title: Council Decision (EU) 2016/192 of 12 February 2016 amending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of Národná banka Slovenska

text:
               13.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 38/7

         COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2016/192
   of 12 February 2016
   amending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of Národná banka Slovenska
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to Protocol No 4 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
   Having regard to the Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 10 December 2015 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Národná banka Slovenska (ECB/2015/45) (1),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are to be audited by independent external auditors recommended by the Governing Council of the ECB and approved by the Council.

               (2)

               The mandate of the external auditors of Národná banka Slovenska expired after the audit for the financial year 2014. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2015.

               (3)

               Národná banka Slovenska has selected Ernst & Young Slovakia, spol. s r.o., as its external auditors for the financial years 2015 and 2016.

               (4)

               The Governing Council of the ECB has recommended that Ernst & Young Slovakia, spol. s r.o., should be appointed as the external auditors of Národná banka Slovenska for the financial years 2015 and 2016.

               (5)

               Following the recommendation of the Governing Council of the ECB, Council Decision 1999/70/EC (2) should be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   In Article 1 of Decision 1999/70/EC, paragraph 16 is replaced by the following:

                  ‘16.

                  Ernst & Young Slovakia, spol. s r.o., is hereby approved as the external auditors of Národná banka Slovenska for the financial years 2015 and 2016.’.

   Article 2
   This Decision shall take effect on the date of its notification.
   Article 3
   This Decision is addressed to the ECB.

      Done at Brussels, 12 February 2016.

            For the Council

            The President

         J.R.V.A. DIJSSELBLOEM

      (1)  OJ C 425, 18.12.2015, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Decision 1999/70/EC of 25 January 1999 concerning the external auditors of the national central banks (OJ L 22, 29.1.1999, p. 69).


Avis juridique important

|

31996D1106(01)

Council Decision of 25 October 1996 appointing an alternate member of the Advisory Committee on Nursing Training

Official Journal C 331 , 06/11/1996 P. 0001 - 0001

COUNCIL DECISION of 25 October 1996 appointing  an alternate member of the Advisory Committee on Nursing Training (96/C  331/01) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to Council Decision 77/454/EEC of 27 June 1977 setting up an Advisory Committee on  Nursing Training  (1), and in particular Articles 3 and 4 thereof, Whereas, in its Decision of 25 July 1994  (2), the Council appointed Mrs  Jeanette DAVIDSON an  alternate member of that Committee for the period ending 24 July 1997; Whereas the United Kingdom Government has nominated Mrs Anna MASLIN to replace Mrs  Jeanette   DAVIDSON, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Sole Article Mrs Anna MASLIN is hereby appointed an alternate member of the  Advisory Committee on Nursing Training in place of Mrs Jeanette DAVIDSON for the remainder of the  latter's term of office, which ends on 24 July 1997. Done at Luxembourg, 25 October 1996. For the Council The President E. KENNY (1) OJ No L 176, 15. 7. 1977, p. 11.  (2) OJ No C 221, 9. 8. 1994, p. 3.


Avis juridique important

|

31986D0468

86/468/EEC: Council Decision of 22 September 1986 accepting undertakings given in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain acrylic fibres originating in Israel, Mexico, Romania and Turkey and terminating the investigation

Official Journal L 272 , 24/09/1986 P. 0029

*****COUNCIL  DECISION  of 22 September 1986  accepting undertakings given in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain acrylic fibres originating in Israel, Mexico, Romania and Turkey and terminating the investigation  (86/468/EEC)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 of 23 July 1984 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1) and in particular Article 10 thereof,  Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, after consultations within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the above Regulation,  Whereas:  A. Procedure  (1) In May 1985 the Commission received a complaint lodged by the Comité International de la Rayonne et des Fibres Synthétiques on behalf of Community producers representing substantially all Community production of the products in question.  The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding. The Commission accordingly announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (1), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of discontinuous acrylic fibres, not carded, combed or otherwise prepared for spinning falling within subheading ex 56.01 A of the Common Customs Tariff (NIMEXE code 56.01-15), continuous filament tow for the manufacture of discontinuous acrylic fibres falling within subheading ex 56.02 A of the Common Customs Tariff (NIMEXE code 56.02-15), and discontinuous acrylic fibres carded, combed or otherwise prepared for spinning falling within subheading ex 56.04 A of the Common Customs Tariff (NIMEXE code ex 56.04-15) originating in Israel, Mexico, Romania and Turkey and commenced an investigation.  (2) The Commission officially so advised the exporters and importers known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting countries and the complainants and gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing.  (3) All of the exporters and certain importers made their views known in writing. In addition, the exporters concerned requested and were granted hearings. Submissions were also made by a small number of Community processors of the products in question.  (4) The Commission requested and received detailed written submissions from all complainant Community producers, all exporters and certain importers. All information deemed necessary for the purposes of a preliminary determination was verified and investigations were carried out at the premises of the following:  (a) Community producers  Anic Fibre SpA, San Donato Milanese (Italy),  Bayer AG, Leverkusen (Federal Republic of Germany),  Courtaulds PLC, London (United Kingdom),  Courtaulds SA, Neuilly (France),  Hoechst AG, Frankfurt (Federal Republic of Germany),  Montefibre SpA, Milan (Italy),  Snia Fibre SpA, Cesano Maderno (Italy);  (b) Non-Community producers/exporters  Israel Chemical Fibres Ltd, Ashdod (Israel),  Celanese Mexicana SA, Mexico City (Mexico),  Celulosa y Derivados SA, Guadalajara (Mexico),  Akrilik Kimya Sanayii AS, Yalova (Turkey),  AK-PA Tekstil Ihracat Pazarlama AS, Istanbul (Turkey);  (c) Community importers  Cofis Srl, Prato (Italy),  Lafis, Calenzano (Italy),  Montebianco Industrie Tessili SpA, Biella (Italy),  Tessibel SAS, Prato (Italy),  Rohtex Textil GmbH, Moenchengladbach (Federal Republic of Germany),  Schaette Linder GmbH, Moenchengladbach (Federal Republic of Germany).  The investigation of dumping covered the calendar year 1984.  B. Normal value  (a) Turkey  (5) Normal value was provisionally determined on the basis of the domestic prices of the producer Akrilik Kimya Sanayii AS who provided sufficient evidence, and were considered to be representative of the domestic market concerned. Normal value was established only for continuous filament tow since there were no exports of the other types of acrylic fibres concerned by this procedure.  (b) Israel  (6) The preliminary investigation to determine the existence of dumping showed that the prices of the like products marketed by the exporter on his domestic market had, over an extended period of time, been lower than all costs both fixed and variable ordinarily incurred in its production. The normal value was therefore determined on the basis of constructed value which was computed by taking the company's total cost of materials and manufacture, including overheads, and adding a profit margin of 5 %, considered to be reasonable in the light of the industry's performance during a representative profitable period.  Normal value was established only for discontinuous acrylic fibres, not carded, combed or otherwise prepared and for continuous filament tow. Normal value was not established for discontinuous acrylic fibres, carded, combed or otherwise prepared because exports of this product to the Community were found to be occasional and considered to be de minimis.  (c) Mexico  (7) The preliminary investigation to determine the existence of dumping showed that the prices of the like products marketed by the two Mexican exporters on their domestic market had, over an extended period of time, been lower than all costs both fixed and variable ordinarily incurred in their production. Normal value was therefore determined on the basis of constructed value.  (8) For Celulosa y Derivados SA, the constructed value was computed by taking the company's total cost of materials and manufacature, including overheads, and adding a profit of 7 % considered to be reasonable in the light of the profitability of the company in the previous three-year period.  With regard to substandard fibres, normal value was determined on the basis of the selling prices on the domestic market, account being taken of the losses for the reference period and the abovementioned profit margin.  (9) For Celanese Mexicana SA the constructed value was computed by taking the company's total cost of materials and manufacture including overheads, and adding a profit of 5 %, considered to be reasonable in the light of the industry's performance during a representative profitable period.  As far as substandard fibres are concerned, in seeking to determine the normal value for Celanese Mexicana, the Commission had to take account of the fact that no sales of the like product were made by Celanese Mexicana on the domestic market. The Commission therefore determined normal value for this company and these fibres on the basis of the selling prices on the domestic market of the other Mexican producer and exporter, i.e. Celulosa y Derivados SA. (d) Romania  (10) In order to establish whether the imports from Romania were dumped, the Commission had to take account of the fact that this country does not have a market economy and therefore had to base its determinations on the normal value in a market economy country. In this connection the complainants had suggested the Turkish market. There were no objections to this suggestion.  The Commission is satisfied that in Turkey there are no extraordinary differences in production processes with the exporting country or in the scale of production and that there is sufficient internal competition to ensure that price levels are in a 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 Turkey.  (11) Normal value was established only for discontinuous acrylic fibres, not carded, combed or otherwise prepared and for discontinuous acrylic fibres, carded, combed or otherwise prepared. Normal value was not established for continuous filament tow because exports of this product to the Community were found to be occasional and considered to be de minimis.  C. Export price  (12) 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  (13) In comparing normal value with export prices the Commission took appropriate account of the differences influencing the comparability of the prices, in so far as these were sufficiently substantial. Those differences concerned, in particular, the exemption of entry duties and domestic turnover tax on the raw materials used for manufacturing the exported acrylic fibres as well as in physical characteristics and payment terms.  In addition, adjustments were also proposed for differences in certain cost savings in producing large batches for export and for marketing expenses on the domestic market. However, the evidence submitted was not sufficient to prove the savings in the cost of producing different quantities or the existence of the alleged marketing expenses.  Finally, an adjustment was proposed by the Israeli exporter for amounts collected by him under an insurance contract intended to cover losses from differences between the inflation rate in Israel and the rate of devaluation of the national Israeli currency. The Commission did not accept this claim since this insurance did not have any direct effect on the price paid by Community customers for the product exported by the Israeli exporter.  All comparisons were made at an ex-works level.  E. Margins  (14) Dumping margins were established by comparing the normal value determined as described above with export prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis, exports at identical prices being grouped together. The above examination shows the existence of dumping in respect of all the exporters involved. The dumping margins vary according to the exporter, the importing Member State and the type and quality of the product concerned. The weighted average margins for each of the exporters investigated were as follows:  1.2 //  // (%)  // - AK-PA Tekstil Ihracat Pazarlama AS, Istanbul (NIMEXE code 56.02-15):   // 5,50   // - Israel Chemical Fibres Ltd, Ashdod (NIMEXE code 56.01-15):   // 10,60  // - Israel Chemical Fibres Ltd, Ashdod (NIMEXE code 56.02-15):   // 6,60   // - Celanese Mexicana SA, Mexico City (NIMEXE code 56.01-15):   // 28,85   // - Celulosa y Derivados SA, Guadalajara (NIMEXE code 56.01-15):   // 58,47   // - Celulosa y Derivados SA, Guadalajara (NIMEXE code 56.02-15):  // 78,04   // - Celulosa y Derivados SA, Guadalajara (NIMEXE code ex 56.04-15):   // 78,28   // - Danubiana, Bucharest (NIMEXE code 56.01-15):   // 36,60   // - Danubiana, Bucharest (NIMEXE code ex 56.04-15):   // 18,50  F. Injury  (15) With regard to the injury caused by the dumped imports the evidence available to the Commission shows that imports into the Community from Israel, Mexico, Romania and Turkey of:  (a) discontinuous acrylic fibres, not carded, combed or otherwise prepared for spinning (NIMEXE code 56.01-15) increased from 892 tonnes in 1981 to 4 735 tonnes in 1984, and were 2 520 tonnes during 1985; (b) continuous filament tow for the manufacture of discontinuous acrylic fibres (NIMEXE code 56.02-15) increased from 9 506 tonnes in 1981 to 12 534 tonnes in 1984 and to 17 468 tonnes in 1985;  (c) discontinuous acrylic fibres, carded, combed or otherwise prepared for spinning (NIMEXE code ex 56.04-15) increased from 901 tonnes in 1981 to 3 802 tonnes in 1984 and were 1 865 tonnes during 1985.  (16) Total imports of all fibres in question into the Communiy from the four countries under consideration increased from 11 299 tonnes in 1981 to 21 071 tonnes in 1984 and to 21 853 tonnes during 1985 with a consequent increase in market share held by the exporting countries from 3 % in 1981 to 5,1 % in 1984 and to 5,4 % in 1985.  (17) Imports into the Communiy from countries other than Israel, Mexico, Romania and Turkey have decreased from 24 396 tonnes in 1981 to 16 552 tonnes in 1984 and to 7 925 tonnes during the first half of 1985 with a consequent decrease in market share from 6,5 % in 1981 to 4 % in 1984 and to 3,7 % in 1985.  (18) The weighted average resale prices to the first independent buyer of the imports from Israel, Mexico, Romania and Turkey undercut those of the Community producers during the investigation period, depending on the exporter, the importing Member State, the type and the quality of the product concerned. The weighted average undercutting margins were as follows:  1.2 //  // %  // - AK-PA Tekstil Ihracat Pazarlama, Istanbul (NIMEXE code 56.02-15):   // from 0,8 to 4,3   // - Israel Chemical Fibres Ltd, Ashdod (NIMEXE code 56.01-15):   // from 1,0 to 10,0   // - Israel Chemical Fibres Ltd, Ashdod (NIMEXE code 56.02-15):   // from 3,7 to 10,8   // - Celanese Mexicana SA, Mexico City (NIMEXE code 56.01-15):   // from 28,7 to 35,3  // - Celulosa y Derivados SA, Guadalajara (NIMEXE code 56.01-15):   // from 9,3 to 20,2   // - Celulosa y Derivados SA, Guadalajara (NIMEXE code 56.02-15):   // from 9,3 to 20,2  // - Celulosa y Derivados SA, Guadalajara (NIMEXE code ex 56.04-15):   // from 7,5 to 20,3   // - Danubiana, Bucharest (NIMEXE code 56.01-15):   // from 21,4 to 28,6   // - Danubiana, Bucharest (NIMEXE code ex 56.04-15):   // from 7,4 to 20,1  (19) The Community industry concerned has increased its production of the acrylic fibres in question from 529 696 tonnes in 1981 to 642 357 tonnes in 1984 and to 668 800 tonnes in 1985. Utilization of capacity has progressed from 72,7 % in 1981 to 84,3 % in 1984 and to 83,3 % in 1985.  (20) However, the evidence available to the Commission shows that prices obtained by Community producers for the same fibres as those that are being dumped are not sufficient to cover the full cost of production of these fibres and allow them a modest profit. In many cases Community producers have had to reduce their prices in order to meet the prices of the dumped imports, thus avoiding reductions in production which would have resulted in further increases in unit costs.  Communiy producers have had to align their prices on a generally very low and insufficient level which has led certain of them to incur substantial losses for the product sector in question since 1981 and has left the others with an insufficient profit margin.  (21) The Commission also considered whether the Community industry faced a threat of injury. Anti-dumping action concerning acrylic fibres began in 1981 when an anti-dumping duty was imposed on exports of certain acrylic fibres originating in the United States of America. The rate of the duty, which is still in force, is 13,7 % for discontinuous acrylic fibres, not carded, combed or otherwise prepared for spinning and 17,6 % on continuous filament tow for the manufacture of discontinuous acrylic fibres.  Imports originating in the United States of America have decreased substantially since then and Community producers, who had suffered heavy losses since 1979, took advantage of this decrease in imports to start a restructuring process which involved reducing capacities and becoming more efficient, until finally, in 1984, some of them realized a small profit. (22) Imports from Israel, Mexico, Romania and Turkey virtually started in 1980 and reached their highest level in 1984 and 1985. Although the volume of these imports represents only about 6 % of Community consumption, the prices at which these fibres were imported have prevented the restructuring programme of the Community from being completely achieved. The price-depressing effect of these imports has not allowed certain of the Community producers to become as profitable as was planned. Given the recent increase in imports and the price undercutting established, Community producers now run the risk of finding themselves in the same situation as in 1980 to 1981. In addition the Commission had to take account of the following factors:  (a) the significant rate of increase in imports of the dumped products into the Community market (93 % between 1981 and 1985) indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports thereof;  (b) the capacities, freely available, of the exporters (Mexico, Romania and Turkey) and the announcement of additional capacities in 1987 (Mexico and Turkey) indicating the likelihood of substantially increased dumped exports to the Community market taking into account the existing price level of Community producers in their market, which is considerably higher than the price level of the other possible export markets of the four countries in question;  (c) the fact that imports from these countries are entering at prices that have a significant depressing effect on domestic prices and would most likely, as has been the case until now, increase demand for further imports.  All these factors lead the Commission to the conclusion that further dumped imports from Israel, Mexico, Romania and Turkey are imminent and that protective action is necessary, otherwise material injury will occur.  (23) In establishing the impact of the dumped imports on the Community industry the Commission had considered the effect of all dumped imports from all countries and companies concerned. Certain exporters argued that the impact of the individual exports should be looked at in isolation and considered that there was no threat of injury in view of the low level of their market share in the Community.  In analysing whether aggregation was appropriate in each case, the Commission considered whether the dumped imports in question contributed to the threat of injury sustained by the Community industry. In reaching its conclusion, the Commission considered the comparability of the imported products in terms of physical characteristics, the increase in volume of imports from previous comparable periods and the low level of prices attributable to the products of all supplying companies and the extent to which each of the imported product competed in the Community with the like product of the Community industry. On the basis of such analysis the Commission took the view that the dumped imports from the companies concerned could be considered as contributing to the threat of injury suffered and that these imports have been made under such conditions that, should the Commission treat any company in isolation, it would be acting in a discriminatory manner against the rest. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that for the purposes of establishing the level of the threat of injury sustained by the Community industry, regard should be had to the effect of the dumped imports aggregated from all exporting companies concerned.  G. Community interest  (24) Community processing industries have argued that the introduction of protective measures would not be in the Community interest because it would make them less competitive with processed products imported from third countries.  (25) In view of the economic and social importance of the Community industry on the one hand and the relatively low incidence of a price increase on the costs of the processing industry on the other hand, the Commission has nevertheless come to the conclusion that it is in the Community's interests that action be taken.  (26) However, since discontinuous acrylic fibre carded, combed or otherwise prepared, is among the products covered by the agreement between the European Community and Romania on trade in textile products (1) which establishes agreed quantitative limits for this category of products as well as special procedures, this category of products should, for the time being, be excluded from any measures to be taken with regard to Romania.  H. Disclosure  (27) The exporters concerned were informed of the main findings of the preliminary investigation and commented on them. The evidence and the calculations were re-examined in the light of these comments. Adjustments were made where necessary to take account of the exporters' arguments wherever these were justified (see paragraph 13).  I. Undertakings  (28) Undertakings were subsequently offered by all exporters with regard to their exports of acrylic fibres to the Community.  (29) The effect of the said undertakings will be to increase export prices to the Community to the level necessary to eliminate the margin of dumping or undercutting established in the course of the investigation, whichever is the lower.  In these circumstances, the undertakings offered are considered acceptable and the investigation may therefore be terminated without the imposition of anti-dumping duties.  (30) As objections to this course of action were raised in the Advisory Committee by one Member State, the investigation was not terminated by the Commission with respect to the companies in question but a proposal is being submitted to that effect by the Commission to the Council.  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  The Council hereby accepts the undertakings given by:  (a) AK-PA Tekstil Ihracat Pazarlama AS, Istanbul, Turkey, in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning continuous filament tow for the manufacture of discontinuous acrylic fibres falling within subheading ex 56.02 A of the Common Customs Tariff (NIMEXE code 56.02-15) originating in Turkey;  (b) Israel Chemical Fibres Ltd, Ashdod, Israel, in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning discontinuous acrylic fibres, not carded, combed or otherwise prepared for spinning falling within subheading ex 56.01 A of the Common Customs Tariff (NIMEXE code 56.01-15) and continuous filament tow for the manufacture of discontinuous acrylic fibres falling within subheading ex 56.02 A of the Common Customs Tariff (NIMEXE code 56.02-15) originating in Israel;  (c) Celanese Mexicana SA, Mexico City, Mexico, in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning discontinuous acrylic fibres, not carded, combed or otherwise prepared for spinning falling within subheading ex 56.01 A of the Common Customs Tariff (NIMEXE code 56.01-15), continuous filament tow for the manufacture of discontinuous acrylic fibres falling within subheading ex 56.02 A of the Common Customs Tariff (NIMEXE code 56.02-15), and discontinuous acrylic fibres, carded, combed or otherwise prepared for spinning falling within subheading ex 56.04 A of the Common Customs Tariff (NIMEXE code ex 56.04-15) originating in Mexico;  (d) Celulosa y Derivados SA, Guadalajara, Mexico, in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning discontinuous acrylic fibres, not carded, combed or otherwise prepared for spinning falling within subheading ex 56.01 A of the Common Customs Tariff (NIMEXE code 56.01-15), continuous filament tow for the manufacture of discontinuous acrylic fibres falling within subheading ex 56.02 A of the Common Customs Tariff (NIMEXE code 56.02-15), and discontinuous acrylic fibres, carded, combed or otherwise prepared for spinning falling within subheading ex 56.04 A of the Common Customs Tariff (NIMEXE code ex 56.04-15) originating in Mexico;  (e) Danubiana, Bucharest, Romania, in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning discontinuous acrylic fibres, not carded, combed or otherwise prepared for spinning falling within subheading ex 56.01 A of the Common Customs Tariff (NIMEXE code 56.01-15) originating in Romania.  Article 2  The anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of certain acrylic fibres originating in Israel, Mexico, Romania and Turkey is hereby terminated.  Done at Brussels, 22 September 1986.  For the Council  The President  M. JOPLING  (1) OJ No L 201, 30. 7. 1984, p. 1.  (2) OJ No C 159, 29. 6. 1985, p. 2.  (1) Referred to in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3589/82 of 23 December 1982 (OJ No L 374, 31. 12. 1982, p. 106).


title: 2009/327/EC: Commission Decision of 16 April 2009 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan

text:
               17.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 98/39

      COMMISSION DECISION

   of 16 April 2009
   terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan
   (2009/327/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) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
   After consulting the Advisory Committee,
   Whereas:
   1.   PROCEDURE

   1.1.   Initiation of the proceeding

               (1)

               On 1 February 2008, pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation, the Commission announced by a notice (notice of initiation) published in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Community of stainless steel cold rolled flat products (SSCR), originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan (the countries concerned).

               (2)

               The proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 21 December 2007 by EUROFER (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Community production of SSCR. The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of SSCR originating in the countries concerned and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.

         1.2.   Parties concerned and verification visits

               (3)

               The Commission officially advised the complainant, all the Community producers, importer/traders and users known to be concerned and their associations, as well as the exporting producers and the authorities of the countries concerned of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation. All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.

               (4)

               In order to allow exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the exporting producers known to be concerned as well as to the authorities of the PRC. Four groups of companies in the PRC claimed MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation or IT, should the investigation establish that they did not meet the conditions for MET.

               (5)

               In view of the apparent large number of exporting producers in the PRC, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, of importers in the Community, and of Community producers, sampling for those parties was envisaged in the notice of initiation in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

               (6)

               However, for the PRC and the Republic of Korea, given that the investigation of all the cooperating companies or company groups was considered feasible within the deadlines and not unduly burdensome, it was subsequently decided that sampling would not be necessary. For Taiwan, out of the 10 companies or company groups (one group consisted of two companies) which had replied to the sampling questions, a sample of four companies or company groups was selected. However, one of them subsequently withdrew its cooperation; therefore the final sample consists of three companies or company groups. Finally, one non-sampled Taiwanese company requested individual examination pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. However, since it did not submit sufficient information, it was considered as non-cooperating.

               (7)

               As concerns the importers of SSCR, the Commission requested all known importers to provide information concerning imports and sales of the product concerned. A large number of importers offered to cooperate. The five major importers in terms of volume of imports were selected for the sample. These importers represent around 16 % of total Community imports from the countries concerned. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the parties concerned were consulted and raised no objection. However, three of the selected importers eventually did not submit a questionnaire reply and decided not to cooperate further with the investigation. The two remaining importers represented 2 to 4 % of the total Community imports from the countries concerned during the investigation period. As inclusion of some of the other importers which had offered cooperation would only slightly affect the representativity of the sample, it was decided not to replace the three sampled importers which ceased their cooperation with the investigation.

               (8)

               With regard to the Community producers, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, a sample was selected based on the largest representative volume of production and EC sales of SSCR in the Community, which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. On the basis of the information received from the producers in the Community, the Commission selected four companies (two groups of related companies) having the largest volume of production and sales in the Community. In terms of Community production, the sampled companies represented 62 % of the estimated total production of SSCR in the Community and 99 % of the sales volume in the Community of the producers that offered cooperation. In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the parties concerned were consulted and raised no objection. In addition, the remaining Community producers were requested to provide certain general data for the injury analysis.

               (9)

               The Commission sent questionnaires to the sampled exporting producers, Community producers and importers, and to all known users and user associations. Full questionnaire replies were received from four Community producers, 25 companies belonging to four company groups in the PRC, eight companies belonging to three company groups in the Republic of Korea, three sampled exporting producers in Taiwan, one company in Taiwan requesting individual examination, two importers and five users in the Community. In addition six remaining Community producers provided the requested general data.

               (10)

               The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the purpose of examining the MET/IT claims in the case of the PRC, and for a determination of dumping, resulting injury and Community interest for the countries concerned. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:

                           (a)

                           Community producers

                                       —

                                       ArcelorMittal, Genk, Belgium,

                                       —

                                       ArcelorMittal, Paris, France,

                                       —

                                       ThyssenKrupp Nirosta, Krefeld, Germany,

                                       —

                                       ThyssenKrupp Terni, Terni, Italy;

                           (b)

                           Exporting producers in Taiwan

                                       —

                                       Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd, Taipei,

                                       —

                                       Jie Jin Material Science Technology Co. Ltd., Yung Kang City,

                                       —

                                       Yeun Chyang Industrial Co., Ltd, Shijou Shiang, Chang-Hwa,

                                       —

                                       YUSCO Group (Yieh United Steel Corporation and related companies), Kaohsiung;

                           (c)

                           Exporting producers in the Republic of Korea

                                       —

                                       Daiyang Metal Co., Ltd; Seoul,

                                       —

                                       The group of BNG Steel Co., Ltd and Hyundai Steel Company; Changwon and Seoul,

                                       —

                                       The group of POSCO and Daimyung TMS CO., Ltd; Seoul;

                           (d)

                           Exporting producers in the PRC

                                       —

                                       Lianzhong Stainless Steel Corp. (LISCO), Guangzhou,

                                       —

                                       Ningbo Qiyi Precision Metals Co., Ltd; Ningbo,

                                       —

                                       POSCO China Group, (group of eight companies); Zhangjiagang, Qingdao and Hong Kong SAR,

                                       —

                                       STSS Group (Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co., Ltd and 14 related companies); Taiyuan, Tianjin, Wuxi, Foshan, Hong Kong SAR and Willich, Germany;

                           (e)

                           Unrelated importers in the Community

                                       —

                                       Minmetals Germany GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany,

                                       —

                                       Nord Est Metalli Srl, San Vito al Tagliamento, Italy;

                           (f)

                           Users in the Community

                                       —

                                       BSH Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH, München, Germany,

                                       —

                                       Eberspächer GmbH & Co. KG, Neunkirchen, Germany,

                                       —

                                       Lowara Srl, Montecchio Maggiore, Italy.

               (11)

               In light of the need to establish a normal value for the exporting producers in the PRC to which MET might not be granted, a verification in the provisionally selected analogue country, the USA, took place at the premises of the following producers:

                           —

                           AK Steel; West Chester, OH, Coshocton, OH and Butler, PA,

                           —

                           Theis Precision Metal; Bristol, CT.

         1.3.   Investigation period

               (12)

               The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2007 (the investigation period or IP). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2004 to the end of the investigation period (period considered).

         1.4.   Product concerned

               (13)

               The product allegedly being dumped is flat-rolled products of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (the product concerned), normally declared within CN codes 7219 31 00, 7219 32 10, 7219 32 90, 7219 33 10, 7219 33 90, 7219 34 10, 7219 34 90, 7219 35 10, 7219 35 90, 7220 20 21, 7220 20 29, 7220 20 41, 7220 20 49, 7220 20 81 and 7220 20 89.

               (14)

               SSCR is used in a wide range of consumer industries and final applications. Examples of these are:

                           —

                           car manufacturing: exhaust systems, decoration, safety and structural components,

                           —

                           equipment for the chemicals, petrochemicals, papermaking, food processing and pharmaceuticals industries,

                           —

                           domestic appliances, kitchen utensils, tableware and cutlery,

                           —

                           manufacture of medical equipment,

                           —

                           public lighting and street furniture equipment,

                           —

                           manufacture of tubes for fluids transport, decoration, structural applications, heat exchangers,

                           —

                           shipbuilding,

                           —

                           desalination plants,

                           —

                           manufacture of railway trucks and carriages, road tankers, refrigerated containers,

                           —

                           decoration and structural applications in building industry.

         1.5.   Interim report and subsequent procedure

               (15)

               On 4 November 2008 the Commission disclosed to interested parties an Interim Report setting out its provisional findings with respect to this proceeding, i.e. the fact that the investigation established provisionally the existence of dumping but it did not conclude on the existence of a material link between dumped imports and any injury suffered by the Community industry and underlined the need to investigate further the situation as well as the aspect of possible threat of injury. On the basis of the provisional findings it was considered appropriate not to impose any provisional measures but to continue the investigation. All parties were given an opportunity to submit relevant evidence and comments on the provisional findings. The parties which so requested were also granted the opportunity to be heard. The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its final findings.

         2.   WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING

               (16)

               By a letter dated 4 March 2009 addressed to the Commission, the complainant formally withdrew its complaint. According to the complainant, this withdrawal was prompted by the fact that the current market situation for the Community industry differs significantly from the market situation in which the complaint was filed, given that the real and apparent demand has recently collapsed in the EU and this has also led to a decline in imports. In view of these market turbulences, the complainant does not want to pursue its current case which was based on an analysis of historic data that no longer fully reflect the current market conditions. According to the complainant, it is preferable to respond in these circumstances to any unfair injurious trade practices by way of a new case – in case a future situation would warrant such action – which could fully address the totality of the issues.

               (17)

               The complainant also argued that should the import volumes surge again, these imports could in the prevailing circumstances cast the viability of the Community industry into doubt.

               (18)

               It should be noted that the current situation with respect to the product concerned both in the EU and in the countries concerned is characterised by an unprecedented change of the fundamental economic parameters. While in these circumstances it is difficult to make reasoned assumptions as to the development of the market in the short to medium-term, it would also seem that the economic situation is volatile and that the appearance of injurious dumping could not be excluded. Given that at least during part of the investigation period a considerable surge of subject imports in a relative short period of time was found and given the price undercutting established, it is deemed appropriate to monitor imports into the EU of the product concerned. The information obtained in the framework of such monitoring would enable the Commission to react quickly, if necessary. For instance, it could be used for the purposes of the initiation of a new proceeding provided that the conditions as set out in Article 5 of the basic Regulation are met, i.e. if there is sufficient prima facie evidence of injurious dumping.

               (19)

               The Commission also notes that, should there be a new proceeding concerning this product and the circumstances warrant, an expeditious investigation may be appropriate. The basic Regulation in Article 7(1) indeed caters for such a possibility as it allows a rather fast imposition of provisional measures after initiation.

               (20)

               The monitoring period should apply for up to 24 months from the publication of the termination of the present proceeding.

               (21)

               In accordance with Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation, the proceeding may be terminated where the complaint is withdrawn unless such termination would not be in the Community interest.

               (22)

               The Commission considered that the present proceeding should be terminated since the investigation had not brought to light any consideration showing that such termination would not be in the Community interest. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment. However, no comments which could alter this decision were received.

               (23)

               The Commission therefore concludes that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan should be terminated without the imposition of anti-dumping measures,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of flat-rolled products of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, normally declared within CN codes 7219 31 00, 7219 32 10, 7219 32 90, 7219 33 10, 7219 33 90, 7219 34 10, 7219 34 90, 7219 35 10, 7219 35 90, 7220 20 21, 7220 20 29, 7220 20 41, 7220 20 49, 7220 20 81 and 7220 20 89 is hereby terminated.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 16 April 2009.

            For the Commission

         Catherine ASHTON

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ C 29, 1.2.2008, p. 13.


title: 2012/265/EU: Commission Decision of 21 May 2012 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China

text:
               22.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 131/7

         COMMISSION DECISION
   of 21 May 2012
   terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China
   (2012/265/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
   After consulting the Advisory Committee,
   Whereas:
   A.   PROCEDURE

               (1)

               On 16 June 2011, the European Commission (‘Commission’) received a complaint concerning the alleged injurious dumping of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’), lodged pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation by the Glass Fibre Fabrics Defence Coalition (‘GFFDC’ or ‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics.

               (2)

               The complaint contained prima facie evidence of the existence of dumping and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding.

               (3)

               On 28 July 2011, the Commission, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the PRC.

               (4)

               The Commission officially advised the exporters/producers in the PRC, importers, users and any associations known to be concerned, the authorities of the PRC and all known Union producers of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.

               (5)

               All interested parties who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted a hearing.

         B.   WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING

               (6)

               By a letter of 12 March 2012 to the Commission, the complainant formally withdrew its complaint.

               (7)

               In accordance with Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation, the proceeding may be terminated where the complaint is withdrawn, unless such termination would not be in the Union interest.

               (8)

               The investigation had not brought to light any considerations showing that such termination would be against the Union interest. Therefore the Commission considered that the present proceeding should be terminated. Interested parties were informed accordingly and were given the opportunity to comment. Comments were received from one interested party. However, these comments did not alter the finding that the termination of the proceeding would not be against the Union interest.

               (9)

               The Commission therefore concludes that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the PRC should be terminated,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of fabrics of woven or stitched or woven and stitched continuous filament glass fibre rovings, excluding products which are impregnated or pre-impregnated (pre-preg), and excluding open mesh fabrics with cells with a size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m2 originating in the People’s Republic of China, currently falling within CN codes ex 7019 39 00, ex 7019 40 00 and ex 7019 90 00, is hereby terminated.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 21 May 2012.

            For the Commission

            The President

         José Manuel BARROSO

      (1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

      (2)  OJ C 222, 28.7.2011, p. 12.


Avis juridique important

|

31981D0750

81/750/EEC: Council Decision of 17 September 1981 appointing additional members of the Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers

Official Journal L 269 , 24/09/1981 P. 0026 - 0027

*****COUNCIL  DECISION  of 17 September 1981  appointing additional members of the Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers  (81/750/EEC)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 51 thereof,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (1), and in particular Article 82 thereof,  Having regard to the Treaty concerning the accession of the Hellenic Republic to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community, signed on 28 May 1979, together with the Council Decision of 24 May 1979 in the accession of the Hellenic Republic to the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article 142 and Annex IX of the Act annexed to them,  Having regard to the list of candidates submitted by the Government of the Hellenic Republic,  Whereas the term of office of the members of the Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers in office at the time of the accession of the Hellenic Republic expires on 14 October 1981;  Whereas the Hellenic Republic will submit the name of a candidate for appointment as an alternate member in the employers' representatives category at a later date,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  The following are hereby appointed full members and alternate member of the Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers for the period ending on 14 October 1981:  I. Government representatives  1.2 // (A) Full members  // (b) Alternate member  // Mr A. Zogromalidis  // Mr P. Alatsatianos  // Mr G. Vakalopoulos  //  II. Trade union representatives  1.2 // (a) Full members  // (b) Alternate member  // Mr P. Theofanopoulos  // Mr O. Anagnostidis  // Mr G. Dassis  //  III. Representatives of employers' organizations  1.2 // (a) Full members  // (b) Alternate member  // Mr X.  (1) OJ No L 149, 5. 7. 1971, p. 2.  Article 2  The Council will later appoint a person to act as alternate member representing the employers' organizations.  Done at Brussels, 17 September 1981.  For the Council  The President  G. HOWE Charakas  //   // Mr B. Kritikos  //


title: Decision (EU) 2017/1711 of the European Parliament of 27 April 2017 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2015

text:
               29.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 252/303

         DECISION (EU) 2017/1711 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 27 April 2017
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2015
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2015,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2015, together with the Foundation'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 Foundation in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2015 (05873/2017 — C8-0049/2017),

               —

               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 (EEC) No 1365/75 of the Council of 26 May 1975 on the creation of a European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions (4), and in particular Article 16 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 Employment and Social Affairs (A8-0111/2017),

               1.

               Grants the Director of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions discharge in respect of the implementation of the Foundation'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 Director of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 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. 188.

      (2)  See footnote 1.

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

      (4)  OJ L 139, 30.5.1975, p. 1.

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


Avis juridique important

|

41994D0016

The Schengen acquis - Decision of the Executive Committee of 21 November 1994 on the acquisition of common entry and exit stamps (SCH/Com-ex (94) 16 rev.)

Official Journal L 239 , 22/09/2000 P. 0166 - 0167

DECISION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEof 21 November 1994on the acquisition of common entry and exit stamps(SCH/Com-ex (94)16 rev.)THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,Having regard to Article 132 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement,Having regard to Article 6 of the abovementioned Convention,Takes note of and approves document SCH/I-Front (94)43 andHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:The acquisition of common entry and exit stamps by the Contracting Parties shall take place in accordance with the principles laid down in document SCH/Gem-handb (93)15(1).Heidelberg, 21 November 1994.The ChairmanBernd Schmidbauer(1) Confidential document. See SCH/Com-ex (98)17.ACQUISITION OF COMMON ENTRY AND EXIT STAMPSSCH/I-Front (94)43The Contracting Parties shall take the specifications for manufacturing common entry and exit stamps, dated 17 September 1993 (SCH/Gem-handb (93)15), as the basis for the acquisition of stamps certifying entry and exit through the external borders to Schengen territory. These specifications specifically provide that two-colour ink stamps be used.By way of exception, common entry and exit stamps employing a single colour which have already been manufactured and distributed to the border authorities may be used until they are due to be replaced. The replacement stamps must in any event be two-coloured.