title: 2013/580/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 17 April 2013 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority for the financial year 2011

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 308/241

      DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

   of 17 April 2013
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority for the financial year 2011
   (2013/580/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority for the financial year 2011,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions 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 (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/79/EC (4), and in particular Article 64 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 Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0114/2013),

               1.

               Grants the Executive Director of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions 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 Insurance and Occupational Pensions 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. 104.

      (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

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

      (4)  OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 48.

      (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 Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority for the financial year 2011
      THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

                  —

                  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority for the financial year 2011,

                  —

                  having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions 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 (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/79/EC (4), and in particular Article 64 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 Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0114/2013),

                  A.

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

                  B.

                  whereas the Authority, a newly created Agency which is located in Frankfurt am Main, was established by Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and officially started its operations on 1 January 2011 as an independent authority,

                  C.

                  whereas the Authority should be considered in the context of its legal transition from its predecessor, the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors (CEIOPS), and as a result, apart from its new mandate, it has taken over all existing and ongoing tasks and responsibilities from the CEIOPS (all assets, liabilities and all pending operation of CEIOPS were automatically transferred to the newly created Authority),

                  D.

                  whereas the Authority is an integral part of the European System of Financial Supervisors and works in close cooperation with its sister authorities, the European Banking Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority, within a Joint Committee, and with the European Systemic Risks Board,

                  E.

                  whereas the Authority’s overall allocated budget for the year 2011 was EUR 10 667 000,

                  F.

                  whereas in accordance with its Founding Regulation (6), 55 % of the 2011 budget was financed by contributions from the Member States and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries, and 45 % was financed from the Union budget,

                  G.

                  whereas at the end of 2011, the Authority recorded a positive budget outturn of EUR 2 804 969,81 (7), after deduction of exchange rate differences equal to EUR 2 437,59, which was then recorded in the accounts as a liability towards the Commission,

         Budgetary and financial management

                  1.

                  Takes note from the Budget report (8), that the initial Union contribution to the Authority’s budget for 2011 was EUR 4 267 000; notes that that was the first year of the Authority’s activities;

                  2.

                  Acknowledges from the annual accounts that the Authority’s overall allocated budget for 2011 amounted to EUR 10 667 000; also notes that the total budgetary income was equal to EUR 9 387 070,78 (including EUR 5 120 035,36 representing 80 % of the Member States’ budget cashed in 2011);

                  3.

                  Recalls, from the annual accounts, that the allocated contribution from national supervisory authorities was EUR 6 400 200, while the effectively cashed contribution was EUR 5 120 035,36; invites the Member States to inform the discharge authority of the reasons why the contributions were limited to 80 % of what was initially anticipated; invites the Member States to contribute their full share in the future, when the Authority will be fully set up, as doing otherwise could jeopardise its capacity to carry out properly its assigned tasks;

                  4.

                  Notes with concern that the provisions of the Financial Regulation are not fully adapted to the Authority’s financing scheme, as 55 % of the budget is financed by contributions from Member States and EFTA countries; believes that that issue should be addressed, at the latest, in the course of the next revision of the Financial Regulation as regards agencies, and calls on the Commission evaluate this situation and to report on this to the discharge authority;

                  5.

                  Calls on the Commission to explore all the options for a new long term sustainable financing of the Authority that safeguards its independence in the context of the next review of the agencies’ work and financing arrangements by the Commission, which will be presented by 2 January 2014 at the latest;

                  6.

                  Calls on the Commission to evaluate the possibility of coming up with a proposal ensuring that the budgets of the three European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) are fully funded by the Union budget;

                  7.

                  Notes from the annual accounts that the major focus of the authority in 2011 was its establishment and further extension;

                  8.

                  Stresses the importance of adequately matching the allocated budget and available posts on one hand and the tasks entrusted to the Authority on the other hand, as a mismatch may result in unbalanced staffing as regards the recruitment of the Authority’s staff on one hand and the involvement of national experts on the other; expresses concern about the fact that the Commission altered the establishment plan as proposed by the Authority without clearly indicating this; urges the Commission to be fully transparent on this and other issues;

                  9.

                  Notes the concerns that were raised in the preliminary conclusions of the IMF financial sector assessment of December 2012 on the Union, in which it is recommended to increase the resources and powers of the ESAs in order to enable them to successfully fulfil their mandates, while enhancing their operational independence;

                  10.

                  Acknowledges from the annual accounts that in the Authority’s inauguration meeting on 10 January 2011, the Management Board adopted and approved the principal financial rules and the Authority’s Financial Regulation in order to enable it to execute its powers as a European authority;

         Accounting system

                  11.

                  Takes note from the annual accounts (9) that the standard and general budget structure adopted by the Authority at the beginning of 2011 needed to be adapted according to its real needs;

                  12.

                  Notes from the annual accounts that on 19 April 2011, the Authority introduced accrual based accounting (ABAC), the accounting system used by the Commission for budgetary accounting; notes, furthermore, that during the transition period, from 1 January to 19 April 2011, the Authority used an Excel-based tool for its budgetary accounting and that, at the time of transition, a report with commitments and payments loaded in ABAC was drawn up;

                  13.

                  Takes note of the fact that payments made prior to the implementation of ABAC are only reflected in the transition system and not reflected in ABAC; notes that each time a report on budgetary consumption and execution is tracked from ABAC, a manual aggregation is made in an Excel spreadsheet to fully reflect the initial budget and the consumption of commitments and payments for the entire financial year;

                  14.

                  Acknowledges from the annual accounts that from 2012 onwards, all financial transactions are fully represented in ABAC;

                  15.

                  Observes from the annual accounts that for general accounting, the Authority implemented SAP on 19 April 2011, a system directly linked to ABAC, which is the system used by the Commission; also notes that until that date, the Authority used SAGE (10), the system established by CEIOPS for financial accounting, and a transition balance as of 19 April 2011 was established;

                  16.

                  Notes that in September 2011, the Authority established the asset registration system of the Commission (ABAC Assets) in order to physically track the individual items of the fixed assets (ABAC Assets is integrated in the Authority’s accounting system);

                  17.

                  Welcomes the validation of the Authority’s accounting system carried by the external auditor, Deloitte Consulting (11); notes that the review of the Authority’s accounting system took place in October 2012;

                  18.

                  Acknowledges from Deloitte’s report that on the basis of the compliance validation procedures performed, the Authority’s accounting system is, in general, compliant with the criteria specified by the Commission (DG Budget);

                  19.

                  Notes from Deloitte’s report that a number of improvement areas (relating to the Authority’s user access rights in ABAC not being in line with current responsibilities, the user access management process and the ABAC training related aspects) were identified, which will be addressed by the Authority in 2013; notes, furthermore, that those improvements do not have a significant impact on the overall compliance noted;

         Budget execution

                  20.

                  Establishes from the annual accounts that the Authority registered a budget execution ratio of 61,68 % for commitments and of 58,84 % for payments at the end of 2011;

                  21.

                  Notes that the commitment execution rate for Title I (‘Staff expenditure’) was 92,79 % and it represents the main driver of the execution ratio; notes, furthermore, that the high percentage budget execution in Title I, in particular in the first year of the Authority activities, reflects the link between its staff requests and its objectives, and reinforces the case for staff requests in 2012 and in 2013;

                  22.

                  Takes note from the annual accounts that the main driven factor of the high budget execution ratio was the 100 % realisation of the establishment plan in 2011;

                  23.

                  Acknowledges from the annual accounts the low commitment execution ratio of 60,41 % for Title II (‘Administrative expenditure’); notes that 2011 was a transitional year from CEIOPS to the Authority and a preparatory year for new procedures and requests; calls on the Authority to inform the discharge authority of the actions taken to address that deficiency; calls on the Authority to inform the discharge authority of the actions taken to improve the ratios, as the low execution ratio show difficulties in budget planning and implementation;

                  24.

                  Notes that according to the Authority, it is expected that a large volume of translations, regulations and procedures in all official languages of the Union will be processed from 2012 onwards; notes, furthermore, that the Authority has reduced, where possible, the cost of organising meetings, in particular those of the Board of Supervisors and the Management Board, and that that was also the approach followed regarding information and publication costs (the CEIOPS Annual Report 2010 was only published on its website, in order to further cut costs);

                  25.

                  Notes that according to the Authority, the commitment execution ratio for Title II was average because the Authority’s idea was to find areas where costs could be cut, and that idea prevailed over the fact that there were resources available;

                  26.

                  Acknowledges from the annual accounts the extremely low commitment execution ratio of 11,73 % for Title III (‘Operational expenditure’); calls on the Authority to inform the discharge authority of the actions taken to improve that ratio, as the low execution ratio shows difficulties in budget planning and implementation;

                  27.

                  Notes that, according to the Authority, the commitment execution ratio for Title III was very low due to the decision not to start spending, nor to carry forward, the resources allocated to the information technology (IT) projects in such core areas without a clear strategic decision from the Board of Supervisors; notes, furthermore, that in October 2011, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Authority’s Data Specifications Report, including the exchange of individual information for identified needs, and mandated the Information Technology and Data Committee (ITDC) to further develop the Data Specifications Report;

                  28.

                  Acknowledges that, according to the annual accounts, the ITDC had to commence procurement and implementation of IT systems in February 2012;

                  29.

                  Notes that in 2011, according to the Authority’s annual report (12), commitments amounted to EUR 6 579 663 or 62 % of the 2011 budget, of which EUR 6 276 158,59 have been paid and EUR 303 504,79 were automatically carried over to 2012;

         Procurement procedures

                  30.

                  Acknowledges from the Court of Auditors that the audited procurement procedures were not fully consistent with the provisions of the Financial Regulation; calls on the Authority to ensure that all new contracts are awarded in full compliance with Union procurement rules;

                  31.

                  Notes that the Authority has recruited a Procurement Officer as of 1 June 2012 and that procurement workflows have been established, staff members have received awareness and training sessions related to Union procurement rules, procurement related templates have been developed and all tender procedures are launched according to the relevant Union procurement rules;

         Recruitment procedures

                  32.

                  Takes note that the Authority has brought its recruitment procedures in line with the Court of Auditors’ recommendations; calls on the Authority to inform the discharge authority of any further actions it will take to improve the recruitment procedures; considers that some of the provisions of the Staff Regulations may present a considerable administrative burden; therefore encourages the Commission to allow for a certain degree of simplification under Article 110 of the Staff Regulations in regard to the agencies;

                  33.

                  Notes from the annual accounts (13) that 2011 was a crucial year for the Authority in setting up and extending the human resources team in order to adequately source its new functions and tasks; notes that at 31 December 2012, the Authority’s staff included 46 temporary agents, six contract agents and four seconded national experts, which makes a total of 56 agents;

                  34.

                  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 (14) on the performance, financial management and control of the agencies.

         (1)  OJ C 388, 15.12.2012, p. 104.

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

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

         (4)  OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 48.

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

         (6)  OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 12, Article 62(1).

         (7)  Annual accounts 2011, p. 36.

         (8)  Budget report for 2011, p. 2.

         (9)  Annual accounts 2011, p. 31.

         (10)  SAGE is a tailor-made accounting system for small and medium-sized business companies, organisations and institutions.

         (11)  European Banking Authority (EBA), Validation of accounting systems, 19.11.2012, Deloitte.

         (12)  Annual report 2011, p. 38.

         (13)  Annual accounts 2011, p. 47-48.

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


title: Approval of the Commission (amendment of the Rules of Procedure) European Parliament decision of 8 July 2008 on amendment of Parliament's Rules of Procedure with respect to the approval of the Commission (2007/2128(REG))

text:
               3.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               CE 294/82

         Tuesday 8 July 2008Approval of the Commission (amendment of the Rules of Procedure)
   P6_TA(2008)0328
   European Parliament decision of 8 July 2008 on amendment of Parliament's Rules of Procedure with respect to the approval of the Commission (2007/2128(REG))
   2009/C 294 E/21

      The European Parliament,
   having regard to the letter from its President of 14 December 2006,
   having regard to its resolution of 1 December 2005 on guidelines for the approval of the Commission (1),
   having regard to Rules 201 and 202 of its Rules of Procedure,
   having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A6-0198/2008),

               1.

               Decides to amend its Rules of Procedure as shown below;

               2.

               Points out that the amendments will enter into force on the first day of the next part-session;

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission, for information.

               PRESENT TEXT

               AMENDMENTS

                  Amendment 1

                  Parliament's Rules of Procedure

                  Rule 99 — paragraph 2

                           2.

                           The committee shall invite the
                                 nominee
                               to make a statement and answer questions.

                           2.

                           The committee shall invite the
                                 Commissioner-designate
                               to make a statement and answer questions.
                                 The hearings shall be organised in such a way as to enable Commissioners-designate to disclose to Parliament all relevant information. Provisions relating to the organisation of the hearings shall be laid down in an annex to the Rules of Procedure

                               (2).

                  Amendment 2

                  Parliament's Rules of Procedure

                  Rule 99 — paragraph 6

                           6.

                           In the event of portfolio
                                 changes
                               during the Commission's term of office, the Commissioners concerned shall be invited to appear before the committees responsible for the areas of responsibility in question.

                           6.

                           In the event of
                                 a substantial
                               portfolio
                                 change
                               during the Commission's term of office,
                                 the filling of a vacancy or the appointment of a new Commissioner following the accession of a new Member State,
                               the Commissioners concerned shall be invited to appear before the committees responsible for the areas of responsibility in question
                                 in accordance with paragraph 2
                              .

                  Amendment 3

                  Parliament's Rules of Procedure

                  Annex XVI b (new)

                     ANNEX XVI b

                     Guidelines for the approval of the Commission

                                 1.

                              The following principles, criteria and arrangements shall apply for making the entire college of the Commission subject to Parliament's vote of consent:

                                             (a)

                                             Basis for assessment

                                          Parliament shall evaluate Commissioners-designate on the basis of their general competence, European commitment and personal independence. It shall assess knowledge of their prospective portfolio and their communication skills.

                                          Parliament shall have particular regard to gender balance. It may express itself on the allocation of portfolio responsibilities by the President-elect.

                                          Parliament may seek any information relevant to its reaching a decision on the aptitude of the Commissioners-designate. It shall expect full disclosure of information relating to their financial interests.

                                             (b)

                                             Hearings

                                          Each Commissioner-designate shall be invited to appear before the appropriate committee or committees for a single hearing. The hearings shall be held in public.

                                          The hearings shall be organised jointly by the Conference of Presidents and the Conference of Committee Chairs. Appropriate arrangements shall be made to associate relevant committees where portfolios are mixed. There are three options:

                                                         (i)

                                                         if the portfolio of the Commissioner-designate falls within the remit of a single committee, the Commissioner-designate shall be heard by that committee alone;

                                                         (ii)

                                                         if the portfolio of the Commissioner-designate falls more or less equally within the remit of more than one committee, the Commissioner-designate shall be heard jointly by those committees; and

                                                         (iii)

                                                         if the portfolio of the Commissioner-designate falls mainly within the remit of one committee and only to a small extent within the remit of at least one other committee, the Commissioner-designate shall be heard by the committee mainly responsible, which shall invite the other committee or committees to attend the hearing.

                                          The President-elect of the Commission shall be fully consulted on the arrangements.

                                          The committees shall submit written questions to the Commissioners-designate in good time before the hearings. The number of substantive written questions shall be limited to five per committee responsible.

                                          Hearings shall take place in circumstances, and under conditions, whereby Commissioners-designate enjoy an equal and fair opportunity to present themselves and their opinions.

                                          Commissioners-designate shall be invited to make an opening oral statement of no longer than twenty minutes. The conduct of the hearings shall aim to develop a pluralistic political dialogue between the Commissioners-designate and the Members. Before the end of the hearing, Commissioners-designate shall be given the opportunity to make a brief closing statement.

                                             (c)

                                             Evaluation

                                          An indexed video recording of the hearings shall be made available for the public record within twenty-four hours.

                                          The committees shall meet without delay after the hearing to evaluate the individual Commissioners-designate. Those meetings shall be held in camera. The committees shall be invited to state whether, in their opinion, the Commissioners-designate are qualified both to be members of the college and to carry out the particular duties they have been assigned. If the committee is unable to reach a consensus on both of those points, its chair shall, as a last resort, put the two decisions to the vote by secret ballot. The committees’ statements of evaluation shall be made public and presented at a joint meeting of the Conference of Presidents and the Conference of Committee Chairs, which shall be held in camera. Following an exchange of views, the Conference of Presidents and the Conference of Committee Chairs shall declare the hearings closed unless they decide to seek further information.

                                          The President-elect of the Commission shall present the whole college of Commissioners-designate and their programme at a sitting of Parliament which the whole Council shall be invited to attend. The presentation shall be followed by a debate. In order to wind up the debate, any political group or at least forty Members may table a motion for resolution. Rule 103(3), (4) and (5) shall apply. Following the vote on the motion for resolution, Parliament shall vote on whether or not to give its consent to the appointment, as a body, of the President-elect and Commissioners-designate. Parliament shall decide by a majority of the votes cast, by roll call. It may defer the vote until the following sitting.

                                 2.

                              The following arrangements shall apply in the event of a change in the composition of the college of Commissioners or a substantial portfolio change during its term of office:

                                             (a)

                                             When a vacancy caused by resignation, compulsory retirement or death is to be filled, Parliament, acting with dispatch, shall invite the Commissioner-designate to participate in a hearing under the same conditions as those laid down in paragraph 1.

                                             (b)

                                             In the event of the accession of a new Member State, Parliament shall invite the Commissioner-designate to participate in a hearing under the same conditions as those laid down in paragraph 1.

                                             (c)

                                             In the event of a substantial portfolio change, the Commissioners affected shall be invited to appear before the committees concerned before taking up their new responsibilities.

                                 By way of derogation from the procedure laid down in paragraph 1(c), third subparagraph, when the vote in plenary concerns the appointment of a single Commissioner, the vote shall be by secret ballot.

      (1)  OJ C 285 E, 22.11.2006, p. 137.

      (2)
         See Annex XVI b.


Avis juridique important

|

31991D0117

91/117/EEC: Council Decision of 25 February 1991 concerning the conclusion of a Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Austria on a European Stimulation Plan for Economic Science (SPES)

Official Journal L 061 , 07/03/1991 P. 0001

COUNCIL DECISION of 25 February 1991 concerning the conclusion of a Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Austria on a European Stimulation Plan for Economic Science (SPES) (91/117/EEC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 130q (2) thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),In cooperation with the European Parliament (2),Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3),Whereas by Decision 89/118/EEC (4), the Council adopted a European Stimulation Plan for Economic Science (1989 to 1992); whereas Article 5 of this Decision authorizes the Commission to negotiate agreements with third countries and in particular with those European countries having concluded framework agreements for scientific and technical cooperation with the Community with a view to associating them wholly or partly with the programme;Whereas by Decision 87/177/EEC (5), the Council approved the conclusion on behalf of the European Economic Community of the Framework Agreement for scientific and technical cooperation between the European Communities and, among others, the Republic of Austria;Whereas the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Austria on a European Stimulation Plan for Economic Science (SPES) should be approved,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Article 1The Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Austria on a European Stimulation Plan for Economic Science (SPES) is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision. Article 2The President of the Council shall carry out the notification as provided for in Article 10 of the Agreement.Done at Brussels, 25 February 1991.For the CouncilThe PresidentJ.-C. JUNCKER(1) OJ N° C 148, 16. 6. 1990, p. 1.(2) OJ N° C 284, 12. 11. 1990, p. 72 and Decision of 24 January 1991 (not yet published in the Official Journal).(3) OJ N° C 31, 6. 2. 1991, p. 37.(4) OJ N° L 44, 16. 2. 1989, p. 43.(5) OJ N° L 71, 14. 3. 1987, p. 29.


title: 2014/718/EU: Council Decision of 8 October 2014 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, of the Protocol to the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of the Philippines, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union

text:
               18.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 300/3

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 8 October 2014
   on the signing, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, of the Protocol to the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of the Philippines, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union

      (2014/718/EU)

   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 207 and 209, in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,
   Having regard to the Act of Accession of the Republic of Croatia, and in particular Article 6 (2) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               In accordance with Article 6(2) of the Act of Accession of the Republic of Croatia (‘the Act of Accession’), the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of the Philippines, of the other part (‘the Agreement’) is to be agreed by the conclusion of a protocol to the Agreement (‘the Protocol’). In accordance with Article 6(2) of the Act of Accession, a simplified procedure is to apply to such an accession, whereby a protocol is to be concluded by the Council, acting unanimously on behalf of the Member States, and by the third countries concerned.

               (2)

               On 14 September 2012, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with the third countries concerned. The negotiations with the Republic of the Philippines were successfully concluded by the initialling of the Protocol on 16 January 2014.

               (3)

               The Protocol should be signed on behalf of the Union and its Member States, subject to its conclusion at a later date,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The signing on behalf of the Union and its Member States of the Protocol to the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of the Philippines, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union is hereby authorised, subject to the conclusion of the Protocol.
   The text of the Protocol will be published together with the decision on its conclusion.
   Article 2
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Protocol on behalf of the Union and its Member States.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Luxembourg, 8 October 2014.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. LUPI


title: 2012/54/EU: Council Decision of 23 January 2012 on the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

text:
               1.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 29/1

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 23 January 2012
   on the position to be taken by the European Union in the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement
   (2012/54/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 100(2) and 218(9) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (‘the EEA Agreement’) contains specific provisions and arrangements concerning transport.

               (2)

               Commission Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 of 25 March 2010 laying down common rules on air traffic flow management (3) should be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

               (3)

               Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly.

               (4)

               The position of the Union to be taken within the EEA Joint Committee should be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The position to be taken by the Union within the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 23 January 2012.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. GJERSKOV

      (1)  OJ L 305, 30.11.1994, p. 6.

      (2)  OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3.

      (3)  OJ L 80, 26.3.2010, p. 10.

      DRAFT
      DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No …
      of …
      amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement
      THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,
      Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,
      Whereas:

                  (1)

                  Annex XIII to the Agreement was last amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No …/… of … (1).

                  (2)

                  Commission Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 of 25 March 2010 laying down common rules on air traffic flow management (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

            HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
      Article 1
      The following point shall be inserted after point 66wh (Commission Regulation (EC) No 262/2009) of Annex XIII to the Agreement:

                  ‘66wi.

                     32010 R 0255: Commission Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 of 25 March 2010 laying down common rules on air traffic flow management (OJ L 80, 26.3.2010, p. 10).
                  The provisions of the Regulation shall, for the purposes of this Agreement, be read with the following adaptation:
                  This Regulation shall not apply to Liechtenstein.’.

            Article 2
      The text of Regulation (EU) No 255/2010 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.
      Article 3
      This Decision shall enter into force on …, provided that all the notifications pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (3).
      Article 4
      This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

         Done at Brussels, … .

               For the EEA Joint Committee

               The President

               The Secretaries to the EEA Joint Committee

         (1)  OJ L … .

         (2)  OJ L 80, 26.3.2010, p. 10.

         (3)  [No constitutional requirements indicated.] [Constitutional requirements indicated.]


Avis juridique important

|

32000D0788

2000/788/EC: Council Decision of 4 December 2000 amending Decision 2000/24/EC so as to establish a European Investment Bank special action programme in support of the consolidation and intensification of the EC-Turkey customs union

Official Journal L 314 , 14/12/2000 P. 0027 - 0028

Council Decisionof 4 December 2000amending Decision 2000/24/EC so as to establish a European Investment Bank special action programme in support of the consolidation and intensification of the EC-Turkey customs union(2000/788/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 308 thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(1),Whereas:(1) The Council on 23 December 1963 adopted Decision 64/732/EEC on the establishment of an Association Agreement between the EEC and Turkey(2). The Additional Protocol effective since 1 January 1973 and annexed to the Association Agreement(3) set down the conditions, arrangements and timetables for the progressive establishment of the Customs Union within a period of 22 years.(2) The Luxembourg European Council on 12 and 13 December 1997 called for a strategy to be drawn up to prepare Turkey for accession by bringing it closer to the European Union in every field. On 4 March 1998 the Commission submitted to the Council a communication entitled "the European Strategy for Turkey", which put forward a work programme to consolidate and add substance to the Customs Union and step up cooperation in other areas significant for the further development of relations with Turkey.(3) The Cardiff European Council on 15 and 16 June 1998 welcomed the European Strategy for Turkey as a platform for developing relations between the European Union and Turkey on a sound and evolutionary basis. Recalling the need for financial support for the European Strategy, the European Council noted the Commission's intention to reflect on ways and means of underpinning the implementation of the strategy, and to table appropriate proposals to this effect.(4) The Helsinki European Council of 10 and 11 December 1999 decided that Turkey was a candidate state destined to join the Union on the basis of the same criteria as applied to the other candidate states.(5) In line with the European Strategy for Turkey and the new status of Turkey as candidate state following the Helsinki European Council, this Decision should establish an EIB special action programme supporting the consolidation and intensification of the EC-Turkey Customs Union. It should facilitate progress in areas that still merit attention as regards the implementation and effective application of certain legislation of relevance for the Customs Union as identified by the regular reports by the Commission on Turkey's progress towards accession and in relevant areas identified by the European Strategy for Turkey.(6) This Decision, together with Turkey's expected eligibility under the EIB's Pre-Accession Facility, fully delivers the Union commitment on special EIB lending in Turkey in the context of the Customs Union.(7) The EIB's intervention under this Decision should be coherent with the other EIB facilities available in Turkey and support investments assisting the competitiveness of industry in Turkey, in particular the SME sector; investments in infrastructure, covering transport, energy and telecom improving the links between the EU and Turkish infrastructure, investments supporting direct investment activities by Community companies in Turkey; and where EIB loan finance is an appropriate instrument, investments for technical installations facilitating the functioning of the Customs Union.(8) Decision 2000/24/EC(4) grants the EIB a Community guarantee against losses under loans for projects outside the Community (Central and Eastern Europe, Mediterranean countries, Latin America and Asia and the Republic of South Africa).(9) The said Decision grants recourse to the guarantee fund for external actions established by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2728/94(5).(10) The Community guarantee covering the general EIB external lending mandate laid down in Decision 2000/24/EC should be extended to cover an EIB special action programme supporting the consolidation and intensification of the EC-Turkey Customs Union. The said Decision should therefore be amended accordingly.(11) The provisions of this Decision are linked to respect for democratic principles, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms and respect for international law, which underpin the policies of the European Community and its Member States. The Community attaches great importance to the need for Turkey to improve and promote its democratic practices and respect for fundamental human rights, and more closely involve civil society in that process.(12) The Treaty provides for no powers other than those under Article 308 thereof, for the adoption of this Decision,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The second sentence of the second subparagraph of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Decision 2000/24/EC is hereby amended as follows:(a) in the introductory part, "EUR 18660 million" shall be replaced by "EUR 19110 million";(b) after the fourth indent, the following indent shall be added: "- Special action supporting the consolidation and intensification of the EC-Turkey Customs Union:EUR 450 million,".Article 2This Decision shall take effect on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.Done at Brussels, 4 December 2000.For the CouncilThe PresidentH. Védrine(1) Opinion delivered on 15 November 2000 (not yet published in the Official Journal).(2) OJ 217, 29.12.1964, p. 3685/64.(3) OJ L 293, 29.12.1972, p. 4.(4) OJ L 9, 13.1.2000, p. 24. Decision as amended by Decision 2000/688/EC (OJ L 285, 7.11.2000, p. 20).(5) OJ L 293, 12.11.1994, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1149/1999 (OJ L 139, 2.6.1999, p. 1).


title: Decision (EU) 2017/1687 of the European Parliament of 27 April 2017 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Maritime Safety Agency for the financial year 2015

text:
               29.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 252/262

         DECISION (EU) 2017/1687 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 27 April 2017
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Maritime Safety Agency for the financial year 2015
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Maritime Safety Agency for the financial year 2015,

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the Council's recommendation of 21 February 2017 on discharge to be given to the Agency in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2015 (05873/2017 — C8-0058/2017),

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency (4), and in particular Article 19 thereof,

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A8-0130/2017),

               1.

               Grants the Executive Director of the European Maritime Safety Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2015;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this decision, and the resolution forming an integral part of it, to the Executive Director of the European Maritime Safety 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

         Antonio TAJANI

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ C 449, 1.12.2016, p. 133.

      (2)  See footnote 1.

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

      (4)  OJ L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 1.

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


C 89 E/90                                      Official Journal of the European Union                           EN      14.4.2004
Thursday 4 December 2003
                                                       TEXTS ADOPTED
            P5_TA(2003)0527
            Request for waiver of the immunity of Mr Korakas
            European Parliament decision on the request for waiver of the immunity of Efstratios Korakas
                                                          (2003/2117(IMM))
            The European Parliament,
                having received a letter from Mr Athanasios Psarrakis, public prosecutor at the Athens Court of the
                 First Instance, forwarded on 13 January 2003, and a request for waiver of the immunity of Efstratios
                 Korakas, forwarded by Filippos Petsalnikos, Minister of Justice of the Greek Republic, on 6 May 2003
                 and announced in plenary sitting on 5 June 2003,
                having heard Mr Efstratios Korakas, pursuant to Rule 6a(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the European
                 Parliament, who requested that his parliamentary immunity not be waived,
                having regard to Article 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Com-
                 munities of 8 April 1965, and to Article 4(2) of the Act concerning the Election of Representatives to
                 the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976,
                having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 12 May 1964
                 and 10 July 1986 (1),
                having regard to Rules 6 and 6a of its Rules of Procedure,
                having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (A5-0420/
                 2003),
            1.    Decides not to waive the immunity of Efstratios Korakas;
            2.    Instructs its President immediately to forward this decision and the report of its committee to the
            appropriate authority of the Republic of Greece.
            (1) See Case 101/63: Wagner v. Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR, English special edition, 195 and Case 149/85:
                Wybot v. Faure [1986] ECR 2391.
            P5_TA(2003)0528
            Request for waiver of the immunity of Mr Marchiani
            European Parliament decision on the request for waiver of the immunity of Jean-Charles
                                                    Marchiani (2003/2071(IMM))
            The European Parliament,
                having received a request for waiver of the immunity of Jean-Charles Marchiani, forwarded by the
                 Minister for Foreign Affairs of the French Republic on 8 April 2003 and announced in plenary sitting
                 on 10 April 2003,
                having regard to Article 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Com-
                 munities of 8 April 1965, and to Article 4(2) of the Act concerning the Election of Representatives to
                 the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976,
 ---pagebreak--- 14.4.2004       EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 89 E/91
                                                                                Thursday 4 December 2003
               having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 12 May 1964
                and 10 July 1986 (1),
               having regard to Article 26 of the Constitution of the French Republic,
               having regard to Rules 6 and 6a of its Rules of Procedure,
               having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (A5-0422/
                2003),
          1.     Decides not to waive the immunity of Jean-Charles Marchiani;
          2.     Instructs its President immediately to forward this decision and the report of its committee to the
          Minister for Foreign Affairs of the French Republic.
          (1) See Case 101/63: Wagner v. Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR, English special edition, 195 and Case 149/85:
               Wybot v. Faure [1986] ECR 2391.
          P5_TA(2003)0529
          Request for waiver of the immunity of Mr Marchiani
          European Parliament decision on the request for waiver of the immunity of Jean-Charles
                                                  Marchiani (2003/2115(IMM))
          The European Parliament,
               having received a request for waiver of the immunity of Jean-Charles Marchiani, forwarded by the
                Minister for Foreign Affairs of the French Republic on 29 April 2003 and announced in plenary
                sitting on 12 May 2003,
               having regard to Article 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Com-
                munities of 8 April 1965, and to Article 4(2) of the Act concerning the Election of Representatives to
                the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976,
               having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 12 May 1964
                and 10 July 1986 (1),
               having regard to Article 26 of the Constitution of the French Republic,
               having regard to Rules 6 and 6a of its Rules of Procedure,
               having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (A5-0423/
                2003),
          1.     Decides not to waive the immunity of Jean-Charles Marchiani;
          2.     Instructs its President immediately to forward this decision and the report of its committee to Min-
          ister for Foreign Affairs of the French Republic.
          (1) See Case 101/63 Wagner v. Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR, English Special Edition, 195 and Case 149/85 Wybot v.
               Faure [1986] ECR 2391.


Avis juridique important

|

31998D0305(08)

Council Decision of 23 February 1998 appointing a member of the Advisory Committee on Pharmaceutical Training

Official Journal C 069 , 05/03/1998 P. 0009 - 0009

COUNCIL DECISION of 23 February 1998 appointing a member of the Advisory Committee on Pharmaceutical Training (98/C 69/08)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to Council Decision 85/434/EEC of 16 September 1985 setting up an Advisory Committee on Pharmaceutical Training (1), and in particular Articles 3 and 4 thereof;Whereas, by Decision of 23 July 1996 (2) the Council appointed Ms Panaghiota KARAVARSAMI a member for the period ending on 22 July 1999;Whereas the Greek Government has nominated Ms Olga IKONOMOU to replace Ms Panaghiota KARAVARSAMI,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Sole Article Ms Olga IKONOMOU is hereby appointed a member of the Advisory Committee on Pharmaceutical Training in place of Ms Panaghiota KARAVARSAMI for the remainder of the latter's term of office, which expires on 22 July 1999.Done in Brussels, 23 February 1998.For the CouncilThe PresidentR. COOK(1) OJ L 253, 24.9.1985, p. 43.(2) OJ C 239, 17.8.1996, p. 5.


title: 2007/814/EC: Commission Decision of 13 November 2007 repealing Decision 1999/572/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of steel wire ropes and cables originating in the People’s Republic of China, Hungary, India, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Poland, South Africa and Ukraine

text:
               12.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 326/25

      COMMISSION DECISION

   of 13 November 2007
   repealing Decision 1999/572/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of steel wire ropes and cables originating in the People’s Republic of China, Hungary, India, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Poland, South Africa and Ukraine
   (2007/814/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), and in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof,
   After consulting the Advisory Committee,
   Whereas:
   A.   PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND EXISTING MEASURES

               (1)

               In August 1999, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1796/1999 (2), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in South Africa.

               (2)

               In November 2005, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 (3) decided that the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of the product concerned originating, inter alia, in South Africa should be maintained.

               (3)

               The Commission, by Decision 1999/572/EC of 13 August 1999 (4), accepted a price undertaking from a South African company, Scaw Metals Group Haggie Steel Wire Rope (‘Haggie’ or ‘the company’).

               (4)

               By Decision 1999/572/EC the Commission also accepted price undertakings from the following companies: Usha Martin Industries & Usha Beltron Ltd, India; Aceros Camesa SA de CV, Mexico; and Joint Stock Company Silur, Ukraine. The Commission withdrew the acceptance of the undertaking offered by Joint Stock Company Silur, Ukraine by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1678/2003 (5). The anti-dumping measures on steel wire ropes and cables originating in Mexico expired on 12 August 2004 (6). The Commission withdrew the acceptance of the undertaking offered by Usha Martin Industries & Usha Beltron Ltd by Commission Decision 2006/38/EC of 22 December 2005.

               (5)

               As a result imports into the Community of the product concerned of South African origin, produced by the company and of the product type covered by the undertaking (the product covered) were exempted from the definitive anti-dumping duties.

               (6)

               In this regard it should be noted that certain types of steel wire ropes and cables currently produced by Haggie were excluded from the scope of the undertaking. Accordingly, such steel wire ropes and cables were liable to the payment of the anti-dumping duty when entered into free circulation in the Community.

         B.   BREACHES OF THE UNDERTAKING
   1.   Obligations of the company under the undertaking

               (7)

               The undertaking offered by the company obliges it to, inter alia, export the product covered to the European Community above certain minimum prices (MIPs) as stated in the undertaking.

               (8)

               It was further acknowledged by the company in the undertaking that with regard to the exemption from the anti-dumping duties afforded by the undertaking, such exemption is conditional upon the presentation to the Community customs services of an ‘undertaking invoice’. Moreover, the company undertook not to issue such undertaking invoices for sales of those types of product concerned which are not covered by the undertaking and which are therefore liable to the anti-dumping duty. The company also acknowledged that the undertaking invoices issued had to contain the information set out first in the Annex of Regulation (EC) No 1796/1999 and later in the Annex of Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005.

               (9)

               The terms of the undertaking also oblige the company to provide the Commission with regular and detailed information, in the form of a quarterly report of its sales of the product concerned to the European Community. Such reports should include the products covered by the undertaking which benefited from the exemption from the payment of the anti-dumping duty, as well as those types of steel ropes and cables which are not covered by the undertaking and which are therefore liable to the payment of the anti-dumping duty upon importation into the European Community.

               (10)

               It is clear that the aforementioned sales reports should be, as submitted, complete, exhaustive and correct in all particulars and that the transactions fully comply with the terms of the undertaking.

               (11)

               For the purpose of ensuring compliance with the undertaking, the Company also undertook to allow on-spot verification visits at its premises in order to verify the accuracy and veracity of data submitted in the said quarterly reports and to provide all information considered necessary by the Commission.

               (12)

               It should be noted that the company already received a warning letter from the Commission Services on 28 October 2003 for breaching the undertaking by issuing undertaking invoices for products not covered by the undertaking but otherwise being subject to the anti-dumping measures. The warning letter stated that in view of the particular circumstances under which these breaches took place it was not intended to withdraw the acceptance of the undertaking, but it was also pointed out that any subsequent infringement of the undertaking, even of a minor nature, would make it difficult for the Commission to maintain the acceptance of the undertaking from the company.

               (13)

               In this regard, a verification visit was carried out at the premises of the Company in South Africa from 5 February 2007 until 6 February 2007. The verification visit covered the period from 1 January 2004 until 31 December 2006.

         2.   Results of the verification visit to the Company

               (14)

               The verification visit established that the company, on two occasions, issued undertaking invoices (undertaking invoice numbers: 935515 and 935516) for the products subject to the anti-dumping measure but not covered by the undertaking. Therefore, these transactions unlawfully benefited from the exemption from the payment of the anti-dumping duty upon importation.

               (15)

               The verification visit established that, on one occasion, the company failed to adjust the unit sales price according to the terms of payment. The failure to make this adjustment for the financial cost linked to the actual time of the payment has led to a unit sale price below the applicable MIP.

               (16)

               Furthermore, the verification visit established that, on several occasions, the company issued undertaking invoices not in conformity with the Annex of Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 by including the sentence ‘For sale offshore, not to be sold within the European Union’.

               (17)

               Examination of the undertaking invoices issued for the time period concerned by the verification visit showed that one transaction was not included in the quarterly undertaking sales report submitted to the Commission. Furthermore, it was also established that the company reported transactions not intended for release into free circulation in the Community as if they were intended to be released into free circulation in the Community. The verification visit also identified several transactions which were reported as transit sales, but, in reality, the goods were released into free circulation in the Community. Moreover discrepancies were found between the quarterly undertaking sales reports and the corresponding invoices.

         3.   Reasons to withdraw acceptance of the undertaking

               (18)

               The fact that the company issued undertaking invoices for product concerned which were not covered by the undertaking and the fact that these transactions benefited from the exemption from the payment of the anti-dumping duty only granted for the products covered by the undertaking constitute breaches of the undertaking.

               (19)

               The obligation of the company to respect the MIP for all sales of the product covered was not met.

               (20)

               Issuing undertaking invoices not in conformity with the Annex of Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 for sales of product covered can be confusing for the customs authorities and no longer allow the customs authorities to effectively monitor the undertaking and, therefore, render the undertaking impractical.

               (21)

               The facts set out in recital (17) have led to the conclusion that the quarterly undertaking sales reports as submitted by the company were not complete, exhaustive and correct in all particulars and therefore these reports were not sufficiently reliable to be used for monitoring the undertaking. Non-compliance with reporting requirements also constitutes a breach of the undertaking.

         4.   Written submissions and hearing
   (a)   Lack of understanding of the Undertaking

               (22)

               The company acknowledged by its written submission that errors occurred when issuing undertaking invoices and preparing the undertaking reports due to a lack of understanding of the technical provisions of the undertaking, of incorrect reading of the text and/or the company’s failure to consult it. It was also stated in its written submission and during the hearing on 26 April 2007 that changes in the senior management and the restructuring of the organization contributed to lack of understanding of the complex requirements of the undertaking.

               (23)

               The company also admitted the receipt of the warning letter from the Commission Services on the 28 October 2003. However, the company argued that it never received a verification report which it assumed would have outlined the actual error made. The company argued that the fact that it was not made aware of the actual errors also contributed to its failure to change its practices concerning the preparation of undertaking reports or improve its understanding.

               (24)

               In respond to these arguments it has to be noted that the company on 18 September 2003 received a letter from the Commission which set out in detail the breaches identified. The warning letter of 28 October 2003 did not repeat the breaches in detail any longer but referred to the earlier correspondence between the Commission and the company.

               (25)

               It also should be noted that the company might have been confused when it referred to a verification report. The Commission did not carry out a verification visit prior to issuing the warning letter on 28 October 2003 as the breaches which let to issuance of the warning letter were established on the basis of desk analysis of the undertaking reports. The Commission did carry out a verification in May 2004 but since that verification did not lead to further action no letter relating to it needed to be sent the company.

               (26)

               Moreover, the company submitted during the hearing that, after the verification visit, the company revisited its complete system, based on the comments made on the spot, in order to accommodate the necessary changes to meet the requirements of the undertaking.

               (27)

               The arguments presented by the company in its defence regarding its lack of understanding of the undertaking do not alter the Commission’s view that the company failed to comply with the obligations of the undertaking. It also has to be noted that the company already received a warning letter for breaching the undertaking in the past and it failed to adopt the measures necessary to prevent that new breaches of the undertaking would occur. The lack of understanding of the requirements of the undertaking constitutes a high risk for the sufficiency and reliability of the monitoring of the undertaking.

         (b)   Proportionality

               (28)

               With regard to the price violation, the company admitted that a price violation occurred on one occasion because it failed to do the necessary adjustments in the sales price in respect of late payment. However, it was argued that the sales prices of all other transactions were strictly in compliance with the MIP. Moreover, it was submitted that the late payment occurred due to unforeseen circumstances as the client concerned normally pre-pays for goods prior to shipment taking place.

               (29)

               In response to these arguments it should be pointed out that in accordance with the undertaking, the company undertook to ensure that the Net Sales Price of all sales covered by the undertaking shall be at or above the MIPs set out in the undertaking.

               (30)

               Moreover, regarding the issue of proportionality, the basic Regulation contains no direct or indirect requirement that a breach of an undertaking must relate to a minimum percentage of sales or must relate to a minimum percentage of the MIP.

               (31)

               This approach has also been confirmed by the jurisprudence of the Court of First Instance which has ruled that any breach of an undertaking is sufficient to justify the withdrawal of acceptance of an undertaking (7).

               (32)

               Accordingly, the arguments presented by the company with regard to proportionality do not alter the Commission’s view that a breach of the undertaking occurred and that the acceptance of the undertaking should be withdrawn.

         (c)   Good faith of the company

               (33)

               The company argued that at the time of submitting their regular reports to the Commission, the company felt that the reports were complete, exhaustive and correct in all particulars.

               (34)

               At no time did the company try to report incorrect information or attempt to withhold any information requested.

               (35)

               The company also emphasised both in its written submission and during the hearing, that it did not derive any benefit from the breaches of the undertaking, in any but two cases, and that the errors were not carried out within the scope of a circumvention scheme.

               (36)

               Referring to the recitals above it must be noted that the company was not seen to be purposely trying to benefit from not respecting the requirements of the undertaking or by impeding the monitoring. However, the repeated occurrence of the errors renders the proper monitoring of the undertaking impractical.

         C.   REPEAL OF DECISION 1999/572/EC

               (37)

               In view of the above, the acceptance of the undertaking should be withdrawn and Commission Decision 1999/572/EC should be repealed. Accordingly, the definitive antidumping duty imposed by Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 should apply,

         HAS DECIDED:
   Article 1
   Decision 1999/572/EC is hereby repealed.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall take effect on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 13 November 2007.

            For the Commission

         Peter MANDELSON

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17).

      (2)  OJ L 217, 17.8.1999, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1674/2003 (OJ L 238, 25.9.2003, p. 1).

      (3)  OJ L 299, 16.11.2005, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 212/2006 (OJ L 22, 26.1.2006, p. 1).

      (4)  OJ L 217, 17.8.1999, p. 63. Decision as last amended by Decision 2006/38/EC (OJ L 22, 26.1.2006, p. 54).

      (5)  OJ L 238, 25.9.2003, p. 13.

      (6)  OJ C 203, 11.8.2004, p. 4.

      (7)  In this context, see case T-51/96 Miwon v Council (ECR 2000, p. II-1841) paragraph 52; case T-340/99 Arne Mathisen S v Council (ECR 2002, p. II-2905) paragraph 80.


Important legal notice

|

E2001C1129(03)

Decisions by Norway to grant or revoke operating licences pursuant to Article 13(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers

Official Journal C 335 , 29/11/2001 P. 0023 - 0023

Decisions by Norway to grant or revoke operating licences pursuant to Article 13(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers(2001/C 335/10)NORWAYOperating licence revokeCategory B: Operating licences including the restriction of Articles 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92>TABLE>


Avis juridique important

|

31999D0677

1999/677/EC: Council Decision of 4 October 1999 concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Cambodia

Official Journal L 269 , 19/10/1999 P. 0017 - 0017

COUNCIL DECISIONof 4 October 1999concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Cambodia(1999/677/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 133 and 181 in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(1),(1) Whereas, under Article 177 of the Treaty, Community policy in the sphere of development cooperation should foster the sustainable economic and social development of the developing countries, their smooth and gradual integration into the world economy and the alleviation of poverty in these countries;(2) Whereas the Community should approve, in pursuit of its objectives in the sphere of external relations, the Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Cambodia,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Cambodia is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.Article 2The President of the Council shall give the notification provided for in Article 21 of the Agreement(2).Article 3The Commission, assisted by representatives of the Member States, shall represent the Community in the Joint Committee provided in Article 14 of the Agreement.Article 4This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.Done at Luxembourg, 4 October 1999.For the CouncilThe PresidentK. HÄKÄMIES(1) OJ C 219, 30.7.1999, p. 189.(2) The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities by the General Secretariat of the Council.


title: Decision (EU) 2017/103 of the European Central Bank of 11 January 2017 amending Decision (EU) 2016/948 on the implementation of the corporate sector purchase programme (ECB/2017/4)

text:
               20.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 16/57

         DECISION (EU) 2017/103 OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
   of 11 January 2017
   amending Decision (EU) 2016/948 on the implementation of the corporate sector purchase programme (ECB/2017/4)
   THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first indent of Article 127(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 12.1 in conjunction with the first indent of Article 3.1, and Article 18.1 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Decision (EU) 2016/948 of the European Central Bank (ECB/2016/16) (1) established a corporate sector purchase programme (CSPP). Alongside the third covered bond purchase programme, the asset-backed securities purchase programme and the secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme, the CSPP is part of the expanded asset purchase programme (APP). The APP aims to further enhance the transmission of monetary policy, facilitate the provision of credit to the euro area economy, ease borrowing conditions for households and firms and contribute to returning inflation rates to levels below but close to 2 % over the medium term, consistent with the primary objective of the European Central Bank (ECB) of maintaining price stability.

               (2)

               The purchase of assets under the APP is a proportionate measure for mitigating the risks to the outlook for price developments, as it will further ease monetary and financial conditions, including those relevant to the borrowing conditions of euro area non-financial corporations and households, thereby supporting aggregate consumption and investment spending in the euro area and ultimately contributing to a return of inflation rates to levels below but close to 2 % over the medium term. The APP fully complies with the obligations of the Eurosystem central banks under the Treaties, including the prohibition of monetary financing, and does not impair the operation of the Eurosystem in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.

               (3)

               On 8 December 2016, the Governing Council decided, in line with its mandate to ensure price stability, that certain parameters of the APP should be adjusted in order to achieve the APP's objectives. The adjustments are in line with the Governing Council's monetary policy mandate, fully comply with the obligations of the Eurosystem central banks under the Treaties and duly reflect risk management considerations.

               (4)

               More specifically, the intended horizon of purchases under the APP should be extended until the end of December 2017, or beyond, if necessary, and in any event until the Governing Council sees a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation that is consistent with its aim of achieving inflation rates below, but close to, 2 % over the medium term.

               (5)

               The liquidity provided to the market through the combined monthly purchases under the APP should continue to amount to EUR 80 billion until the end of March 2017. From April 2017, the combined monthly purchases under the APP should proceed at a pace of EUR 60 billion until the end of December 2017, or beyond, if necessary, and in any case until the Governing Council sees a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation consistent with its inflation aim. If, in the meantime, the outlook becomes less favourable, or if financial conditions become inconsistent with further progress towards a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation, the Governing Council intends to increase the programme in terms of size and/or duration.

               (6)

               To ensure the continued smooth implementation of purchases under the APP over the intended horizon, purchases of securities under the APP with a yield to maturity below the interest rate on the ECB's deposit facility should be permitted to the extent necessary.

               (7)

               Therefore, Decision (EU) 2016/948 (ECB/2016/16) should be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Amendment
   In Article 2 of Decision (EU) 2016/948 (ECB/2016/16), point 5 is replaced by the following:

      ‘5.   Purchases of nominal corporate bonds at a negative yield to maturity (or yield to worst) equal to or above the deposit facility rate are permitted. Purchases of nominal corporate bonds at a negative yield to maturity (or yield to worst) below the deposit facility rate are permitted to the extent necessary.’.

   Article 2
   Entry into force
   This Decision shall enter into force on 13 January 2017.

      Done at Frankfurt am Main, 11 January 2017.

            For the Governing Council of the ECB

            The President of the ECB

         Mario DRAGHI

      (1)  Decision (EU) 2016/948 of the European Central Bank of 1 June 2016 on the implementation of the corporate sector purchase programme (ECB/2016/16) (OJ L 157, 15.6.2016, p. 28).


title: Council Decision (EU) 2015/1860 of 13 October 2015 establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union within the Joint Committee set up under the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Armenia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas, with regard to the adoption of its rules of procedure

text:
               17.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 273/9

         COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2015/1860
   of 13 October 2015
   establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union within the Joint Committee set up under the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Armenia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas, with regard to the adoption of its rules of procedure
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular point (a) of Article 77(2) in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Decision 2013/628/EU of 22 October 2013 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Armenia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (1),
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Armenia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (2) (‘the Agreement’) entered into force on 1 January 2014.

               (2)

               Article 12 of the Agreement provides that a Joint Committee of experts (‘the Committee’) is to be set up by the Parties.

               (3)

               Article 12(4) of the Agreement provides that the Committee is to establish its rules of procedure.

               (4)

               It is therefore appropriate to establish the position to be adopted on behalf of the Union within the Committee, with regard to the adoption of its rules of procedure,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   1.   The position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union within the Joint Committee set up under the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Armenia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas, with regard to the adoption of its rules of procedure, shall be based on the draft decision of the Joint Committee attached to this Decision.
   2.   Minor technical corrections to the draft decision may be agreed by the representatives of the Union in the Joint Committee without further decision of the Council.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Luxembourg, 13 October 2015.

            For the Council

            The President

         J. ASSELBORN

      (1)  OJ L 289, 31.10.2013, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 289, 31.10.2013, p. 2.

      DRAFT
      DECISION No …/2015 OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE SET UP UNDER THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA ON THE FACILITATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF VISAS
      of …
      with regard to the adoption of its rules of procedure
      THE JOINT COMMITTEE,
      Having regard to the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Armenia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (‘the Agreement’), and in particular Article 12(4) thereof,
      Whereas the Agreement entered into force on 1 January 2014,
      HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
      Article 1
      Chairmanship
      The Joint Committee (‘the Committee’) shall be chaired jointly by a representative of the European Union and a representative of the Republic of Armenia.
      Article 2
      Tasks of the Committee
      1.   In accordance with Article 12(2) of the Agreement, the Committee shall, in particular, have the following tasks:

                  (a)

                  monitoring the implementation of the Agreement;

                  (b)

                  suggesting amendments or additions to the Agreement;

                  (c)

                  settling disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the provisions of the Agreement.

            2.   The Committee may agree on recommendations containing guidelines or best practices to assist in the implementation of the Agreement.
      Article 3
      Meetings
      1.   The Committee shall meet whenever necessary, at the request of either Party, and at least once per year.
      2.   The Parties shall take turns in hosting the meeting unless otherwise agreed.
      3.   Meetings of the Committee shall be convened by the Co-chairs.
      4.   The Co-chairs shall establish a date for the meeting and exchange such documents as necessary in time to ensure adequate preparation, if possible, 14 days prior to the meeting.
      5.   The Party hosting a meeting shall arrange logistical matters.
      Article 4
      Delegations
      1.   The Parties shall notify each other of the intended composition of their delegation at least seven days before each meeting.
      2.   The European Union shall be represented by the Commission, assisted by experts from the Member States.
      Article 5
      Agenda for the meetings
      1.   A provisional agenda for each meeting shall be drawn up by the Co-chairs no later than 14 days before the meeting. The provisional agenda shall include the items in respect of which a request for inclusion in the agenda has been received by either of the Co-chairs no later than 14 days before the meeting.
      2.   Either Party may add items to the provisional agenda at any time prior to the meeting if the other Party agrees. Requests to add items to the provisional agenda shall be sent in writing and shall be accommodated to the extent possible.
      3.   The final agenda shall be adopted by the Co-chairs at the beginning of each meeting. An item not appearing on the provisional agenda may be placed on the agenda if the Parties agree and shall be accommodated to the extent possible.
      Article 6
      Records of the meeting
      1.   A draft of the record shall be prepared as soon as possible by the Co-chair of the Party hosting the meeting.
      2.   The record shall, as a general rule, indicate in respect of each item on the agenda:

                  (a)

                  the documentation submitted to the Committee;

                  (b)

                  statements which a Party has requested to be entered; and

                  (c)

                  decisions taken, recommendations made and conclusions adopted on a specific item.

            3.   The record shall also indicate the individuals of the respective delegations participating, and the ministry, agency or institution they represent.
      4.   The record shall be approved by the Committee at its following meeting.
      Article 7
      Decisions and recommendations of the Committee
      1.   The Committee shall take decisions by agreement of both Parties.
      2.   Decisions of the Committee shall be entitled ‘Decisions’ followed by a serial number and a description of their subject matter. The date the decision takes effect shall also be indicated. Decisions shall be signed by representatives of the Committee who are authorised to act on behalf of the Parties. Decisions shall be drawn up in duplicate, each version being equally authentic.
      3.   Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to recommendations of the Committee.
      Article 8
      Expenses
      1.   Each Party shall be responsible for the expenses it incurs by reason of their participation in the meetings of the Committee, including staff, travel and subsistence expenditure and postal or telecommunications expenditure.
      2.   Other expenses arising from the organisation of the meetings shall generally be covered by the Party hosting the meeting.
      Article 9
      Administrative procedures
      1.   Unless the Committee decides otherwise, the meetings of the Committee shall not be open to the public.
      2.   Records and other documents of the Committee shall be treated confidentially.
      3.   Participants other than officials of the Parties and the Member States may be invited by agreement of both Co-Chairs, and they shall be subject to the same confidentiality requirements.
      4.   The Parties may organise public briefings or otherwise inform interested members of the public of the results of the Committee meetings.
      Article 10
      Entry into force
      This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

               For the European Union

               For The Republic of Armenia

      JOINT DECLARATION ANNEXED TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE
      In order to ensure the continued, harmonised and correct implementation of the Agreement, The Republic of Armenia, the Member States and the European Commission shall undertake informal contacts between formal meetings of the Joint Committee, in order to deal with urgent issues. They shall report to the next meeting of the Joint Committee thereafter about those issues and informal contacts.