2.   Failing any prior settlement, disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement shall be settled exclusively by diplomatic means between Mauritius and EU representatives.
      Article 10
      Implementing arrangements
      1.   For the purposes of the application of this Agreement, operational, administrative and technical matters may be the subject of implementing arrangements to be concluded between competent Mauritius authorities on the one hand and the competent EU authorities, as well as the competent authorities of the Sending States, on the other hand.
      2.   Implementing arrangements may cover, inter alia:

                  (a)

                  the identification of competent law enforcement authorities of Mauritius to whom EUNAVFOR may transfer persons;

                  (b)

                  the detention facilities where transferred persons will be held;

                  (c)

                  the handling of documents, including those related to the gathering of evidence, which will be handed over to the competent law enforcement authorities of Mauritius upon transfer of a person;

                  (d)

                  points of contact for notifications;

                  (e)

                  forms to be used for transfers;

                  (f)

                  the provision of technical support, expertise, training and other assistance referred to in Article 7 upon request by Mauritius in order to achieve the objectives of this Agreement.

            Article 11
      Entry into force and termination
      1.   This Agreement shall be applied provisionally as from the date on which it is signed and it shall enter into force when each of the Parties has notified the other that it has completed its internal procedure for the ratification of the Agreement.
      2.   This Agreement shall remain in force until termination of the Operation as notified by EUNAVFOR. Nevertheless, either Party may, by written notification, denounce this Agreement. The denunciation shall take effect 6 months after the date of receipt of the notification. In the event that the EU consider that the immediate denunciation of this Agreement is justified on grounds of a modification of Mauritius’ substantive criminal legislation as mentioned in this Agreement, the EU shall be entitled to denounce the Agreement with effect from the date of sending of the notification. Any change in Mauritius’ substantive criminal legislation shall not adversely affect persons already transferred pursuant to this Agreement.
      3.   This Agreement may be amended by written agreement between the Parties.
      4.   Termination of this Agreement shall not affect any rights or obligations arising out of the execution of this Agreement before such termination, including the rights of any transferred persons as long as they are held in custody or are prosecuted by Mauritius.
      5.   After the termination of the Operation, all rights of EUNAVFOR under this Agreement may be exercised by any person or entity designated by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. This designated person or entity may, inter alia, be the Head or staff member of the EU delegation to Mauritius or a diplomatic agent or consular official of an EU Member State accredited to Mauritius. After the termination of the Operation, all notifications that were to be made to EUNAVFOR under this Agreement shall be made to the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

         Done at Port Louis on in two originals, each in the English language.

               For the European Union

               For Mauritius

         (1)  OJ L 301, 12.11.2008, p. 33, as corrected in OJ L 253, 25.9.2009, p. 18.

         (2)  OJ L 322, 9.12.2009, p. 27.


title: 2011/559/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2009, Section V — Court of Auditors#Resolution of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2009, Section V — Court of Auditors

text:
               27.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 250/93

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 10 May 2011
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2009, Section V — Court of Auditors
   (2011/559/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 2009 (1),

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2009 (SEC(2010) 963 — C7-0215/2010) (2),

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2009,

               —

               having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2009, together with the institutions’ replies (3),

               —

               having regard to the statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (4),

               —

               having regard to Article 272(10) and Articles 274, 275 and 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 314(10) and Articles 317, 318 and 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 (5), and in particular Articles 50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0138/2011),

               1.

               Grants the Secretary-General of the Court of Auditors discharge in respect of the implementation of the Court of Auditors budget for the financial year 2009;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this Decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court of Auditors, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

            The President

         Jerzy BUZEK

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ L 69, 13.3.2009.

      (2)  OJ C 308, 12.11.2010, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ C 303, 9.11.2010, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ C 308, 12.11.2010, p. 129.

      (5)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
      of 10 May 2011
      with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2009, Section V — Court of Auditors
      THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

                  —

                  having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 2009 (1),

                  —

                  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2009 (SEC(2010) 963 — C7-0215/2010) (2),

                  —

                  having regard to the Court of Auditors’ annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2009,

                  —

                  having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2009, together with the institutions’ replies (3),

                  —

                  having regard to the statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (4),

                  —

                  having regard to Article 272(10) and Articles 274, 275 and 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 314(10) and Articles 317, 318 and 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 (5), and in particular Articles 50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0138/2011),

                  1.

                  Notes that in 2009 the Court of Auditors had commitment appropriations available amounting to a total of EUR 188 000 000 (EUR 133 000 000 in 2008; EUR 122 000 000 in 2007), with a utilisation rate of 92,19 %, which is below the average of the other institutions (97,69 %);

                  2.

                  Recalls that, for the financial year 2009, the accounts of the Court of Auditors were audited by an external firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers (as in 2008 and 2007), which reached the following conclusions:

                              (a)

                              in relation to the accuracy of the accounts for the financial year 2009, that ‘in our opinion, these financial statements give a true and fair view of the financial position of the European Court of Auditors as of 31 December 2009, and of its financial performance and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002, Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the said Council Regulation, and the European Court of Auditors’ Accounting Rules’; and

                              (b)

                              in relation to the use of financial resources assigned to the Court of Auditors and the adequacy of control procedures in place during the financial year 2009, that ‘nothing has come to our attention that causes us to believe that in all material respects and based on criteria described above: (a) the resources assigned to the Court have not been used for their intended purposes; (b) the control procedures in place do not provide the necessary guarantees to ensure the compliance of financial operations with the applicable rules and regulations’;

                  3.

                  Welcomes the audit strategy of the Court of Auditors for the period 2009-2012 and supports its priority goals (maximising the overall impact from its audits and increasing efficiency by making best use of resources); expects the Court of Auditors to report on the steps taken to implement this audit strategy as well as to demonstrate the progress in this direction using the key performance indicators (KPI), in particular with the introduction of KPI 1 to 4 in 2010; particularly welcomes the plan to publish follow-ups in respect of the special reports to increase their impact;

                  4.

                  Welcomes improvements in KPI 5, 6and 7 from 2008 to 2009, and notes with satisfaction that the Court of Auditors has met its targets as regards KPI 8 and 9; notes that the Court of Auditors did not reach its target as regards key performance indicator 10, in 2009 in comparison to 2008 the number of training days decreased from 10 to 9, and the number of days devoted by auditors to professional training excluding language courses dropped from 7 to 4, not reaching the International Federation of Accountants’ guidelines (40 hours/5 days);

                  5.

                  Notes the considerably increased number of the reports produced by the Court of Auditors, in particular, the increase in the number of special reports (from 12 to 18) and specific annual reports (from 29 to 37), although the number of opinions has decreased; expects that the performance audits underlying the special reports of the Court of Auditors will contribute to its primary mission of auditing the Union’s finances;

                  6.

                  Is concerned by the decrease of detailed information in the Court of Auditors’ specific annual reports on the agencies; encourages the Court of Auditors in the future to include more complete information in its reports on the agencies, in particular as regards the conclusions of Internal Auditors’ reports;

                  7.

                  Welcomes the fact that in the course of preparation of the annual report concerning the financial year 2009, the Court of Auditors performed an in-depth assessment of supervisory and control systems in the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor, which included the examination of an additional sample of transactions of payments relating to human resources and to other administrative expenditure;

                  8.

                  Encourages the Court of Auditors to continue and broaden this practice, in particular, to consider performing an in-depth assessment of supervisory and control systems in the Council; also encourages the Court of Auditors to consider the possibility of making use of new and innovative ways to perform the audit, including the new products mentioned in the 2009-2012 audit strategy, and, by doing so, to explore the possibilities of further improving the output and effectiveness of auditing;

                  9.

                  Considers that the cooperation between the Court of Auditors and the Parliament could be strengthened by streamlining working methods and approaches and further enhancing synergies between the two institutions; welcomes in this respect the measures the Court of Auditors is taking to reform and continuously improve its role in line with Parliament’s call for its assessments and audits to have a broader and deeper impact, its data to be more effective and useful and its systems and procedures more reliable; awaits with interest the ‘follow-up peer review’ that the Court of Auditors intends to launch during 2011 (three years after the positive peer review of 2008); announces in this respect that Parliament intends to produce an own-initiative report on possible improvements that could be proposed to the Court of Auditors in full assurance of being able to count on the latter’s close cooperation;

                  10.

                  Notes that the Court of Auditors recruited 112 employees in 2009 (69 officials, 14 temporary staff and 29 contract staff), and the overall number of vacant posts at the end of 2009 (49) was considerably reduced in comparison to the end of 2008 (68); welcomes the decreasing delays in the Court of Auditors’ recruitment process;

                  11.

                  Welcomes steady improvement as regards the proportion of men and women on the staff of the Court of Auditors, in particular the reducing disparity at assistant, head of unit and director level;

                  12.

                  Notes that the 2009 report of the Internal Auditor of the Court of Auditors was largely positive; welcomes in this context the fact that most recommendations put forward by the Internal Auditor have been accepted and integrated into corrective action plans;

                  13.

                  Welcomes the ongoing successful interinstitutional cooperation with the European Administrative School and the Court of Justice as regards training;

                  14.

                  Notes the revision of the Court of Auditors’ Rules of Procedure, which took place in 2010, and invites the Court of Auditors to give an evaluation of the effect of those changes in its Annual Activity Report;

                  15.

                  Recalls, in relation to declarations of members’ financial interests, that, in compliance with the Court of Auditors’ Code of Conduct, Court of Auditors’ members communicate a declaration of their financial interests to the President of the Court of Auditors, who keeps those declarations under confidential custody, and ensures that those declarations are not published; reconfirms its position that in the interests of transparency, declarations of financial interests of members of all Union institutions should be accessible on the Internet via a public register, and calls upon the Court of Auditors to take the necessary steps in this respect and to adapt and base its rules on ‘financial interest’ on the new draft Code of conduct for Commissioners, where applicable;

                  16.

                  Recalls that independence, integrity, impartiality, excellence and professionalism are the core values of the Court of Auditors and considers that the news that appeared in the media merits reflection; also recalls that during the presentation of the peer review report, the President of the Court of Auditors announced that a follow-up peer review would be conducted after three years; invites the Court of Auditors to present the results of this follow-up peer review to Parliament’s competent committee, in order to reassert, once more, those values, in particular the objectivity, impartiality and professionalism of the Court of Auditors;

                  17.

                  Commends the Court of Auditors for the quality of its Annual Activity Report;

                  18.

                  Notes that, unlike in previous years, missions to non-Member States were not reported per country in 2009.

         (1)  OJ L 69, 13.3.2009.

         (2)  OJ C 308, 12.11.2010, p. 1.

         (3)  OJ C 303, 9.11.2010, p. 1.

         (4)  OJ C 308, 12.11.2010, p. 129.

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


title: 2013/576/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 17 April 2013 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2011#Resolution of the European Parliament of 17 April 2013 with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2011

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 308/228

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 17 April 2013
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2011
   (2013/576/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2011,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2011, together with the Authority’s replies (1),

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 12 February 2013 (05753/2013 – C7-0041/2013),

               —

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

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               having regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) establishing a European Food Safety Authority, and in particular Article 44 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 (5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0074/2013),

               1.

               Grants the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority discharge in respect of the implementation of the Authority’s budget for the financial year 2011;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this Decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority, 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 388, 15.12.2012, p. 92.

      (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

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

      (4)  OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.

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

      RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
      of 17 April 2013
      with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2011
      THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

                  —

                  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2011,

                  —

                  having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2011, together with the Authority’s replies (1),

                  —

                  having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 12 February 2013 (05753/2013 – C7-0041/2013),

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2) (‘the Financial Regulation’), and in particular Article 185 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 (3), and in particular Article 208 thereof,

                  —

                  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) establishing a European Food Safety Authority, and in particular Article 44 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 (5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0074/2013),

                  A.

                  whereas the Court of Auditors has stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) for the financial year 2011 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular,

                  B.

                  whereas the Authority’s budget for the financial year 2011 was EUR 77 309 800, compared to EUR 74 700 000 in 2010, which represents an increase of 3,49 %; whereas the Authority is wholly financed by a contribution from the Union,

         Budgetary and financial management

                  1.

                  Acknowledges that budget monitoring efforts during the financial year continue to contribute to the consistently high budget implementation rate of 98,47 % (98,8 % in 2010);

                  2.

                  Notes that the payment appropriations execution rate was 82,05 %, which represents a minor decrease in comparison to the previous year (83,51 %);

                  3.

                  Notes that in 2011 an amount of EUR 78 800 000 was made available from the Union budget to the Authority; takes note that 334 posts out of 355 had been filled by the end of 2011 and that 109 contract agents and seconded national experts were employed by the Authority; asks the Authority to improve the occupation rate but is fully aware that the Authority is faced with certain shortcomings concerning transport, due to its location;

                  4.

                  Reminds the Authority to respect in an improved way the principle of annuality; considers the year 2011 special, due to the movement to the new headquarters and the delayed settlement of payments in this respect;

         Building’s policy

                  5.

                  Notes that the Authority purchased a new headquarters building in December 2011 for EUR 36,8 million which will be paid in quarterly instalments over 25 years, resulting in interest payments of EUR 18,5 million; notes, moreover, that the Court of Auditors questioned whether a more economic alternative could have been sought from the budgetary authority in accordance with the principle of sound financial management and ensuring full respect of the Financial Regulation;

                  6.

                  Acknowledges from the Authority that it submitted the building project to the budgetary authority in 2005 with a deferred purchase price payment agreement over 25 years, and the budgetary authority approved the building project; notes that at the Court of Auditors’ suggestion, a request was made to the Commission to seek additional payment credits in order to cover the full purchase with only one down-payment; notes, however, that there was no possibility to increase the appropriations towards the Authority to cover a single down-payment in the current climate of tight expenditure; notes that the modalities adopted for that purchase led to a reduction of the cost of the Authority’s premises in comparison to the rent solution previously used;

         Transfers

                  7.

                  Notes from the Court of Auditors’ report and the Authority’s annual activity report (AAR) that in 2011, 13 budgetary transfers were made; notes that, in particular, EUR 2,46 million was transferred from Title I to the infrastructure and IT budget lines of Title II, aiming to provide the resources for the adaptation of IT systems and financial systems related to the reorganisation and the migration to the accrual-based accounting financial system, and to reinforce the resources available for the move to the final seat and equipment for the final seat; notes, moreover, that transfers were carried out within Titles II and III; notes with concern the Court of Auditors’ remark that the situation indicates weaknesses in budget planning and implementation and is at odds with the principle of specification;

         Conflict of interest and transparency

                  8.

                  Welcomes the fact that the Court of Auditors carried out an audit aimed at evaluating the policies and procedures for the management of conflict of interest situations for four European agencies, including the European Food Safety Authority and presented the results of the audit in the Court of Auditors’ Special Report No 15/2012;

                  9.

                  Notes with concern that according to the findings of the Court of Auditors, at the time of completion of the field work (October 2011), the Authority did not adequately manage conflict of interest situations; notes, however, that in the meantime, the Authority had already developed advanced policies for managing conflicts of interest; is concerned, nevertheless, that these policies have not led to the desired results;

                  10.

                  Welcomes the organisation of a mandatory session on ethics and integrity for all members of the Management Board in October 2012; calls on the Management Board to enforce effectively its Code of Conduct and adopt provisions preventing and sanctioning revolving door cases in order to avoid situations similar to that of its former Chairperson in the future;

                  11.

                  Notes that the Authority scheduled an evaluation of its independence policy by the end of 2013 and committed to consider, inter alia, the possibility of publishing the outcomes of breaches of trust procedures, including the outcomes of the procedure verifying the integrity of the scientific review and to broaden and reinforce the mandate of its Committee on Conflict of Interests, for instance with a similar mandate to the Committee for Ethical Standards and Prevention of Conflict of Interest of the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES); expects the Authority to inform the discharge authority on this matter before October 2013 if possible;

                  12.

                  Calls on the Authority to start a structured dialogue with civil society on matters relating to conflicts of interest and to invite those organisations concerned to openly discuss matters of common interest based on a agreed agenda and to inform the discharge authority on the outcome of these deliberations at least twice a year; notes that the Authority has intensified this dialogue with stakeholders and civil society; considers that those dialogues need to be institutionalised and taken into account by the Management Board of the Authority;

                  13.

                  Is concerned that the Authority was criticised for a lack of transparency with respect to the publication of annual declarations of interest and the absence of training on conflicts of interest; demands that action be taken on those issues and urges the Authority to report back to the discharge authority on the activities taken; welcomes the fact that all annual declarations of interests of the Authority’s experts are now published and accessible on the Authority’s website;

                  14.

                  Urges the Authority to keep conflicts of interest high on the priority list in order to protect its credibility and to safeguard the public’s trust in food safety, and to indicate, as detailed and precisely as possible, how it will implement the main recommendations from the report of the Court of Auditors and from Parliament’s resolutions; urges the Authority to consider conflicts of interest with the utmost care, given the start of the revision of its founding regulation, which provides an opportunity to reach the highest governance standards as described by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD), and which would influence positively the Authority’s governance structure, independence and scientific quality; considers that the revision of the founding regulation of the Authority is a major opportunity to initiate radical change at the Authority, who is responsible for objective scientific advice on food and environmental safety at Union level;

                  15.

                  Strongly suggests that in order to prevent the Authority’s staff from moving directly from their position to work in a similar post in industry or related lobby-agency, or vice versa, an adequate cooling off period should be established and respected for the specific areas of work, in order to avoid conflicts of interest;

                  16.

                  Notes that the Authority has taken a number of steps following the Court of Auditors’ audit and publication of the Special Report No 15/2012, inter alia:

                              —

                              in 2007, the Authority introduced a comprehensive framework for avoiding potential conflicts of interest, and since then, it has regularly reviewed and updated it,

                              —

                              since 2011, the Authority has strengthened that framework with the adoption of its revised policy on independence and scientific decision-making processes; is, however, concerned about the adequacy of the revised policy, pointing to numerous cases of conflict of interests exposed in 2012 by two watchdog non-governmental organisations (NGOs) - Corporate Europe Observatory and Earth Open Source; demands that further improvements, including the banning of links with industry-related bodies, be made to the Authority’s independence policy,

                              —

                              at the end of 2013, a review of the Authority’s policy and implementing rules on independence is scheduled,

                              —

                              in July 2012, the Authority applied the framework provided by the Commission on ethics and integrity and has adopted a specific gift policy,

                              —

                              in 2012, an ethics adviser was appointed;

                        urges the Authority to continue to act on the recommendations of the Court of Auditors in order to avoid any conflicts of interest among its various governing and operational structures and to report to the discharge authority on the implementation of the abovementioned policies and procedures, as well as on any further developments as regards the management of conflicts of interest before October 2013;

                  17.

                  Acknowledges the Authority’s efforts to improve its prevention and management of conflict of interests; notes, however, that the independence and competence of its external experts remain questioned by watchdog NGOs or even fellow food safety experts as for instance in the case of the working group on endocrine disruptors experts; emphasises the fact that as a consequence, the Authority’s work is challenged such as during the Joint JRC-NIEHS Workshop on Low Dose Effects of Endocrine Active Chemicals in Berlin in December 2012;

                  18.

                  Notes that the Management Board elected its Chair in a publicly-held meeting; recalls, however, that in the 2010 discharge procedure, Parliament called for an open ballot for electing the Management Board’s Chair and expects its request to be implemented;

                  19.

                  Notes that the OECD guidelines, on which the Court of Auditors has based its work on the Special Report No 15/2012, while offering an international benchmark on the issue, are not designed for an agency and do not meet the specific needs of the decentralised agencies; commends the Commission’s intention to come up with guidelines on the management of conflicts of interest, as provided for in its ‘Roadmap on the follow-up to the Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies’;

                  20.

                  Underlines the Authority’s commitment to launch its first evaluation of a random sample of declarations of interest in October2012 to verify their coherence with its newly adopted independence policy and implementing rules; notes however that protocols still needed to be completed, which led to the postponement of the evaluation; calls on the Authority to inform the discharge authority on the reasons behind this delay and on the calendar foreseen for the organisation of the evaluation;

                  21.

                  Welcomes the Authority’s plans to start a pilot project in 2013 to source part of the scientific work that is currently carried out by external experts within Working Groups in the area of regulated products; notes that this initiative will kick-off in the areas of food ingredients and GMO; requests that the Authority provide the discharge authority with more information on progress made;

                  22.

                  Notes with satisfaction that since 2011, the Authority has introduced in its AAR a special section describing the actions taken to implement its independence policy, thus partly answering the recommendation formulated in Parliament’s resolution of 23 October 2012 on discharge to the Authority for the financial year 2010 (6);

                  23.

                  Welcomes the fact that the curricula vitae of the Authority’s Executive Director, Senior management and panel experts are now available on its website together with their respective declaration of interest; notes the Authority’s efforts for greater transparency but remains of the opinion that these provisions should also apply to any in-house expert, as expressed during the 2010 discharge procedure; understands that work on this issue is ongoing; calls on the Authority to inform the discharge authority of the progress made on this matter as soon as possible;

         Internal audit

                  24.

                  Notes from the Authority that in 2011 the Internal Audit Service (IAS) of the Commission carried out an assurance audit of operational planning and budgeting, while the Internal Audit unit (IA) carried out three assurance audits, namely the process of selection of panel members, a special review of expert contributions to scientific opinions (post conflict of interest), as well as an interim review of the cost claimed in relation to the final seat of the Authority;

                  25.

                  Notes with satisfaction that out of 11 recommendations (none ‘critical’, two ‘very important’, seven ‘important’ and two ‘desirable’) made by the IAS audit, all have been accepted by management and five out of six outstanding ‘very important’ recommendations have been implemented and await follow-up by IAS, and implementation of the remaining one is in progress; also notes that the IA had made one very important and two important recommendations, and among its 11 outstanding very important recommendations five are implemented and six are in progress; notes that no critical recommendations remain open;

                  26.

                  Refers, in respect of the other observations accompanying its Decision on discharge, which are of a horizontal nature, to its resolution of 17 April 2013 (7) on the performance, financial management and control of the agencies.

         (1)  OJ C 388, 15.12.2012, p. 92.

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

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

         (4)  OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.

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

         (6)  OJ L 350, 20.12.2012, p. 77.

         (7)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0134 (See page 374 of this Official Journal).


title: 2011/588/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Network and Information Security Agency for the financial year 2009#Resolution of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Network and Information Security Agency for the financial year 2009

text:
               27.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 250/186

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 10 May 2011
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Network and Information Security Agency for the financial year 2009
   (2011/588/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Network and Information Security Agency for the financial year 2009,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Network and Information Security Agency for the financial year 2009, together with the Agency’s replies (1),

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 15 February 2011 (05892/2011 — C7-0052/2011),

               —

               having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

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

               —

               having regard to Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 establishing the European Network and Information Security Agency (3), and in particular Article 17 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 (4), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0105/2011),

               1.

               Grants the Executive Director of the European Network and Information Security Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2009;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this Decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the Executive Director of the European Network and Information Security Agency, 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

         Jerzy BUZEK

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ C 338, 14.12.2010, p. 16.

      (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 1.

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

      RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
      of 10 May 2011
      with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Network and Information Security Agency for the financial year 2009
      THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

                  —

                  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Network and Information Security Agency for the financial year 2009,

                  —

                  having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Network and Information Security Agency for the financial year 2009, together with the Agency’s replies (1),

                  —

                  having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 15 February 2011 (05892/2011 — C7-0052/2011),

                  —

                  having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 establishing the European Network and Information Security Agency (3), and in particular Article 17 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 (4), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0105/2011),

                  A.

                  whereas the Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts for the financial year 2009 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular,

                  B.

                  whereas on 5 May 2010 Parliament granted the Executive Director of the European Network and Information Security Agency discharge for implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2008 (5), and in its resolution accompanying the discharge decision, inter alia:

                              —

                              noted that the Court of Auditors found deficiencies in procurement procedures, particularly with regard to the under-estimation of the budgets of a framework contract,

                              —

                              called on the Commission to examine ways of ensuring that the principle of needs-based cash management, as laid down in Article 15(5) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002, is implemented in full as well as what changes in approach are needed in order to ensure that the Agency’s cash reserves are kept as low as possible on a long-term basis,

                              —

                              congratulated the Agency on the fact that all eight recommendations of the Internal Audit Service which were considered to be ‘very important’ have been implemented,

                  C.

                  whereas the budget of the Agency for the year 2009 was EUR 8 100 000, 3,5 % less than its budget for 2008,

         Carry-over appropriations

                  1.

                  Is concerned that the Court of Auditors reported appropriations carried forward to the following year of 19 % of the total budget of the Agency; notes, in particular, that 41 % of operational appropriations were carried forward to 2010 mainly as a result of delays in two big projects; expresses concern that this situation indicates delays in the implementation of the Agency’s activities that are financed from the Title III and is at odds with the budgetary principle of annuality; calls, therefore, on the Agency to inform the discharge authority of the actions taken by the Agency to redress this deficiency;

         Procurement procedure

                  2.

                  Calls on the Agency to strengthen its internal controls in order to make sure that contracts and procurement procedures are correctly applied; notes, indeed, that the Court of Auditors reported that, in one case, services that were not provided for by the contract were requested and, in two other cases, errors (use of incorrect quality-price weightings and of the wrong value for the financial offer) were made during the awarding phase of the contracts;

                  3.

                  Urges, in particular, the Agency to:

                              —

                              improve transparency both in respect of estimates and of who has responsibility for projects,

                              —

                              strengthen its procurement authorisation at financing-decision and work-programme level,

                              —

                              ensure that the disclosure of exceptions in its Annual Activity Report is made in a comprehensive manner,

                              —

                              ensure adequate follow-up of potential irregularities,

                              —

                              develop and report on ex-post controls,

                        calls, therefore, on the Agency to inform the discharge authority on the progress and actions taken in this regard;

                  4.

                  Encourages, also, the Agency to develop, and then regularly to up-date, a comprehensive table outlining its financial circuits and the responsibilities of the relevant financial and operational actors;

         Errors on budget transfers

                  5.

                  Calls on the Agency to avoid transfers made without obtaining the prior consent of its Governing Board, which are contrary to the budgetary principles of specification; notes, in fact, that the Court of Auditors reported one transfer between titles of EUR 24 000, made without informing the Management Board and without obtaining its prior consent;

         Refund from the tax authorities of the host Member State

                  6.

                  Notes with disappointment that there has been no progress since the previous year concerning the refund of EUR 45 000, which is the amount of VAT paid in advance by the Agency to the tax authorities of the host Member State; urges, therefore, the Agency to inform the discharge authority when this refund is made by the host Member State;

         Human resources

                  7.

                  Notes that deficiencies in staff selection procedures still remain and put at risk the transparency of these procedures; acknowledges, indeed, that the Court of Auditors reported that neither the thresholds that candidates were required to meet in order to be invited to interview nor those necessary in order for them to be put on the reserve list were fixed in advance by the selection boards; calls, therefore, on the Agency to redress this situation and inform the discharge authority on the actions taken;

         Internal control systems

                  8.

                  Welcomes that the Agency has an Internal Control Coordinator (ICC) in place, who oversees and monitors the implementation of internal control systems in the Agency; acknowledges that the Agency has successfully implemented ex-ante controls of its internal procedures; calls, nevertheless, on the Agency to put in place ex-post controls with the help of a professional supplier;

                  9.

                  Urges, nevertheless, the Agency to put in place an exhaustive physical inventory and ensure the correctness of the accounting records; stresses the importance of this recommendation and calls on the Agency to inform the discharge authority of the tools put in place to redress this deficiency; notes in this respect that the Court of Auditors also reported that the inventory of fixed assets was managed using a spreadsheet, which did not guarantee the integrity of the data;

                  10.

                  Acknowledges that the Commission’s Internal Audit Service (IAS) performed a Human Resources Management audit in 2008 and a follow-up Implementation of Internal Control Standards audit in 2007; stresses that the Agency informed the discharge authority of a new recommendation of the IAS arising after the follow-up engagement of 2009 which calls for a review of the Internal Control Standards adopted by the Management Board on 10 October 2007;

                  11.

                  Acknowledges also the statement from the Agency that, in 2009, the IAS performed another audit on procurement in order to strengthen the Agency’s performance in this respect; notes, in particular, that, out of the 18 IAS recommendations, 13 were accepted and five were refused by the Agency, which subsequently asked the IAS to merge the refused recommendations; notes, furthermore, that, out of these recommendations, eight were considered ‘very important’ and 10 ‘important’;

                  12.

                  Refers, in respect of the other observations accompanying its Decision on discharge, which are of a horizontal nature, to its resolution of 10 May 2011 (6) on the performance, financial management and control of the agencies.

         (1)  OJ C 338, 14.12.2010, p. 16.

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

         (3)  OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 1.

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

         (5)  OJ L 252, 25.9.2010, p. 174.

         (6)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0163 (See page 269 of this Official Journal).