title: 2006/25/EC,Euratom: Commission Decision of  23 December 2005  amending its internal Rules of Procedure

text:
               24.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 19/20

      COMMISSION DECISION

   of 23 December 2005
   amending its internal Rules of Procedure
   (2006/25/EC, Euratom)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 218(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 131 thereof,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28(1) and 41(1) thereof,
   HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The Commission's provisions setting-up the ‘ARGUS’ general rapid alert system, the text of which is annexed to this Decision, are hereby added to the Commission’s Rules of Procedure (1) as an Annex.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on 1 January 2006.

      Done at Brussels, 23 December 2005.

            For the Commission

         José Manuel BARROSO

            The President

      (1)  OJ L 308, 8.12.2000, p. 26. Rules of Procedure as last amended by Commission Decision 2005/960/EC, Euratom (OJ L 347, 30.12.2005, p. 83).

      ANNEX
      COMMISSION PROVISIONS SETTING UP THE ‘ARGUS’ GENERAL RAPID ALERT SYSTEM
      Whereas:

                  (1)

                  It is appropriate for the Commission to establish a general rapid alert system called ARGUS, in order to enhance its capacity to react quickly, efficiently and in a coordinated manner, in its domain of competence, to crises of a multisectoral nature covering several policy areas and that require action at the Community level, whatever their cause.

                  (2)

                  The system should be based initially on an internal communication network allowing the Directorates-General and services of the Commission to share key information in the event of a crisis.

                  (3)

                  The system will be reviewed in the light of experience acquired and technological progress to ensure interlinkage and coordination of existing specialised networks.

                  (4)

                  It is necessary to define an appropriate coordination process to take decisions and to manage a rapid, coordinated and coherent Commission response to a major multisectoral crisis, whilst keeping it sufficiently flexible and adaptable to the particular needs and circumstances of a specific crisis and respecting the existing policy instruments dealing with specific crises.

                  (5)

                  The system must respect the specific characteristics, expertise, arrangements and area of competence of each of the existing sectoral rapid alert systems of the Commission, which enable its service to respond to specific crises in various fields of Community activity, as well as the general principle of subsidiarity.

                  (6)

                  Communication being a key element of crisis management, special attention must be devoted to informing the public and communicating effectively with the citizens, through the press and the various communication tools and outlets of the Commission, from Brussels and/or the most appropriate location.

            Article 1
      The ARGUS system
      1.   A general rapid alert and response system called ARGUS is established, in order to enhance the capacity of the Commission to provide a quick, efficient and coherent response in the event of a major crisis of a multisectoral nature covering several policy areas requiring action Community level, whatever its cause.
      2.   ARGUS shall consist of:

                  (a)

                  an internal communication network;

                  (b)

                  a specific coordination process to be activated in case of a major multisectoral crisis.

            3.   These provisions are without prejudice to Commission Decision 2003/246/EC, Euratom on operational procedures for crisis management.
      Article 2
      The ARGUS information network
      1.   The internal communication network shall be a permanent platform enabling the Directorates-General and services of the Commission to share in real time relevant information on emerging multisectoral crises or foreseeable or imminent threat thereof and to coordinate appropriate response within the domain of competence of the Commission.
      2.   The core members of the network are: the Secretariat-General; DG Press and Communication including the Spokesperson’s service; DG Environment; DG Health and Consumer Protection; DG Justice, Freedom and Security; DG External Relations; DG Humanitarian Aid; DG Personnel and Administration; DG Trade; Informatics DG; DG Taxation and Customs Union; the Joint Research Centre and the Legal Service.
      3.   Any other Directorate-General and service of the Commission can be included in the network, at their request, provided they implement the minimum requirements mentioned in paragraph (4).
      4.   Directorates-General and services which are members of the network shall appoint an ARGUS correspondent and implement appropriate stand-by duty arrangements allowing the service to be contacted and to react speedily in the event of a crisis warranting its intervention. The system will be designed to allow this to be done within the existing allocation of human resources.
      Article 3
      Coordination process in the event of a major crisis
      1.   In the event of a major multisectoral crisis or foreseeable or imminent threat thereof, the President, on his own initiative after having been alerted or at the request of a Member of the Commission, may decide to activate a specific coordination process. The President will also decide on the allocation of the political responsibility for the Commission response to the crisis. He will either keep the responsibility to himself or assign it to a Member of the Commission.
      2.   Such responsibility will entail leading and coordinating the response to the crisis, representing the Commission towards the other institutions and being responsible for communication with the public. This will not affect the existing competences and mandates in the College.
      3.   The Secretariat-General, under the authority of the President or the Member of the Commission to whom the responsibility was assigned, will activate the specific operational crisis management structure called Crisis Coordination Committee described in Article 4.
      Article 4
      The Crisis Coordination Committee
      1.   The Crisis Coordination Committee is a specific operational crisis management structure established to lead and coordinate the response to the crisis, bringing together representatives of all relevant Commission Directorates-General and services. As a general rule, the Directorates-General and services mentioned in Article 2(2) shall be represented in the Crisis Coordination Committee, plus other Directorates-General and services concerned by the specific crisis. The Crisis Coordination Committee will draw on the existing resources and means of the services.
      2.   The Crisis Coordination Committee shall be chaired by the Deputy Secretary-General with particular responsibility for policy coordination.
      3.   The Crisis Coordination Committee will in particular assess and monitor the development of the situation, identify issues and options for decision and action, ensure that decisions and actions are implemented and ensure the coherence and consistency of the response.
      4.   Decisions agreed within the Crisis Coordination Committee will be adopted through normal Commission decision-making procedures and will be executed by Directorates-General and rapid alert systems.
      5.   Commission services will dutifully ensure the management of tasks in connection with the response in their domain of competence.
      Article 5
      The Manual of Operating Procedures
      A Manual of Operational Procedures will define detailed provisions to implement this decision.
      Article 6
      The Commission will review this decision in the light of experience gained and technological progress, at the latest one year after its entry into force, and, if necessary, adopt additional measures relating to the functioning of ARGUS.


title: Decision (EU) 2015/1660 of the European Parliament of 29 April 2015 on the closure of the accounts of the European Institute for Gender Equality for the financial year 2013

text:
               30.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 255/254

      DECISION (EU) 2015/1660 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
      of 29 April 2015
      on the closure of the accounts of the European Institute for Gender Equality for the financial year 2013
      THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

                  —

                  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Institute for Gender Equality for the financial year 2013,

                  —

                  having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the European Institute for Gender Equality for the financial year 2013, together with the Institute's replies (1),

                  —

                  having regard to the statement of assurance (2) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2013, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (4), and in particular Article 208 thereof,

                  —

                  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1922/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality (5), and in particular Article 15 thereof,

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1271/2013 of 30 September 2013 on the framework financial regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 208 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7), and in particular Article 108 thereof,

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A8-0098/2015),

         1.

            Notes that the final annual accounts of the European Institute for Gender Equality are as annexed to the Court of Auditors' report;

         2.

            Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Institute for Gender Equality for the financial year 2013;

         3.

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

               The President

            Martin SCHULZ

               The Secretary-General

            Klaus WELLE

         (1)  OJ C 442, 10.12.2014, p. 167.

         (2)  See footnote 1.

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

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

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

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

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


title: Commission Decision of 14 December 2012 amending Commission Decision 2006/210/EC setting up a group of high-level national regulatory experts and extending the terms of office of the High Level Group and the period of application of Decision 2006/210/EC until 31 October 2014

text:
               18.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 390/7

         COMMISSION DECISION
   of 14 December 2012
   amending Commission Decision 2006/210/EC setting up a group of high-level national regulatory experts and extending the terms of office of the High Level Group and the period of application of Decision 2006/210/EC until 31 October 2014
   2012/C 390/09
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The High-Level Group of National Regulatory Experts (hereinafter ‘the Group’) set up by Commission Decision 2006/210/EC (1) as amended by Commission Decision 2010/63/EU (2) is a consultative group of high-level national experts on Smart Regulation.

               (2)

               The President of the Commission has indicated that Smart Regulation (3) will remain high on the Commission’s political agenda (4).

               (3)

               A forum for discussing Smart Regulation and for promoting cooperation with Member States on Smart Regulation issues has an important role to play in taking that agenda forward.

               (4)

               The mandate of the Group should therefore be extended until the end of this Commission’s mandate.

               (5)

               In November 2010, the Commission established a new framework for Commission expert groups (5). This framework should be taken into account.

               (6)

               Decision 2006/210/EC should be amended and extended accordingly,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   Article 3 of Decision 2006/210/EC shall be replaced by the following text:

      ‘Article 3
      Membership — Appointment
      1.   The Group shall be composed of Member States’ authorities. Member States will each have one representative in the group. In exceptional cases, if there is shared competency at the level of the administration in that Member State, a second representative may be appointed.
      2.   Member States shall appoint their representatives from specialists who have competence in the areas referred to in Article 2.
      3.   Member States’ representatives are appointed for a two-year renewable mandate. They shall remain in office until such time as they are replaced or their mandate ends. Their term of office may be renewed.
      4.   Provision may be made for appointing the same number of alternates as there are Member State representatives. Alternates shall be appointed in accordance with the same conditions as Member States’ representatives; they shall automatically replace any representatives who are absent or indisposed.
      5.   Member States’ representatives who are no longer capable of contributing effectively to the group’s deliberations, who resign or who do not comply with the conditions set out in paragraph 3 of this Article, or in Article 339 of the Treaty, may be replaced for the remainder of their term of office.
      6.   Personal data shall be collected, processed and published in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.’.

   Article 2
   In Article 4 of Decision 2006/210/EC, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following text:

      ‘4.   Members of expert groups and their representatives, as well as other invited experts and observers, shall comply with the obligations of professional secrecy laid down by the Treaties and their implementing rules, and with the Commission’s rules on security regarding the protection of EU classified information, laid down in the Annex to Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom. Should they fail to respect these obligations, the Commission may take all appropriate measures.’.

   In the same Article, paragraph 8 is replaced by the following text:

      ‘8.   The Commission will publish all relevant documents (such as agendas, minutes and participants’ submissions) either in the Register of Commission expert groups and other similar entities or via a link from the Register to a dedicated website where information can be found. Exceptions to publication should be foreseen where disclosure of a document would undermine the protection of a public or private interest as defined in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.’.

   Article 3
   In Decision 2006/210/EC, the existing text of Article 5 is replaced by the following text:

      ‘Article 5
      Meeting expenses
      1.   Participants in the activities of the Group shall not be remunerated for the services they render.
      2.   Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by participants in the activities of the Group shall be reimbursed by the Commission in accordance with the provisions in force within the Commission.
      3.   Those expenses shall be reimbursed insofar as funds are available under the annual procedure for the allocation of resources.’,

   Article 4
   In Article 6 of Decision 2006/210/EC, the second sentence is replaced by the following:
   ‘It shall apply until 31 October 2014.’,
   Article 5
   This Decision enters into force on 31 December 2012.

      Done at Brussels, 14 December 2012.

            For the Commission

            The President

         José Manuel BARROSO

      (1)  OJ L 76, 15.3.2006, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ L 35, 6.2.2010, p. 14.

      (3)  Smart Regulation Communication COM(2010) 543.

      (4)  Political guidelines for the next Commission: document presented to the Members of the European Parliament on 15 September 2009.

      (5)  C(2010) 7649 final; SEC(2010) 1360 final.


title: Decision No 388/2010/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 providing macrofinancial assistance to Ukraine

text:
               14.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 179/1

         DECISION No 388/2010/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
   of 7 July 2010
   providing macrofinancial assistance to Ukraine
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 212 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (1),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Relations between Ukraine and the European Union are developing within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy. In 2005, the Community and Ukraine agreed on a European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan identifying medium-term priorities in EU-Ukraine relations. That Action Plan was replaced by the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda of November 2009. Since 2007, the Community and Ukraine have been negotiating an Association Agreement that is expected to replace the existing Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. The framework of EU-Ukraine relations is further enhanced by the newly launched Eastern Partnership.

               (2)

               The Ukrainian economy has been increasingly affected by the international financial crisis, with dramatically declining output, a deteriorating fiscal position and rising external financing needs.

               (3)

               Ukraine’s economic stabilisation and recovery is supported by financial assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF Stand-By Arrangement (SBA) for Ukraine was approved in November 2008.

               (4)

               Following a further deterioration of Ukraine’s fiscal position, a large part of the second tranche under the IMF’s SBA and the full amount of the third tranche were channelled to Ukraine’s State budget.

               (5)

               Ukraine has requested Union macrofinancial assistance in view of the deteriorating economic situation and outlook.

               (6)

               Given that a residual financing gap in 2009-2010 remains in Ukraine’s balance of payments, macrofinancial assistance is considered an appropriate response to Ukraine’s request to support economic stabilisation in conjunction with the current IMF programme. This macrofinancial assistance is also expected to contribute to alleviating the external financing needs of the State budget.

               (7)

               Union macrofinancial assistance can only contribute to economic stabilisation if the main political forces in Ukraine ensure political stability and establish a broad consensus on a rigorous implementation of the necessary structural reforms.

               (8)

               Union macrofinancial assistance should be provided to Ukraine in addition to the loan facility granted under Council Decision 2002/639/EC of 12 July 2002 providing supplementary macrofinancial assistance to Ukraine (2).

               (9)

               The Union macrofinancial assistance should not merely supplement programmes and resources from the IMF and the World Bank, but should ensure the added value of Union involvement.

               (10)

               The Commission should ensure that the Union macrofinancial assistance is legally and substantially in line with the measures taken within the different areas of external action and other relevant Union policies.

               (11)

               The specific objectives of the Union macrofinancial assistance should strengthen efficiency, transparency and accountability. These objectives should be regularly monitored by the Commission.

               (12)

               The conditions underlying the provision of the Union macrofinancial assistance should reflect the key principles and objectives of the Union’s policy towards Ukraine.

               (13)

               In order to ensure efficient protection of the Union’s financial interests linked to this macrofinancial assistance, it is necessary that Ukraine adopt appropriate measures relating to the prevention of, and the fight against, fraud, corruption and any other irregularities linked to this assistance. It is also necessary that the Commission provide for appropriate controls and that the Court of Auditors provides for appropriate audits.

               (14)

               The release of the Union macrofinancial assistance is without prejudice to the powers of the budgetary authority.

               (15)

               This macrofinancial assistance should be managed by the Commission. In order to ensure that the European Parliament and the Economic and Financial Committee are able to follow the implementation of this Decision, the Commission should regularly inform them of developments relating to the assistance and provide them with relevant documents.

               (16)

               According to Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for the control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers shall be laid down in advance by a regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Pending the adoption of that new regulation, Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (3) continues to apply, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which is not applicable,

         HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   1.   The Union shall make available to Ukraine macrofinancial assistance in the form of a loan facility with a maximum principal amount of EUR 500 million and a maximum average maturity of 15 years with a view to supporting Ukraine’s economic stabilisation and alleviating its balance of payments and budgetary needs, as identified in the current IMF programme.
   2.   To this end, the Commission shall be empowered to borrow the necessary resources on behalf of the Union.
   3.   The release of the Union macrofinancial assistance shall be managed by the Commission in a manner consistent with the agreements or understandings reached between the IMF and Ukraine and with the key principles and objectives of economic reform set out in the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda. The Commission shall regularly inform the European Parliament and the Economic and Financial Committee of developments in the management of the assistance and provide them with relevant documents.
   4.   The Union macrofinancial assistance shall be made available for two years and six months starting from the first day after the entry into force of the Memorandum of Understanding referred to in Article 2(1).
   Article 2
   1.   The Commission, acting in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 6(2), shall be empowered to agree with the Ukrainian authorities on the economic policy conditions attached to the Union macrofinancial assistance, to be laid down in a Memorandum of Understanding which shall include a timeframe for their fulfilment (hereinafter the ‘Memorandum of Understanding’). The conditions shall be consistent with the agreements or understandings reached between the IMF and Ukraine and with the key principles and objectives of economic reform set out in the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda. These principles and objectives aim at strengthening the efficiency, transparency and accountability of the assistance, including in particular public finance management systems in Ukraine. Progress in attaining these objectives shall be regularly monitored by the Commission. The detailed financial terms of the assistance shall be laid down in a Loan Agreement to be agreed between the Commission and the Ukrainian authorities.
   2.   During the implementation of the Union macrofinancial assistance, the Commission shall monitor the soundness of Ukraine’s financial arrangements, administrative procedures, internal and external control mechanisms which are relevant to such assistance and the adherence to the agreed timeframe.
   3.   The Commission shall verify at regular intervals that Ukraine’s economic policies are in accordance with the objectives of the Union macrofinancial assistance and that the agreed economic policy conditions are being satisfactorily fulfilled. In doing so, the Commission shall coordinate closely with the IMF and the World Bank, and, when required, with the Economic and Financial Committee.
   Article 3
   1.   Subject to the conditions of paragraph 2, the Union macrofinancial assistance to Ukraine shall be made available by the Commission in two loan instalments. The size of each instalment shall be laid down in the Memorandum of Understanding.
   2.   The Commission shall decide on the release of the instalments subject to satisfactory implementation of the economic policy conditions agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding. The disbursement of the second instalment shall not take place earlier than three months after the release of the first instalment.
   3.   The Union funds shall be paid to the National Bank of Ukraine. Subject to provisions to be agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding, including a confirmation of residual budgetary financing needs, the Union funds may be transferred to the Treasury of Ukraine as the final beneficiary.
   Article 4
   1.   The borrowing and the lending operations referred to in this Decision shall be carried out in euro using the same value date and shall not involve the Union in the transformation of maturities, in any exchange or interest rate risks or in any other commercial risk.
   2.   The Commission shall take the necessary steps, if Ukraine so requests, to ensure that an early repayment clause is included in the loan’s terms and conditions and that it is matched by a corresponding clause in the terms and conditions of the borrowing operations.
   3.   At the request of Ukraine, and where circumstances permit an improvement of the interest rate of the loan, the Commission may refinance all or part of its initial borrowings or restructure the corresponding financial conditions. Refinancing or restructuring operations shall be carried out in accordance with the conditions set out in paragraph 1 and shall not have the effect of extending the average maturity of the borrowing concerned or increasing the amount of capital outstanding at the date of the refinancing or restructuring.
   4.   All costs incurred by the Union which are related to the borrowing and lending operations under this Decision shall be borne by Ukraine.
   5.   The European Parliament and the Economic and Financial Committee shall be kept informed of developments in the operations referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3.
   Article 5
   The Union macrofinancial assistance shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4) and its implementing rules (5). In particular, the Memorandum of Understanding and the Loan Agreement to be agreed with the Ukrainian authorities shall provide for specific measures to be implemented by Ukraine in relation to the prevention of, and the fight against, fraud, corruption and other irregularities affecting the assistance. In order to ensure greater transparency in the management and disbursement of funds, the Memorandum of Understanding and the Loan Agreement shall also provide for controls, including on-the-spot checks and inspections, to be carried out by the Commission, including the European Anti-Fraud Office. They shall in addition provide for audits, including where appropriate on-the-spot audits, by the Court of Auditors.
   Article 6
   1.   The Commission shall be assisted by a committee.
   2.   Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 3 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.
   Article 7
   By 31 August of each year, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the implementation of this Decision in the preceding year, including an evaluation thereof. The report shall indicate the connection between the policy conditions as laid down in the Memorandum of Understanding, Ukraine’s on-going economic and fiscal performance and the Commission’s decisions to release the instalments of the assistance.
   No later than two years after the expiry of the availability period referred to in Article 1(4), the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council an ex post evaluation report.
   Article 8
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Strasbourg, 7 July 2010.

            For the European Parliament

            The President

         J. BUZEK

            For the Council

            The President

         O. CHASTEL

      (1)  Position of the European Parliament of 18 May 2010 (not yet published in the Official Journal) and decision of the Council of 29 June 2010.

      (2)  OJ L 209, 6.8.2002, p. 22.

      (3)  OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

      (4)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 1).


Avis juridique important

|

31987D0443

87/443/EEC: Commission Decision of 30 July 1987 amending an undertaking and accepting an undertaking given in connection with the anti-dumping review investigation concerning imports of copper sulphate originating in Poland and the USSR respectively, and terminating the investigation as it concerns these countries

Official Journal L 235 , 20/08/1987 P. 0022 - 0025

*****COMMISSION  DECISION  of 30 July 1987  amending an undertaking and accepting an undertaking given in connection with the anti-dumping review investigation concerning imports of copper sulphate originating in Poland and the USSR respectively, and terminating the investigation as it concerns these countries  (87/443/EEC)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 of 23 July 1984 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1761/87 (2), and in particular Articles 10 and 14 thereof,  After consultation within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the above Regulation,  Whereas:  A. Procedure  (1) By Regulation (EEC) No 2786/83 (3) the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of copper sulphate originating in Czechoslovakia and the USSR and, by Decision 83/502/EEC (4), the Commission accepted an undertaking from on Czech exporter of copper sulphate. This undertaking was subsequently amended and accepted by Decision 84/408/EEC (5).  Subsequently the Commission accepted, by Regulation (EEC) No 2908/84 (6), an undertaking offered inter alia by the Hungarian exporter of copper sulphate and, by Decision 85/104/EEC (7), an undertaking offered by the Polish exporter of that product.  (2) In 1986, the Commission received a request for review of the anti-dumping measures concerning imports of copper sulphate originating in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and the USSR lodged by the European Federation of Chemical Manufacturers Associations representing a major proportion of Community output of copper sulphate. This review request contained evidence of changed circumstances sufficient to justify the need for review and accordingly the Commission announced, by a Notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (8), the opening of a review investigation concerning imports of copper sulphate originating in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and the USSR, falling wihtin subheading ex 28.38 A II of the Common Customs Tariff, and corresponding to NIMEXE code 28.38-27.  (3) The Commission officially so advised the exporters and importers known to be concerned, and the Community producers, and gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing.  Most exporters concerned, some importers and all complainant Community producers made their views known in writing and requested and were granted hearings.  No submissions were made by or on behalf of Community purchasers or processors of the product.  (4) The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed to be necessary and carried out investigations at the premises of the following:  - EEC producers:  - La Cornubia, SA, Bordeaux, France,  - NV Metallo-chimique, Beerse, Belgium,  - Manica Spa, Rovereto, Italy.  The Commission requested and received detailed written submissions from all complainant Community producers, most exporters and some importers, and verified the information therein to the extent considered necessary.  The investigation of dumping covered the period January to July 1986 inclusive.  B. Nomal Value  (5) In order to establish whether there was renewed dumping of imports of copper sulphate form Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and the USSR, the Commission had to take account of the fact that these countries do not have market economies and the Commission therefore had to base its determinations on the normal value in a market-economy country. In this connection, the Community industry had suggested the United States of America as an appropriate analogue market. All United States producers of copper sulphate known to the Commission were, however, unwilling to cooperate in the investigation. Some of the exporters concerned had objected to the use of the United States market, and one had suggested Thailand as being a more appropriate choice. Other exporters objected to the choice of Thailand arguing that the relatively small quantites produced in Thailand would result in high unit costs and commensurately higher prices. One exporter suggested the price acutally paid in the Community as an alternative basis for determining normal value.  (6) Following enquiries by the Commission, however, the results of which were substantiated by investigation at the permises of two Thai producers of copper sulphate, it was established that there were no extraordinary differences between Thai production processes and those of the exporting countries concerned. In addition, price levels in Thailand were somewhat lower than those in the Community and those alleged to exist in the United States, and, despite the relatively low quantites produced, were in reasonable proportion to production costs.  The Commission therefore concluded that it would be appropriate and not unreasonable to determine normal value on the basis of domestic prices in Thailand. Indeed, if Thailand cannot be ruled out as an analogue country then it is not legally appropriate to use Community prices as the basis for normal value.  The normal value thus established for the reference period was higher than that established during the previous investigations relating to the exporting countries concerned, the most significant factor having been the effect on prices of an increase in the cost of copper, which comprises the major element in the production costs of copper sulphate. This increase, together with increases in the Community producers' fixed costs, considerably outweighed the beneficial effects on these producer's costs of a reduction in the cost of energy.  C. Export price  (7) Export prices were determined on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the products sold for export to the Community.  D. Comparison  (8) In comparing normal value with export prices, the Commission took account, where appropriate, of differences affecting price comparability. In particular, account was taken of differences in purity and copper content, sufficient evidence of which was supplied by the Polish and USSR exporters.  In all comparisons, account was taken of differences in conditions and terms of payment, and adjustment was made, where appropriate, to allow export prices and normal values to be on a comparable basis in this respect.  E. Margins  (9) The above preliminary examination of the facts showed the existence of dumping in respect of imports of copper sulphate originating in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and the USSR, the margin of dumping being equal to the amount by which the normal value as established exceeded the prices for export to the Community. These margins varied according to the exporter concerned and, expressed as a percentage of total cif values for each of the exporters investigated, were as follows:  - Czechoslovakia: 25,6 %,  - Hungary: 45,5 %,  - Poland: 44,1 %,  - USSR: 47,9 %.  F. Injury  (10) With regard to the injury caused by the dumped imports, the evidence available to the Commission shows that imports into the Community from Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and the USSR of copper sulphate have, on a cumulative basis, remained relatively stable between 1982 and 1986 and have accordingly retained a share of around 16 % of a market in which consumption in the Community has also been fairly stable.  (11) This situation should be considered in the light of the effect of the anti-dumping measures imposed between 1983 and 1985 on imports of copper sulphate originating in, inter alia, the four countries concerned in this proceeding. The evidence available to the Commission indicated that, while the imposition of anti-dumping measures may have had an initial downward effect on the sales volumes in the Community of the individual country or countries concerned, these volumes had, at least to some degree, recovered by the reference period.  (12) In addition, since the imposition of the existing anti-dumping measures relating to imports from the countries concerned, costs in the Community, particularly for copper, have increased significantly (see point 6). Thus, despite the imposition of these measures, the exporters concerned have been able to undercut significantly the prices of the Community producers. During the reference period, this undercutting reached levels of around 25 % after anti-dumping duty, and involved prices which were lower than those required to cover the costs of Community producers and provide a reasonable profit.  (13) The consequent impact on the Community industry has been that its sales in the Community have remained at approximately the same level from 1982 to 1986. This has meant a continuation of low capacity utilization levels which remained, on average, at 40 % during this period. The resultant high unit costs, combined with the depressive effect of the prices of the dumped imports, have led, for the complainant producers, to continued losses or the inability to obtain a reasonable return on sales in the Community market, which accounts for almost 90 % of their total sales of copper sulphate.  Furthermore, two Community producers have ceased production of copper sulphate since 1983, at least partially as a result of the impact of the dumped imports. These closures have led to a reduction in employment in the manufacture of copper sulphate in the Community.  (14) The Commission has considered whether injury has been caused by other factors such as reduction in the complainant's sales to third countries, a fall in demand in the Community, or an increase in imports originating in countries other than those concerned in the present proceeding.  The complainant's sales to third countries remained stable between 1982 and 1986 at around 10 % of total sales. Community consumption has also remained relatively stable during this period. As regards imports from countries other than the four concerned, anti-dumping measures were taken in 1984 (1) concerning Bulgarian copper sulphate and, concerning the Yugoslav product, most recently in 1985 (2). Since these measures were taken, the volumes imported from these countries have fallen and imports from other countries have remained, as a whole, at approximately the same levels.  Thus, the volume of dumped imports from the four countries concerned and the prices at which they were sold in the Community during the reference period has led the Commission to determine that the effects of the dumped imports of copper sulphate originating in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and the USSR, taken in isolation, have to be considered as causing material injury to the Community industry concerned.  G. Community interest  (15) In view of the serious difficulties facing the Community industry, and in particular the fact that two Community producers have ceased production since 1983, the Commission has come to the conclusion that it is in the Community's interest that action be taken.  H. Undertakings and termination  (16) The Polish and USSR exporters concerned, having been informed of the main findings of the review investigation, offered undertakings, amended in the case of the Polish exporter, concerning their exports of copper sulphate to the Community. The effect of the said undertakings will be to increase export prices to the Community to the level which the Commission, having taken into account, on the one hand, the selling price necessary to provide an  adequate return to Community producers and, on the other hand, the purchase price to the Community importers and their costs and profit margin, considers necessary to eliminate injury. This increase does not exceed in either instance the dumping margin found in the investigation for each of the exporting countries concerned.  In these circumstances, the amended Polish undertaking and the USSR undertaking offered are considered acceptable and the investigation may, therefore, be terminated as regards imports form these countries without imposition of anti-dumping duties.  I. Duty  (17) The Czech and Hungarian exporters concerned, having been informed of the main findings of the review investigation, did not offer to amend undertakings in a manner which would eliminate the injury caused by the dumped imports. Accordingly, the Commission hereby withdraws its acceptance of these two undertakings and the Council, by Regulation (EEC) No 2512/87 published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of even date with the publication hereof (1), has imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of copper sulphate originating in Czechoslovakia and Hungary.  No objection to this course was raised in the Advisory Committee,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  1. The amended undertaking offered by Ciech Import and Export of Chemicals Ltd, Warsaw, and the undertaking offered by Sojuzchimexport, Moscow, in connection with the anti-dumping review investigation concerning imports of copper sulphate originating in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and the USSR, falling wihin subheading ex 28.38 A II of the Common Customs Tariff and corresponding to NIMEXE code 28.38-27, are hereby accepted.  2. The acceptance of the undertakings offered by Chemapol Foreign Trade Company Ltd, Prague, and Chemolimpex, Budapest referred to in Decision 84/408/EEC and Decision 104/85/EEC respectively, is hereby withdrawn.  Article 2  The anti-dumping review investigation referred to in Article 1 is hereby terminated in so far as it concerns imports of copper sulphate originating in Poland and the USSR.  Done at Brussels, 30 July 1987.  For the Commission  Willy DE CLERCQ  Member of the Commission  (1) OJ No L 201, 30. 7. 1984, p. 1.  (2) OJ No L 167, 26. 6. 1987, p. 9.  (3) OJ No L 274, 7. 10. 1983, p. 1.  (4) OJ No L 281, 13. 10. 1983, p. 22.  (5) OJ No L 225, 22. 8. 1984, p. 22.  (6) OJ No L 275, 18. 10. 1984, p. 12.  (7) OJ No L 41, 12. 2. 1985, p. 13.  (8) OJ No C 200, 9. 8. 1986, p. 4.  (1) OJ No L 275, 18. 10. 1984, p. 12.  (2) OJ No L 296, 8. 11. 1985, p. 26.  (1) See page 18 of this Official Journal.


title: Council Decision (EU) 2016/2079 of 29 September 2016 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Partnership Agreement on Relations and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and New Zealand, of the other part

text:
               29.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 321/1

         COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2016/2079
   of 29 September 2016
   on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Partnership Agreement on Relations and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and New Zealand, of the other part
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 37 thereof,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207 and Article 212(1), in conjunction with Article 218(5) and the second subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,
   Having regard to the joint proposal from the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 25 June 2012, the Council authorised the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to open negotiations with New Zealand on a Framework Agreement to replace the Joint Declaration on relations and cooperation between the European Union and New Zealand of 21 September 2007.

               (2)

               The negotiations on the Partnership Agreement on Relations and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and New Zealand, of the other part (the ‘Agreement’) were successfully concluded on 30 July 2014. The Agreement reflects both the historically close relationship and increasingly strong links developing between the Parties, and their desire to further strengthen and extend their relations in an ambitious and innovative way.

               (3)

               Article 58 of the Agreement provides that the Union and New Zealand may apply provisionally certain provisions of the Agreement, determined mutually by the two Parties, pending its entry into force.

               (4)

               The Agreement should therefore be signed on behalf of the Union and some of its provisions should be applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures necessary for its conclusion,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The signing on behalf of the Union of the Partnership Agreement on Relations and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and New Zealand, of the other part, is hereby authorised, subject to the conclusion of the Agreement.
   The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   Pending its entry into force, in accordance with Article 58 of the Agreement and subject to the notifications provided for therein, the following provisions of the Agreement shall be applied provisionally between the Union and New Zealand, but only to the extent that they cover matters falling within the Union's competence, including matters falling within the Union's competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy (1):

               —

               Article 3 (Dialogue),

               —

               Article 4 (Cooperation in regional and international organisations),

               —

               Article 5 (Political dialogue),

               —

               Article 53 (Joint Committee), with the exception of points (g) and (h) of paragraph 3 thereof, and

               —

               Title X (Final provisions), with the exception of Article 57 and Article 58(1) and (3), to the extent necessary for the purpose of ensuring the provisional application of the provisions of the Agreement referred to in this Article.

         Article 3
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.
   Article 4
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 29 September 2016.

            For the Council

            The President

         P. ŽIGA

      (1)  The date from which the provisions of the Agreement referred to in Article 2 will be applied provisionally, will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the General Secretariat of the Council.


Avis juridique important

|

31998D0509

98/509/EC: Council Decision of 18 June 1998 on the conclusion of an Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment between the European Community and New Zealand

Official Journal L 229 , 17/08/1998 P. 0061 - 0061

COUNCIL DECISION of 18 June 1998 on the conclusion of an Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment between the European Community and New Zealand (98/509/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113 in conjunction with Article 228(2), first sentence, and (3), first subparagraph, and Article 228(4) thereof,Having regard to the proposal of the Commission,Whereas the Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment between the European Community and New Zealand has been negotiated and initialled on 19 July 1996 and should be approved;Whereas certain tasks for implementation have been attributed to the Joint Committee established by the Agreement, and in particular the power to amend certain aspects of the Sectoral Annexes thereto;Whereas the appropriate internal procedures should be established to ensure the proper functioning of the Agreement, and whereas it is necessary to empower the Commission to make certain technical amendments to the Agreement and to take certain decisions for its implementation,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The Agreement on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment between the European Community and New Zealand, including its Annexes and the Joint Declarations attached thereto, are hereby approved on behalf of the European Community.The text of the Agreement, the Annexes and the Joint Declarations attached to this Decision.Article 2The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the persons empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community and to transmit, on behalf of the Community, the note provided for in Article 14 of the Agreement (1).Article 31. The Commission shall represent the Community and the Joint Committee provided for in Article 12 by the Commission, assisted by the special committee designated by the Council. The Commission shall proceed, after consultation with this special Committee, to the appointments, notifications, exchange of information and requests for verifications referred to in Article 8(2) and Article 12(4)(c), (d) and (e) of the Agreement.2. The position of the Community with regard to decisions to be taken by the Joint Committee shall be determined, with regard to amendments of Sections I to IV of the Sectoral Annexes (Article 12(4)(a) and (b) and (6) of the Agreement) and verification of compliance in accordance with Article 8 and Article 12(6)(d) of the Agreement by the Commission following consultation of the special committee referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.3. In all other cases the position of the Community in the Joint Committee shall be determined by the Council, acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission.Article 4This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.Done at Luxembourg, 18 June 1998.For the CouncilThe PresidentG. STRANG(1) The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.