title: Council Decision 2005/44/CFSP of 20 December 2004 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the European Union military crisis management operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (operation ALTHEA)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 20/41

         COUNCIL DECISION 2005/44/CFSP
   of 20 December 2004
   concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the European Union military crisis management operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (operation ALTHEA)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 24 thereof,
   Having regard to the recommendation from the Presidency,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 12 July 2004, the Council adopted Joint Action 2004/570/CFSP on the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1).

               (2)

               Article 11(3) of that Joint Action provides that detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third states shall be the subject of an agreement in accordance with Article 24 of the Treaty on European Union.

               (3)

               Following authorisation by the Council on 13 September 2004, the Presidency, assisted by the Secretary-General/High Representative, negotiated an Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the European Union military crisis management operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

               (4)

               The Agreement should be approved,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the European Union military crisis management operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Operation ALTHEA) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.
   The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the European Union.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.
   Article 4
   This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 20 December 2004.

            For the Council

            The President

         P. VAN GEEL

      (1)  OJ L 252, 28.7.2004, p. 10.
   AGREEMENT
   between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the European Union military crisis management operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (operation ALTHEA)
   THE EUROPEAN UNION (EU),
   of the one part, and
   THE SWISS CONFEDERATION,
   of the other part,
   hereinafter referred to as the ‘Parties’,
   TAKING INTO ACCOUNT:

               —

               the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1575 (2004) of 22 November 2004 concerning the establishment of EUFOR,

               —

               the adoption by the Council of the European Union of Decision 2004/803/CFSP of 25 November 2004 on the launching of the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1),

               —

               the adoption by the Council of the European Union of Joint Action 2004/570/CFSP of 12 July 2004 on the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (2),

               —

               the invitation to the Swiss Confederation to participate in the EU-led operation,

               —

               the successful completion of the Force Generation process and the recommendation by the EU Operation Commander and the EU Military Committee to agree on the participation of Swiss Confederation forces in the EU-led operation,

               —

               Political and Security Committee Decision BiH/1/2004 of 21 September 2004 (3) on the acceptance of the Swiss Confederation’s contribution to the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina,

               —

               Political and Security Committee Decision BiH/3/2004 of 29 September 2004 on the setting-up of the Committee of Contributors for the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (4),

         HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   Participation in the operation
   1.   The Swiss Confederation shall associate itself with Joint Action 2004/570/CFSP of 12 July 2004 on the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and with any Joint Action or Decision by which the Council of the European Union decides to extend the EU military crisis management operation, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and any required implementing arrangements.
   2.   The contribution of the Swiss Confederation to the EU military crisis management operation is without prejudice to the decision-making autonomy of the European Union.
   3.   The Swiss Confederation shall ensure that its forces and personnel participating in the EU military crisis management operation undertake their mission in conformity with:

               —

               Joint Action 2004/570/CFSP and possible subsequent amendments;

               —

               the Operation Plan;

               —

               implementing measures.

         4.   Forces and personnel seconded to the operation by the Swiss Confederation shall carry out their duties and conduct themselves solely with the interest of the EU military crisis management operation in mind.
   5.   The Swiss Confederation shall inform the EU Operation Commander in due time of any change to its participation in the operation, including of the withdrawal of its contribution.
   Article 2
   Status of forces
   1.   The status of the forces and personnel contributed to the EU military crisis management operation by the Swiss Confederation shall be governed by the provisions on the status of forces, if available, agreed between the European Union and the host country.
   2.   The status of the forces and personnel contributed to headquarters or command elements located outside Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be governed by arrangements between the headquarters and command elements concerned and the Swiss Confederation.
   3.   Without prejudice to the provisions on the status of forces referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, the Swiss Confederation shall exercise jurisdiction over its forces and personnel participating in the EU military crisis management operation.
   4.   The Swiss Confederation shall be responsible for answering any claims linked to participation in the EU military crisis management operation, from or concerning any of its forces and personnel. The Swiss Confederation shall be responsible for bringing any action, in particular legal or disciplinary, against any of its forces and personnel, in accordance with its laws and regulations.
   5.   The Swiss Confederation undertakes to make a declaration as regards the waiver of claims against any State participating in the EU military crisis management operation, and to do so when signing this Agreement.
   6.   The European Union undertakes to ensure that Member States make a declaration as regards the waiver of claims, for the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the EU military crisis management operation, and to do so when signing this Agreement.
   Article 3
   Classified information
   1.   The Swiss Confederation shall take appropriate measures to ensure that EU classified information is protected in accordance with the European Union Council’s security regulations, contained in Council Decision 2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 (5), and in accordance with further guidance issued by competent authorities, including the EU Operation Commander.
   2.   Where the EU and the Swiss Confederation have concluded an agreement on security procedures for the exchange of classified information, the provisions of such an agreement shall apply in the context of the EU military crisis management operation.
   Article 4
   Chain of command
   1.   All forces and personnel participating in the EU military crisis management operation shall remain under the full command of their national authorities.
   2.   National authorities shall transfer the Operational and Tactical command and/or control of their forces and personnel to the EU Operation Commander. The EU Operation Commander is entitled to delegate his authority.
   3.   The Swiss Confederation shall have the same rights and obligations in terms of the day-to-day management of the operation as participating European Union Member States.
   4.   The EU Operation Commander may, following consultations with the Swiss Confederation, at any time request the withdrawal of the Swiss Confederation’s contribution.
   5.   A Senior Military Representative (SMR) shall be appointed by the Swiss Confederation to represent its national contingent in the EU military crisis management operation. The SMR shall consult with the EU Force Commander on all matters affecting the operation and shall be responsible for day-to-day contingent discipline.
   Article 5
   Financial aspects
   1.   The Swiss Confederation shall assume all the costs associated with its participation in the operation unless the costs are subject to common funding as provided for in the legal instruments referred to in Article 1(1) of this Agreement, as well as in Council Decision 2004/197/CFSP of 23 February 2004 establishing a mechanism to administer the financing of the common costs of EU operations having military or defence implications (6).
   2.   In case of death, injury, loss or damage to natural or legal persons from the State(s) in which the operation is conducted, the Swiss Confederation shall, when its liability has been established, pay compensation under the conditions foreseen in the provisions on the status of forces, if available, as referred to in Article 2(1) of this Agreement.
   Article 6
   Arrangements to implement the Agreement
   Any necessary technical and administrative arrangements in pursuance of the implementation of this Agreement shall be concluded between the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union/High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the appropriate authority of the Swiss Confederation.
   Article 7
   Non-compliance
   Should one of the Parties fail to comply with its obligations laid down in the previous Articles, the other Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by serving a notice of one month.
   Article 8
   Dispute settlement
   Disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement shall be settled by diplomatic means between the Parties.
   Article 9
   Entry into force
   1.   This Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the first month after the Parties have notified each other of the completion of the internal procedures necessary for this purpose.
   2.    This Agreement shall be provisionally applied from the date of signature.
   3.   This Agreement shall remain in force for the duration of the Swiss Confederation’s contribution to the operation.

      Done at Brussels, on 22 December 2004 in the English language in four copies.

            For the European Union

            For the Swiss Confederation

      (1)  OJ L 353, 27.11.2004, p. 21.

      (2)  OJ L 252, 28.7.2004, p. 10.

      (3)  OJ L 324, 27.10.2004, p. 20.

      (4)  OJ L 325, 28.10.2004, p. 64.

      (5)  OJ L 101, 11.4.2001, p. 1.

      (6)  OJ L 63, 28.2.2004, p. 68.
   DECLARATIONS
   referred to in Article 2(5) and (6) of the Agreement
   Declaration by the EU Member States:
   The EU Member States applying EU Joint Action 2004/570/CFSP of 12 July 2004 on the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina will endeavour, insofar as their internal legal systems so permit, to waive as far as possible claims against the Swiss Confederation for injury, death of their personnel, or damage to, or loss of, any assets owned by themselves and used by the EU crisis management operation if such injury, death, damage or loss:

               —

               was caused by personnel from the Swiss Confederation in the execution of their duties in connection with the EU crisis management operation, except in case of gross negligence or wilful misconduct, or

               —

               arose from the use of any assets owned by the Swiss Confederation, provided that the assets were used in connection with the operation and except in the case of gross negligence or wilful misconduct of EU crisis management operation personnel from the Swiss Confederation using those assets.

         Declaration by the Swiss Confederation:
   The Swiss Confederation applying EU Joint Action 2004/570/CFSP of 12 July 2004 on the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina will endeavour, insofar as its internal legal system so permits, to waive as far as possible claims against any other State participating in the EU crisis management operation for injury, death of its personnel, or damage to, or loss of, any assets owned by itself and used by the EU crisis management operation if such injury, death, damage or loss:

               —

               was caused by personnel in the execution of their duties in connection with the EU crisis management operation, except in case of gross negligence or wilful misconduct, or

               —

               arose from the use of any assets owned by States participating in the EU crisis management operation, provided that the assets were used in connection with the operation and except in case of gross negligence or wilful misconduct of EU crisis management operation personnel using those assets.


               27.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 353/106

         P8_TA(2015)0191
   Request for waiver of the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich
   European Parliament decision of 19 May 2015 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich (2014/2203(IMM))
   (2016/C 353/16)

      The European Parliament,

               —

               having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich, forwarded on 1 October 2014 by the Prosecutor General of Lithuania and announced in plenary on 12 November 2014,

               —

               having heard Viktor Uspaskich in accordance with Rule 9(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,

               —

               having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 May 1964, 10 July 1986, 15 and 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010, 6 September 2011 and 17 January 2013 (1),

               —

               having regard to Article 62 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,

               —

               having regard to Rule 5(2), Rule 6(1) and Rule 9 of its Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0149/2015),

               A.

               whereas the Prosecutor General of Lithuania has requested the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Viktor Uspaskich, Member of the European Parliament, in connection with a pre-trial investigation concerning an alleged criminal offence;

               B.

               whereas Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union states that Members of the European Parliament shall enjoy, in the territory of their own state, the immunities accorded to members of the parliament of that state;

               C.

               whereas Article 62 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 22(3) of the Statute of the Seimas state that criminal proceedings may not be instituted against a Member of the Seimas, and that she or he may not be arrested or subjected to any other restrictions of personal freedom without the consent of the Seimas, except in cases of flagrante delicto;

               D.

               whereas Viktor Uspaskich is accused of having committed the offence of contempt of court under Article 232 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania;

               E.

               whereas there is no evidence of fumus persecutionis, that is to say a well-founded suspicion that the legal proceedings have been instituted with the intention of causing political damage to the Member;

               1.

               Decides to waive the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich;

               2.

               Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the Prosecutor General of Lithuania and to Viktor Uspaskich.

      (1)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 1964, Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier, 101/63, ECLI:EU:C:1964:28; judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 July 1986, Wybot v Faure and others, 149/85, ECLI:EU:C:1986:310; judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2008, Mote v Parliament, T-345/05, ECLI:EU:T:2008:440; judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2008, Marra v De Gregorio and Clemente, C-200/07 and C-201/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:579; judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2010, Gollnisch v Parliament, T-42/06, ECLI:EU:T:2010:102; judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2011, Patriciello, C-163/10, ECLI: EU:C:2011:543; judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013, Gollnisch v Parliament, T-346/11 and T-347/11, ECLI:EU:T:2013:23.


title: 2005/125/EC: Commission Decision of 11 February 2005 on the continuation in the year 2005 of Community comparative trials and tests on propagating and planting material of Prunus domestica under Council Directive 92/34/EEC started in 2002

text:
               12.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 42/29

      COMMISSION DECISION

   of 11 February 2005
   on the continuation in the year 2005 of Community comparative trials and tests on propagating and planting material of Prunus domestica under Council Directive 92/34/EEC started in 2002
   (2005/125/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Council Directive 92/34/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants, intended for fruit production (1),
   Having regard to Commission Decision 2001/896/EC of 12 December 2001 setting out the arrangements for Community comparative trials and tests on propagating and planting material of fruit plants under Council Directive 92/34/EEC (2), and in particular Article 2 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Decision 2001/896/EC sets out the arrangements for the comparative trials and tests to be carried out under Directive 92/34/EEC as regards Prunus domestica from 2002 to 2006.

               (2)

               Tests and trials carried out in 2002 to 2004 should be continued in 2005,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Sole Article
   Community comparative trials and tests which began in 2002 on propagating and planting material of Prunus domestica shall be continued in 2005 in accordance with Decision 2001/896/EC.

      Done at Brussels, 11 February 2005.

            For the Commission

         Markos KYPRIANOU

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 157, 10.6.1992, p. 10. Directive as last amended by Directive 2003/111/EC (OJ L 311, 27.11.2003, p. 12).

      (2)  OJ L 331, 15.12.2001, p. 95.


title: 2010/51/: Decision of the Secretaries-General of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the Registrar of the Court of Justice, the Secretaries-General of the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Ombudsman of 19 January 2010 amending Decision 2002/621/EC on the organisation and operation of the European Communities Personnel Selection Office

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 26/24

         DECISION OF THE SECRETARIES-GENERAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION, THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARIES-GENERAL OF THE COURT OF AUDITORS, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS AND THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN
   of 19 January 2010
   amending Decision 2002/621/EC on the organisation and operation of the European Communities Personnel Selection Office
   (2010/51/EU)
   THE SECRETARIES-GENERAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE SECRETARIES-GENERAL OF THE COURT OF AUDITORS, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS AND THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN,
   Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and to the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities, as laid down by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1),
   Having regard to Decision 2002/620/EC of the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Ombudsman of 25 July 2002 establishing a European Communities Personnel Selection Office (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
   After consulting the Staff Regulations Committee,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Article 7 (appointment of staff) of the Decision on the organisation and operation of the Office adopted on 25 July 2002 does not provide for the possibility of engaging contract staff pursuant to Article 3a(1)(c) of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities because the latter provision was adopted subsequently to the Decision, by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 (3).

               (2)

               Experience has shown that it is necessary to authorise the renewal, for an indefinite period, of the employment contracts of contract staff where justified in the interests of the service, particularly when, owing to the duration and/or nature of the Office’s tasks, renewing these contracts for an indefinite period allows the Office to keep experienced staff able to ensure the continuity and efficiency of its tasks.

               (3)

               The employment of contract staff will be within the limits laid down in Article 3a(2) of the Conditions of employment of other servants.

               (4)

               The employment of contract staff will be within the limits of the appropriations for the Office’s annual budget, subject to approval by the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) Management Board, which comprises representatives from all the EU institutions and, as observers, the representative of the European Data Protection Supervisor and staff representatives,

         HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   In Article 7 of Decision 2002/621/EC of the Secretaries-General of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the Registrar of the Court of Justice, the Secretaries-General of the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, and the Representative of the European Ombudsman of 25 July 2002 on the organisation and operation of the European Communities Personnel Selection Office (4) the following paragraph 4a is inserted:

      ‘4a.   For carrying out tasks under the supervision of officials or temporary staff, the Office may make use of contract staff as provided for in Article 3a(1)(c) of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities. The use of contract staff shall be within the limits laid down by the Office’s annual budget on the basis of the estimate of the Office’s revenue and expenditure drawn up by EPSO’s Management Board.’

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

            For the European Parliament

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

            For the Council

            The Secretary-General

         Pierre DE BOISSIEU

            For the Commission

            The Secretary-General

         Catherine DAY

            For the Court of Justice

            The Registrar

         Roger GRASS

            For the Court of Auditors

            The Secretary-General

         Eduardo RUIZ GARCÍA

            For the Economic and Social Committee

            The Secretary-General

         Martin WESTLAKE

            For the Committee of the Regions

            The Secretary-General

         Gerhard STAHL

            For the European Ombudsman

            The Secretary-General

         Ian HARDEN

      (1)  OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 197, 26.7.2002, p. 53.

      (3)  OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 197, 26.7.2002, p. 56.


Avis juridique important

|

31998D0262

98/262/EC: Council Decision of 30 March 1998 on the principles, priorities, intermediate objectives and conditions contained in the accession partnership with the Slovak Republic

Official Journal L 121 , 23/04/1998 P. 0016 - 0020

COUNCIL DECISION of 30 March 1998 on the principles, priorities, intermediate objectives and conditions contained in the accession partnership with the Slovak Republic (98/262/EC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 622/98 of 16 March 1998 on assistance to the applicant countries in the framework of the pre-accession strategy, and in particular on the establishment of accession partnerships (1), and in particular to Article 2 thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,Whereas the Luxembourg European Council stated that the accession partnership is a new instrument, the key feature of the enhanced pre-accession strategy;Whereas Regulation (EC) No 622/98 sets out that the Council shall decide, by a qualified majority and following a proposal from the Commission, on the principles, priorities, intermediate objectives and conditions contained in the individual accession partnerships, as they are submitted to each applicant country, as well as on subsequent significant adjustments applicable to them;Whereas Community assistance is conditional on the fulfilment of essential elements, and in particular on the respect of the commitments contained in the Europe Agreements and on progress towards fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria; whereas, where an essential element is lacking, the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may take appropriate steps with regard to any pre-accession assistance;Whereas the Luxembourg European Council decided that the implementation of the accession partnership and progress in adopting the acquis will be examined in the Europe Agreement bodies;Whereas the Commission's opinion presented an objective analysis on the Slovak Republic's preparations for membership and identified a number of priority areas for further work;Whereas, in order to prepare for membership, the Slovak Republic should draw up a national programme for the adoption of the acquis; whereas this programme should set out a timetable for achieving the priorities and intermediate objectives established in the accession partnership,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1 In accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 622/98, the principles, priorities, intermediate objectives and conditions contained in the accession partnership for the Slovak Republic are set out in the Annex hereto, which forms an integral part of this Decision.Article 2 The implementation of the accession partnership will be examined in the Europe Agreement bodies and through the appropriate Council bodies to which the Commission will report regularly.Article 3 This Decision shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.Done at Brussels, 30 March 1998.For the CouncilThe PresidentM. BECKETT(1) OJ L 85, 20.3.1998, p. 1.ANNEX SLOVAKIA 1. Objectives The purpose of the accession partnership is to set out in a single framework the priority areas for further work identified in the Commission's opinion on Slovakia's application for membership of the European Union, the financial means available to help Slovakia implement these priorities and the conditions which will apply to that assistance. The accession partnership will provide a framework for a number of policy instruments which will be used to help the candidate countries in their preparations for membership. These will include, inter alia, the national programme for the adoption of the acquis to be adopted by Slovakia, the joint assessment of economic policy priorities, the pact against organised crime and the internal market road maps. Each of these instruments is different in nature and will be prepared and implemented according to specific procedures. They will not be an integral part of this partnership but the priorities they contain will be compatible with it.2. Principles The main priority areas identified for each candidate country relate to their ability to assume the obligations of meeting the Copenhagen criteria which state that membership requires:- that the candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities,- the existence of a functioning market economy, as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union,- the ability to take on the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.At its meeting in Madrid, the European Council stressed the need for the candidate countries to adjust their administrative structures to ensure the harmonious operation of Community policies after accession and at Luxembourg, it stressed that incorporation of the acquis into legislation is necessary, but not in itself sufficient; it is necessary to ensure that it is actually applied.3. Priorities and intermediate objectives The Commission's opinions and the Council's examination of these have highlighted the extent of the efforts which still have to be made in certain areas by the candidate countries to prepare for accession and took the view that none of these countries fully satisfies all of the Copenhagen criteria at the present time. This situation will require the definition of intermediate stages in terms of priorities, each to be accompanied by precise objectives to be set in collaboration with the countries concerned, the achievement of which will condition the degree of assistance granted and the progress of the negotiations under way with some countries and the opening of new negotiations with the others. The priorities and intermediate objectives have been divided into two groups - short and medium term. Those listed under the short term have been selected on the basis that it is realistic to expect that Slovakia can complete or take them substantially forward by the end of 1998. In view of the short time span, and taking into account the administrative capacity required to achieve them, the number of priorities selected for the short term has been limited. The priorities listed under the medium term are expected to take more than one year to complete although work may and should also begin on them during 1998.Slovakia will be invited to draw up a national programme for the adoption of the acquis (NPAA) by the end of March which should set out a timetable for achieving these priorities and intermediate objectives and, where possible and relevant, indicate the necessary staff and financial resources.The accession partnership will indicate that Slovakia will have to address all issues identified in the opinion. Incorporation of the acquis into legislation is not in itself sufficient; it will also be necessary to ensure that it is actually applied to the same standards as those which apply within the Union. In all of the areas listed below there is a need for credible and effective implementation and enforcement of the acquis.Drawing on the analysis of the Commission's opinion and the Council's examination of this, the following short- and medium term priorities and intermediate objectives have been identified for Slovakia.3.1. Short-term (1998) Political criteria: free and fair presidential, national and local elections in 1998; ensuring effective opposition participation in parliamentary oversight committees and supervisory boards; the adoption of legislative provisions on minority language-use and related implementing measures.Economic reform: establishment of medium-term economic policy priorities and joint assessment within the framework of the Europe Agreement; implementation of policies aimed at tackling internal and external imbalances and sustaining macroeconomic stability; progress on structural reforms, and on privatisation and restructuring of enterprises, finance, banking, and energy intensive heavy industries.Reinforcement of institutional and administrative capacity: including the adoption of a civil-service law and development of public administration reform strategy with emphasis on the strengthening of administration dealing with Union accession, institutional strengthening in the area of environment, veterinary and phytosanitary administrations, particularly as regards facilities at the external borders, begin to set up structures needed for regional and structural policy.Internal market: including continued legislative alignment in the fields of standards and certification, State aid (progress towards adoption of a law), intellectual property (alignment of legislation), public procurement (including transparency), bankruptcy and agriculture (veterinary and phytosanitary fields), establishment of standardisation and conformity assessment structures.Environment: continue transposition of framework legislation, establishment and commencement of implementation of detailed approximation programmes and implementation strategies related to individual acts. Planning and commencement of implementation of these programmes and strategies.3.2. Medium-term Political criteria: further steps to ensure respect for the Constitution and rights of the opposition, to guarantee the independence of the judiciary, and to foster and strengthen the functioning of the institutions of democracy, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), independence of the media (in particular radio and television) and the policies and institutions protecting the rights of minorities.Economic policy: regular review of the joint assessment of economic policy priorities, within the Europe Agreement framework, focusing and satisfying the Copenhagen criteria for membership of the Union and the acquis in the area of economic and monetary policy (coordination of economic policies, submission of convergence programmes, avoidance of excessive deficits); while Slovakia is not expected to adopt the euro immediately on accession, it is expected to pursue policies which aim to achieve real convergence in accordance with the Union's objectives of economic and social cohesion, and nominal convergence compatible with the ultimate goal of adoption of the euro.Reinforcement of institutional and administrative capacity: the State audit office, financial control and internal audit functions, customs, banking and financial market supervisory bodies, regional development institutional structures and budgetary mechanisms; improved operation of the judicial system; training for the judiciary in Community law and its application, reinforcement of justice and home affairs institutions (ensuring sufficient and properly trained personnel in particular police, border guards, ministries and courts), strengthen the nuclear safety authority, reform of customs and tax administrations to ensure readiness to apply the aquis, the reinforcement of food control administration.Internal market: including further alignment of legislation in the fields of competition (anti-trust and State aid monitoring and transparency), indirect taxation, intellectual property (enforcement), financial services, data protection and audiovisual, reinforcement of standardisation and conformity assessment structures, establishment of a market surveillance system and alignment of technical legislation on industrial products, promotion of enterprise development, including small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), alignment with the acquis in the fields of telecommunications, consumer protection and the internal energy market.Justice and home affairs: further development and strengthening of JHA institutions (with a view in particular to ensuring the accountability of the police, and the independence of the judiciary), to further develop effective border management; to fight organised crime (in particular money laundering, drugs and trafficking in human beings) and corruption, and to align visa policy with that of the Union and to complete alignment on international conventions, improve capacity to handle asylum and migration questions, notably in view of the Schengen acquis.Agriculture: including alignment with the agricultural acquis (including veterinary and phytosanitary matters, in particular external border controls), attention to environmental aspects of agriculture and biodiversity. Development of the capacity to implement and enforce the common agricultural policy (CAP), in particular the fundamental management mechanisms and administrative structures to monitor the agricultural markets and implement structural and rural development measures, adoption and implementation of the veterinary and phytosanitary requirements, upgrading of certain food-processing establishments and testing and diagnostic facilities, restructuring of the agri-food sector.Energy: implementing a comprehensive long-term energy strategy based on efficiency and diversification which foresees the alignment to and implementation of Community energy legislation, the completion of Mochovce nuclear power station according to internationally agreed safety principles, and implementation of a realistic programme for the closure of the Bohunice plant.Transport: further efforts on alignment to the acquis in particular on road transport (market access, safety rules and taxation) and rail, and to provide necessary investment for transport infrastructure, notably extension of trans-European networks.Employment and social affairs: development of appropriate labour-market structures and joint review of employment policies as preparation for participation in Union coordination of employment policies, alignment of labour and occupational health and safety legislation, in particular early adoption of the framework directive on health and safety at work, further development of an active social dialogue; further development of social protection; enforcement of equal opportunities between women and men, undertake steps to bring public health standards into line with Union norms.Environment: including the development of monitoring and implementation control structures and capacities, continuous planning and implementation of approximation programmes related to individual legal acts. A particular emphasis should be given to air, water and the waste sector as well as the integrated industrial pollution control and risk management. Environmental protection requirements and the need for sustainable development must be integrated into the definition and implementation of national, sectoral policies.Regional policy and cohesion: establishment of legal, administrative and budgetary framework for an integrated regional policy in order to participate in Union structural programmes after membership.4. Programming The PHARE allocation for the period 1995 to 1997 has totalled ECU 95 million. Subject to the approval of the PHARE budget for the remaining period, the Commission will confirm the allocations for 1998 and 1999. In addition, Slovakia is eligible for support from the catch-up facility envisaged for 1998. Financial proposals will be submitted to the PHARE Management Committee as provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89. Joint financing by the applicant countries will be systematically required for all investment projects. Financial assistance from the year 2000 onwards will comprise aid for agriculture and a structural instrument which will give priority to measures similar to the cohesion fund.5. Conditionality Community assistance will be conditional on respect by Slovakia of its commitments under the Europe Agreement, further steps towards satisfying the Copenhagen criteria and progress in implementing this accession partnership. Failure to respect these general conditions could lead to a decision by the Council on the suspension of financial assistance on the basis of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 622/98.6. Monitoring The implementation of the accession partnership will be monitored in the framework of the Europe Agreement. This will begin in 1998 before the Commission presents its first regular report to the Council reviewing the progress made by Slovakia including implementation of the accession partnership.The relevant sections of the accession partnership will be discussed in the appropriate sub-committee. The Association Committee will discuss overall developments, progress and problems in meeting its priorities and intermediate objectives as well as more specific issues referred to it from the sub-committees. The Association Committee will report to the Association Council on the implementation of the accession partnership.The PHARE Management Committee will ensure that financing decisions are compatible with the accession partnerships.The accession partnership will be amended as necessary in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 622/98. The Commission will propose, before the end of 1999 and at regular intervals thereafter, a review of this partnership, on which the Council will take a formal decision. These reviews will include consideration of the need to further specify intermediate objectives in the light of the progress made by Slovakia in meeting the objectives set out in this partnership.


Avis juridique important

|

31993D0045

93/45/EEC: Commission Decision of 22 December 1992 concerning the granting of financial support for pilot schemes to promote combined transport

Official Journal L 016 , 25/01/1993 P. 0055 - 0056 Finnish special edition: Chapter 7 Volume 4 P. 0195  Swedish special edition: Chapter 7 Volume 4 P. 0195

COMMISSION DECISION of 22 December 1992 concerning the granting of financial support for pilot schemes to promote combined transport(93/45/EEC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Whereas the present situation and expected development of transport in the Community makes it necessary to manage the Community's transport resources to optimum effect in accordance with environmental protection requirements; whereas this means  encouraging the use of combined transport, as stated by the Council in its resolution of 30 October 1990 on setting up a European combined transport network (1);  Whereas the establishment of a combined transport network should be supplemented by measures concerning the organization of intermodal transport chains;  Whereas, since such measures constitute a new field, it is necessary to acquire the essential know-how in order to be able to explore the usefulness of a common policy in this sphere; whereas, therefore, pilot projects should be launched with the aim of  gathering information on the feasibility of measures to organize intermodal transport chains;  Whereas, in accordance with the principle of the free choice of transport mode, these pilot projects must include financial support measures which will help develop good quality services through effective cooperation which observes the rules of  competition between operators;  Whereas this financial support, which is intended to promote measures to organize the chain of the relevant modes of transport, must focus on a wide range of qualitative measures, excluding the financing of physical infrastructure or technological  research projects, either in the form of studies, in particular feasibility studies, or of a financial contribution to innovative schemes aimed at improving the quality of the service;  Whereas the financial support must be provided for a limited period and act as a special incentive to encourage operators to develop services of this kind,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  1. Community financial support may be granted for pilot combined transport schemes which run on existing routes or routes still to be established and which:  - try out measures:  - to improve the organization and operation of combined transport services on these routes,  - to integrate operators into the entire logistic chain, in a way which involves all operators,  - evaluate whether measures of this kind make it possible ultimately to achieve effective combined transport services which can compete with road haulage and are economically viable.  2. The financing of pilot schemes shall be spread over a five-year period.  Article 2  1. For the purposes of this Decision, combined transport shall mean the transport between the Member States of road vehicles, containers or demountable bodies, without unloading the goods and using at least two modes of transport from among  road, rail and inland waterways.  2. Where a sea crossing is the only possible means of access to Community territory for a given region of the Community, this sea route may be covered by the pilot scheme.  3. Pilot schemes may also cover combined transport routes outside the Community where this is justified by a large volume of traffic going to, or coming from, the Community.  Article 3  1. Financial support may be provided for:  - preliminary studies on aspects common to all projects,  - feasibility studies on a specific pilot route,  - innovatory schemes aimed at improving the quality of the service.  2. The Commission shall finance pilot schemes as follows:  - up to 100 % for a preliminary study,  - up to 50 % for a feasibility study,  - up to 30 % for innovatory schemes.  Article 4  The Community's financial support shall be granted on the basis of a contract concluded between the Commission and each beneficiary.  Article 5  The procedures for submitting, selecting and evaluating projects are set out in the Annex.  Done at Brussels, 22 December 1992.  For the Commission Karel VAN MIERT Member of the Commission (1) Note from the General Secretariat of the Council No 9832/90 of 12 November 1990.    ANNEX   Conditions governing the granting of Community financial support for combined transport pilot schemes  1. Timescale The financing of the pilot schemes shall cover a five-year period (1992 to 1996).  2. Presentation procedure The proposal for a pilot scheme shall be presented to the Commission by a Member State or by a private or public enterprise. The proposal may be presented jointly by a number of Member States or enterprises.  3. Selection criteria (a) The proposal for a pilot scheme must be approved by the Member States on whose territory the combined transport route covered by the pilot scheme is situated.  (b) The Commission shall examine the proposals on the basis of the following criteria:  - the importance of the route at European level,  - the impact on goods traffic and the possibilities of road traffic being diverted to combined transport,  - the cost of the proposed measures,  - the proposed level and type of cooperation between the project partners,  - the possibility and advisability of extending the pilot scheme to other combined transport services,  - observance of the rules on competition and subsidies.  4. Decision to grant financing The Commission shall decide to finance the project in accordance with the criteria listed in point 3 and after consulting a group of experts designated by the Member States.


title: 2014/573/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 3 April 2014 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Banking Authority for the financial year 2012

text:
               5.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 266/191

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 3 April 2014
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Banking Authority for the financial year 2012
   (2014/573/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Banking Authority for the financial year 2012,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Banking Authority for the financial year 2012, together with the Authority’s replies (1),

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 18 February 2014 (05849/2014 - C7-0054/2014),

               —

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

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) (4), and in particular Article 64 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5),

               —

               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 (6), and in particular Article 108 thereof,

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0220/2014),

               1.

               Grants the Executive Director of the European Banking Authority discharge in respect of the implementation of the Authority’s budget for the financial year 2012;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

               3.

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

            The President

         Martin SCHULZ

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ C 365, 13.12.2013, p. 80.

      (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

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

      (4)  OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 12.

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

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


Avis juridique important

|

31986D0344

86/344/EEC: Commission Decision of 17 July 1986 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of Portland cement originating in the German Democratic Republic, Poland and Yugoslavia

Official Journal L 202 , 25/07/1986 P. 0043

*****COMMISSION  DECISION  of 17 July 1986  terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of Portland cement originating in the German Democratic Republic, Poland and Yugoslavia  (86/344/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), and in particular Article 9 thereof,  Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consultation within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the abovementioned Regulation,  Whereas:  A. PROCEDURE  1. In January 1985 the Commission received a complaint lodged by the 'Liaison Committee of the Cement Industries in the European Economic Community' acting on behalf of the national organizations of cement manufacturers in the Community and representing substantially all Community production of cement.  The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping and at least of threat of injury resulting therefrom which was considered sufficient to justify initiating a proceeding in order to establish whether the facts alleged existed and justified any action being taken. The Commission accordingly announced, by a notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of Portland cement, falling within Common Customs Tariff heading No ex 25.23, originating in the German Democratic Republic, Poland, Spain and Yugoslavia, and commenced an investigation.  2. The Commission officially so advised the exporters and importers known to be concerned, the representatives of Yugoslavia and the complainants and gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing.  3. The exporters of the product originating in the German Democratic Republic and Poland made their views known in writing, requested and have been granted hearings.  The Yugoslav producers/exporters concerned in this proceeding made their views known in writing, requested and have been granted a hearing.  Some of the importers of the product concerned from the countries involved in this proceeding made their views known in writing, but only a few have requested and been granted hearings.  4. One Danish user of the product concerned made a submission to the Commission.  5. The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed to be necessary for the purposes of a preliminary determination and carried out investigations at the premises of the following:  (a) Community producers:  Denmark: Aalborg Portland, Aalborg,  Federal Republic of Germany:  - Alsen-Breitenburg Zement- und Kalkwerke GmbH, Hamburg,  - Nordcement AG, Hannover,  - Teutonia Zementwerk AG, Hannover,  Ireland: Irish Cement Ltd, Dublin,  Italy:  - Italcementi SA, Bergamo,  - Friulana Cementi Spa, Travesio,  - Savic Sementeria di Cadola Spa, Belluno,  - Cementeria di Monselice Spa, Bergamo,  - Cementi Verona Spa, Verona,  - Cementi Piave Spa, Treviso,  United Kingdom:  - Blue Circle Industries Plc, Aldermaston,  - RTZ Cement Ltd, Peterborough,  - The Rugby Portland Cement Plc, Rugby;  (b) Producers/exporters:  Spain:  - Cementos Rezola SA, San Sebastian,  - Cementos Alfa SA, Santander,  - Cementos del Norte SA, Madrid,  - Cementos Portland de Limona SA, Bilbao,  - Cementos Portland SA, Pamplona,  - Corporation Noroeste SA, Vigo,  - Tudela Veguin SA, Oviedo,  - Tracoisa SA, Madrid,  Yugoslavia:  - Salonit Anhovo, Nova Gorizia,  - RO Astra Tvornica Cementa, Umag,  - RO Tvornica Portland Cementa, Koromacno;  (c) EEC importers:  Denmark:  - BC Industricement APS, Roskilde,  - assisted by representatives of NIC AB (Helsingborg),  Ireland:  - O'Brien Ltd, New Ross,  - Irish Agricultural Wholesale Society Ltd, Dublin;  (d) Other companies:  - Babcock Hydro-Pneumatics Ltd (London), which had been involved in the design and construction of the Rostock terminal (GDR),  - The Axel Johnson Group (Stockholm) and Skandinavska Cement AB (Stockholm), both involved in trade in the product concerned originating in the German Democratic Republic.  6. In the course of the proceeding the Greek manufacturers, representing approximately 11 % of total Community production of cement, withdrew their support from the complaint, mainly because the allegedly dumped imports were considered most unlikely to represent a threat of injury to them.  7. With regard to the import of the product concerned originating in Spain, the proceeding has been continued as of 1 January 1986 on the basis of Article 380 (3) of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal.  8. The period under investigation with regard to dumping and price undercutting was 1 October 1984 to 31 March 1985. With regard to injury and threat of injury, facts which occurred after 31 March 1985 were generally not taken into consideration.  B. DUMPING  (a) German Democratic Republic  Normal value  9. In order to establish whether the imports from the German Democratic Republic were dumped, the Commission had to take account of the fact that that country does not have a market economy and the Commission therefore had to base its determinations on the normal value in a market economy country. In this connection, the complainants had suggested the Spanish market. However, due to lack of cooperation from the Spanish producers, it was impossible to determine properly normal value in Spain. The Commission, therefore, considered determining normal value in Yugoslavia, the other market economy country involved in this proceeding. The exporter of the product originating in the German Democratic Republic was informed by the Commission of this choice and did not submit comments.  The Commission is satisfied that both in Yugoslavia and the German Democratic Republic there are comparable production processes used by the manufacturers concerned and that there are, in both countries, products of a comparable quality manufactured.  The Commission therefore concluded that it would be appropriate and not unreasonable to determine normal value on the basis of domestic prices charged in Yugoslavia for the type comparable with the type originating in the German Democratic Republic. It was determined that during the period under investigation, normal value in Yugoslavia remained unchanged at one particular level between 1 October 1984 and 26 December 1984 and at another level between 27 December 1984 and 31 March 1985. Export price  10. Export prices were determined on the basis of the prices actually paid for the product sold for export to the Community.  Comparison and dumping margin  11. In comparing normal value with export prices to the Community, the Commission took account, where appropriate, of differences in conditions and terms of sale such as transport costs and payment terms.  12. The export price of each individual transaction has been compared at an ex-works level with the normal value relating to the period during which the transaction took place.  The weighted average dumping margin so calculated amounts to 34 % on a cif-Community-frontier basis, the margin of dumping being equal to the amount by which the normal value as established exceeds the price for export to the Community.  (b) Poland  Normal value  13. In order to establish whether the imports from Poland were dumped, the Commission had to take account of the fact that that country does not have a market economy and the Commission therefore had to base its determinations on the normal value in a market economy country. In this connection, the complainants had suggested the Spanish market. However, due to lack of cooperation from the Spanish producers, it was impossible to determine properly normal value in Spain. The Commission, therefore, considered determining normal value in Yugoslavia, the other market economy country involved in this proceeding. The exporter of the product originating in Poland was informed by the Commission of this choice and did not submit comments.  The Commission is satisfied that both in Yugoslavia and Poland there are comparable production processes used by the manufacturers concerned and that there are, in both countries, products of a comparable quality manufactured.  The Commission therefore concluded that it would be appropriate and not unreasonable to determine normal value on the basis of domestic prices charged in Yugoslavia for the type comparable with the type originating in Poland. It was determined that during the period under investigation, normal value in Yugoslavia remained unchanged at one particular level between 1 October 1984 and 26 December 1984 and at another level between 27 December 1984 and 31 March 1985.  Export price  14. Export prices were determined on the basis of the prices actually paid for the product sold for export to the Community.  Comparison and dumping margin  15. In comparing normal value with export prices to the Community, the Commission took account, where appropriate, of differences in conditions and terms of sale such as transport costs and payment terms.  16. The export price of each individual transaction has been compared at an ex-works level with the normal value relating to the period during which the transaction took place.  The weighted average dumping margin so calculated amounts to 54 % on a cif-Community-frontier basis, the margin of dumping being equal to the amount by which the normal value as established exceeds the price for export to the Community.  (c) Yugoslavia  Normal value  17. Normal value was provisionally determined on the basis of the domestic prices of the producers concerned who exported the type concerned to the Community and who provided sufficient evidence concerning the prices actually paid in the ordinary course of trade for Portland cement intended for consumption in Yugoslavia.  It was determined that during the period under investigation normal value remained unchanged at one particular level between 1 October 1984 and 26 December 1984 and at another level between 27 December 1984 and 31 March 1985.  Export price  18. Export prices were determined on the basis of the prices actually paid for the product sold for export to the Community.  Comparison and dumping margin  19. In comparing normal value with export prices to the Community, the Commission took account, where appropriate, of differences in conditions and terms of sale such as transport costs, payment terms and commissions.  20. The export price of each individual transaction has been compared at an ex-works level with the normal value relating to the period during which the transaction took place. The weighted average dumping margin so calculated amounts for both RO Astra Tvornica Cementa and RO Tvornica Portland Cementa to 25 % on a cif-Community-frontier basis, the margin of dumping being equal to the amount by which the normal value as established exceeds the price for export to the Community.  C. INJURY  21. With regard to the injury allegedly being caused by the dumped imports, the evidence available to the Commission shows that imports into the Community as constituted on 31 December 1985 from the German Democratic Republic, Poland, Spain and Yugoslavia of the product concerned, excluding imports from the German Democratic Republic into the Federal Republic of Germany, increased from 165 397 tonnes in 1981 to 552 101 tonnes in 1984, with a consequent increase in the aggregated market share held by these exporting countries from 0,13 % in 1981 to 0,47 % in 1984.  22. With regard to the resale prices of these imports, it was found that during the period under investigation they significantly undercut the prices of the Community producers most concerned.  The levels of price undercutting found were as follows:  - imports into the UK of the product originating in:  - GDR up to 19 %,  - Poland up to 5 %,  - Spain up to 19 %,  - imports into Ireland of the product originating in:  - GDR up to 14 %,  - Spain up to 21 %,  - imports into Denmark of the product originating in:  - GDR up to 6 %,  - Poland up to 6 %,  - imports into the Federal Republic of Germany of the product originating in Poland:  up to 35 %,  - imports into Italy of the product originating in Yugoslavia:  up to 7 %.  23. With regard to the possible impact of the dumped imports on the situation of the producers in the Community as constituted on 31 December 1985, account has to be taken of the following factors:  (a) production of the Community producers decreased between 1981 and 1984 in all Member States (Greece excluded) by an average of 13 % except in the United Kingdom, where it increased by 6 %;  (b) utilization of the production capacity of most of the Community producers decreased between 1981 and 1984, except in the United Kingdom;  (c) since the product concerned is not suitable for holding large quantities in stock, it is reasonable to assume that sales figures follow the trend of production figures;  (d) the market share held by the producers in the Community as constituted on 31 December 1985 decreased from 99,74 % in 1981 to 99,39 % in 1984;  (e) the number of people employed by the Community producers concerned in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy decreased by 17 % between 1981 and 1984;  (f) some of the Community producers were not able to raise their sales prices in order to enable them to follow the general trend of price increases; some granted special rebates or extended payment terms;  (g) the profitability of most of the Community producers concerned in the United Kingdom, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy developed positively between 1981 and 1984; the profitability of the sole producer in Ireland developed negatively during this period.  24. It is considered that the development of the factors mentioned under recital 23, in so far as it was negative, is predominantly caused by factors other than the dumped imports, such as:  (a) a significant decrease in demand for the product concerned in a number of Member States due to the recession in the building industry;  (b) the restructurng and the rationalization of some of the main Community producers concerned leading to a reduction in the number of producers and plants and to a contraction of employment;  (c) cost involved in important investments carried out by producers in some of the Member States linked to the conversion from oil to coal energy and new technology;  (d) competition resulting from intra-Community trade in the product concerned, which was, in the period from 1981 to 1984, considerably higher than imports from third countries.  25. Since the profitability of most of the Community producers, which they claimed in this sector to constitute the main factor to be viewed under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84, did not generally deteriorate despite the negative development of a number of other criteria, the Commission, particu larly in the light of the extremely low market share held by the dumped imports, considers that the development of the factors mentioned above cannot be held to constitute material injury to the Community producers of the product concerned in the Community as constituted on 31 December 1985 from the dumped imports under consideration.  Furthermore, it is considered in view of the facts mentioned above that factors other than dumped imports considerably affected the Community producers and that, therefore, no clear causal link between the dumped imports and the situation of the Community producers could be established.  D. THREAT OF INJURY  26. With a view to examining whether a determination of threat of injury could be made, it was considered whether a change of circumstances, which would create a situation in which the dumping would cause material injury, could be clearly foreseen and was imminent.  27. Therefore the Commission examined the production capacity of the producers in the exporting countries concerned, their spare production capacity, their exports to the Community and other countries, the rate of increase of their exports to the Community, their export facilities, their import facilities within the Community and the likelihood that in the future substantial quantities of the product concerned will be imported into the Community, leading to material injury for a major proportion of the Community industry.  (a) Findings concerning producers/exporters in the German Democratic Republic  28. Production capacity in the German Democratic Republic was estimated at 12 million tonnes and exports to third countries other than the Community amounted to approximately 500 000 tonnes per year.  29. A new terminal with a throughput capacity of an estimated 1 million tonnes per year was set up in Rostock (DDR) and became operational in 1984. The installations in Rostock make it possible to load vessels with a capacity of at least 15 000 tonnes. The storage capacity available in Rostock during the reference period was estimated at 6 800 tonnes.  30. In 1983 Limex, the exclusive exporter of the product concerned in the German Democratic Republic signed a contract with a trading company in the United Kingdom concerning future sales via the Rostock terminal for the United Kingdom and Ireland. The quantities provided for in this contract were the following): . . . (1) tonnes in 1984, . . . tonnes in 1985 and . . . tonnes in 1986. An extension of the contract by two years was also provided for. On the basis of this contract, the trading company was granted the exclusive right to import bulk cement and cement in big bags (1 500 kilograms per bag) into the contract territory. It was also provided in the contract that re-exports to other markets would be possible.  31. As far as imports of the product in small bags to the United Kingdom is concerned, Limex sold to at least six importers who were able to distribute the product all over the country and who developed a regular customer service.  32. Limex also signed a contract with a large Irish cooperative made up of a great number of agricultural cooperatives with a total demand of approximately 100 000 tonnes per year. So far, they are not satisfying more than one quarter of their needs with the imported product. Their storage capacity was estimated at 3 000 tonnes.  33. Limex also signed a contract with a large Scandinavian trading concern, on the basis of which the latter became a non-exclusive purchaser of the product concerned, at least in bulk for the Danish market. The marketing of these imports in Denmark was undertaken by another Scandinavian company.  34. With regard to sales for the Belgian and the Netherlands markets, a contract for the supply in 1985 of 10 000 tonnes to each of these Member States was signed. The Belgian importer has a storage capacity of at least 2 000 tonnes.  (b) Findings concerning producers/exporters in Poland  35. Production capacity for the product concerned in Poland is estimated to reach 20 million tonnes per year. Effective production is estimated to have amounted in 1984 to only 13 million tonnes, leaving significant spare production capacity unused.  36. Total exports of the product concerned from Poland are estimated to have increased from 485 000 tonnes in 1981 to 600 000 tonnes in 1984, although contracts and the national plan had foreseen exports of much larger quantities.  37. As far as exports to the Community are concerned, Minex, the only Polish exporter of the product concerned known to the Commission, signed several contracts with foreign companies.  38. With a view to supplying the United Kingdom and Denmark, Minex signed an exclusive long-term contract with NIC AB, a Swedish company related to one of the main cement traders in the world.  With regard to the United Kingdom, both companies signed in 1982 a contract providing for a minimum quantity of 200 000 tonnes per year. This target has, however, not been met. It was also foreseen that NIC would provide and finance equipment and staff for loading the vessels. Furthermore, NIC would organize the transport to and within the United Kingdom.  In Grimsby, NIC (UK), an affiliate of the Swedish company, has available a terminal which makes it possible to import at least 100 000 tonnes per year, and a storage capacity of 10 000 tonnes. A distribution system enabling it to supply customers on a regular basis in different parts of the United Kingdom was set up. The company is also capable of assisting customers in technical matters.  The 1985 contract complementing the basic contract of 1982 provided for the supply of 70 000 tonnes of the product concerned in big bags (1 500 kilograms per bag). Already in 1984 NIC was actively marketing the product concerned in small bags (50 kilograms per bag).  With regard to the Scandinavian market (including Denmark) Minex signed in 1982 with NIC AB a contract valid until at least 31 December 1985. The 1985 contract complementing the basic contract of 1982 provided for a quantity of 30 000 tonnes in bulk. The company is also responsible for transport by sea or rail to Denmark. For the reception of cement in Denmark the company constructed a silo in Koege (DK) with a capacity of almost 1 400 tonnes, which became operational at the beginning of 1985. The company also developed a close business relationship with its customer, which was originally a transport company.  39. In order to supply the Federal Republic of Germany, Minex signed in 1984 with HGS Baustoffe GmbH (FRG) (hereinafter called 'HGS') a long-term contract for the supply of at least 1 million tonnes of the product concerned in bulk between 1985 and 1989. The implementing contract for supplies in 1985 provided for the sale of 185 000 tonnes to HGS. That company chartered a vessel for the transport of the product concerned to the Federal Republic of Germany and has a silo with a storage capacity of 2 000 tonnes in Hamburg. Its customer in West Berlin has a storage capacity of 1 300 tonnes.  (c) Findings concerning producers/exporters in Yugoslavia  40. Production of all Yugoslav producers of the product concerned decreased between 1981 and 1984 from 9 613 700 tonnes to 9 031 900 tonnes. Their domestic sales decreased during the same period from 8 862 576 tonnes to 8 453 289 tonnes. Their total exports increased during the same period from 716 450 tonnes to 1 082 329 tonnes (mainly to Egypt and Italy), i. e. by 51 %.  41. The three Yugoslav producers/exporters who were alleged to have dumped the product concerned in Italy have a production capacity of 1 610 000 tonnes per year. Their production and sales increased between 1981 and 1984 by 2 %. Their total exports increased during the same period from 64 932 tonnes to 295 395 tonnes.  42. Salonit Anhovo has a storage capacity of 45 000 tonnes (three silos of 15 000 tonnes each) at the plant. So far, exports to Italy have only taken place in bulk by truck. The market for supplies in bags was considered unattractive. Representatives of Salonit Anhovo admitted that exports by rail to Italy are in principle possible, but require the building of a silo on the Italian side. Such a project was not yet planned.  On 30 October 1981 Salonit Anhovo signed an exclusive supply contract with an Italian importer, Mark. On the basis of this contract, the following supplies were made: . . . tonnes in 1981, . . . tonnes in 1983, . . . tonnes in 1984 and . . . tonnes during the first three months of 1985. According to information available to the Commission, the contract is still in force.  However, Salonit Anhovo has also been supplying 8 000 to 9 000 tonnes per year to another company, Simek, for the purpose of supplying a consortium of concrete producers and another 5 000 tonnes to a producer of concrete tubes in Italy.  43. RO Tvornica Portland Cementa (Koromacno) exported to Italy only the puzzolanic quality falling outside the scope of the investigation. On 13 April 1984 a contract was signed between this Yugoslav company, an exporting company, a transporting company and an Italian importer, Marex, providing for the supply of 20 000 tonnes of puzzolanic cement per year.  44. RO Astra Tvornica Cementa (Umag) concluded an agreement with Marex for the supply of 20 000 tonnes of the product concerned in 1983. On 3 August 1984 the same Yugoslav producer, an exporting company and an Italian importer, signed a contract for the supply of 60 000 tonnes of OPC and pussolanic cement (in bags or bulk) per year.  45. On 18 September 1984 an agreement was initialled between those Yugoslav producers/exporters concerned and the Italian cement producers established in the Veneto-Friuli area near the Yugoslavian/Italian border, with a view to the supply of a maximum of 75 000 tonnes per year. It was expected that the contract would enter into force on 1 January 1985 and would be valid for four years. Furthermore, the contract provided that the export price of the Yugoslav product would remain below prices on the Italian market, should price increases be authorized by the Italian authorities. Simek, a mixed company of which 51 % of the capital shares are held by Italian companies and 49 % by Yugoslav companies, would act as an intermediary. The contract also contained a clause providing that a possible anti-dumping proceeding would not be prejudicial to the fulfilment of the contractual obligations of the partners. Despite strong pressure exercised by the Italian companies on the Yugoslav producers, the agreement was never finalized.  46. On 30 April 1985 the three Yugoslav producers/exporters concerned signed an agreement with several Italian companies providing that Unical, of which Unicem, one of the main cement producers in Italy, and Calcestruzzi, each own 50 % of the shares, would act as the exclusive importer of . . . tonnes of Yugoslav cement per year in Italy. This contract was considered to replace all contracts previously concluded with Italian importers. It entered into force on 30 April 1985 and is valid for five years.  According to Unical and Unicem, the former is expected to act independently of the shareholders. A copy of the contract on this matter between both shareholders was not submitted, despite several express requests from the Commission.  The contract with Unical is complemented by an  agreement dated 30 April 1985 amongst the three Yugoslav producers providing that each of them will, in theory, contribute to the quantities concerned in the proportion 55 %, 30 % and 15 % respectively. In practice, however, only Salonit Anhovo will physically export to Italy. Separate contracts implementing the basic agreement were signed by Salonit Anhovo and each of the other two producers.  (d) Exports of the dumped products to the Community and their rate of increase  47. The dumped imports from the German Democratic Republic, Poland, Spain and Yugoslavia into the Community as constituted on 31 December 1985 increased by 68 % between 1981 and 1984, leading to an aggregated market share held in 1984 in the Community by the product originating in the four countries concerned of only 0,47 % (imports from the German Democratic Republic into the Federal Republic of Germany excluded).  (e) Likelihood of increased exports of the dumped products to the Community  (i) With regard to imports originating in the German Democratic Republic  48. Immediately after the signing of the contract in 1983 between Limex and the trading company (see recital 30), one of the three manufacturers of the product concerned in the United Kingdom signed a 'back to back' contract with the latter taking over his rights and obligations. In April 1985 a complementary contract was signed between the manufacturer in the United Kingdom, the trading company and the agent of Limex, mainly because the original contract had not been executed as foreseen (the exporter had not been able to supply the quantities originally contracted for and the manufacturer in the United Kingdom did not have sufficient demand for the product). Although Limex still considers the delivery of . . . tonnes per annum as the target, the new contract provides for the supply of . . . tonnes per annum up to October 1987. Furthermore, it concerns also the supply of cement in small bags (50 kilograms) but not on an exclusive basis.  49. The 1983 contract with Limex enabled, and is likely to continue to enable, the manufacturer concerned in the United Kingdom to divert from its home market all imports of bulk cement and cement in big bags, which represent the majority of sales of the product concerned on the UK market. Furthermore, the complementary contract of 1985 will enable the same manufacturer also to control to some extent imports of the product concerned in small bags into the United Kingdom and Ireland.  50. There is no evidence available to the Commission showing that imports from the German Democratic Republic into Denmark directly or indirectly via the Scandinavian companies mentioned in recital 33 are likely to increase significantly above the level reached in 1984 when they held a market share of 0,52 %.  51. Imports of the product concerned into the Federal Republic of Germany, where they represented in 1984 a market share of 1,82 % which is significantly higher than the market share held in that Member State by the product concerned originating in any other country, fall within inter-German trade and are, therefore, not subject to this proceeding. Also, German producers did not complain about these imports.  52. Imports of the product concerned into Benelux are restricted by quota, the level of which is set pursuant to a Community procedure.  53. There were no imports into France or Italy and there is no evidence that such imports are likely to take place in the future. (ii) With regard to imports originating in Poland  54. Imports into the United Kingdom, where substantial efforts were made in order to achieve an effective market penetration, represented in 1984 only 0,4 % of the market. Even if the target of 200 000 tonnes had been met in 1984, the market share would not have been more than 1,5 %.  55. Imports into Denmark, another Member State on which the Scandinavian company mentioned in recital 38 concentrated its efforts, reached in 1984 a market share of 1,34 %. Even if an amount of 30 000 tonnes had been imported (see recital 38), the market share would have been only 2,2 %.  56. On the basis of the information available to the Commission, it appears that the main manufacturers concerned in the Federal Republic of Germany set up a joint venture, which acquired 50 % of the share capital of the importing company 'HGS'. Furthermore, the manufacturers seem to have made arrangements enabling them to control the distribution and marketing of this product in the future.  57. Imports into other Member States did not take place and there is no evidence that such imports are likely to take place in the future.  (iii) With regard to imports originating in Yugoslavia  58. Imports into Italy in 1984 amounted to a market share of 0,44 %. Even if, during the first nine months of 1985, 218 000 tonnes had been imported, that would represent only a 0,56 % share of the market in Italy. Furthermore, as mentioned above, Italian manufacturers have already taken steps in order to limit future imports.  59. No significant imports were made into other Member States and there is no evidence that such imports are likely to take place in the future.  (f) Findings with regard to the alleged loss of other outlets  60. The anti-dumping measures taken by Norway concerning imports of the product originating in the German Democratic Republic, by recommendation of 13 July 1984, which could possibly have led to a diversion of trade to the Community, were repealed in December 1985.  61. The Swedish authorities did not take any formal action against imports of the product concerned originating in the German Democratic Republic and Poland. These countries only entered into voluntary export restraints on the basis of which their exports to Sweden would not exceed . . . tonnes per year. It is considered that these quantities do not lead, in the light of the total available production capacity of both exporting countries, to a significant risk of diversion of trade to the Community.  62. In view of the fact that total Yugoslav exports of the product concerned increased from 716 450 tonnes in 1981 to 1 082 329 tonnes in 1984 and that exports by the three Yugoslav companies involved in this proceeding to non-Community countries increased from 0 tonnes in 1981 to 175 000 tonnes in 1984, there is no likelihood of increased imports resulting from a loss of outlets elsewhere.  63. In the light of the facts mentioned above, in particular those relating to measures taken by some of the main Community producers concerned in order to prevent future imports of substantial quantities of the product and the extremely low market share held in 1984 by these dumped imports, it is considered that the change in circumstances, which would create a situation in which the dumping would cause material injury to a major proportion of the Community industry, cannot, at present, be foreseen and is not imminent. In addition, the investigation did not substantiate the complainants' allegation that imports into the Community would increase as a result of a loss of outlets for the producers/exporters of the countries concerned in this proceeding in third countries.  E. REGIONAL THREAT OF INJURY  1. IMPORTS INTO IRELAND, THE UNITED KINGDOM AND DENMARK  64. Considering that:  (i) producers in Ireland, the United Kingdom and Denmark sell almost all their production (95 %, 99 % and 93 %) on their respective domestic markets; and  (ii) demand in each of these markets is not supplied to any substantial degree by producers of the product in question located elsewhere in the Community (market shares held by the product originating in other Member States on Irish, UK and Danish markets in 1984 were 4,27 %, 2,41 % and 1,16 % respectively);  Ireland, the United Kingdom and Denmark may be considered in the framework of this proceeding to constitute isolated markets within the meaning of Article 4 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84. (a) Imports into Ireland  65. Dumped imports originating in the German Democratic Republic reached 13 275 tonnes in 1982 and increased to 21 452 tonnes in 1983. In 1984 they decreased to 18 038 tonnes, i. e. by 16 %.  The market share held by these imports amounted to 0,85 % in 1982 and to 1,47 % in 1983. In 1984 it decreased to 1,32 %.  66. Dumped imports originating in Spain no longer fall within the scope of this proceeding. There were no imports from other third countries into Ireland.  67. It is considered that, apart from the facts already mentioned above with regard to a possible threat of injury on a Community-wide basis, in the present case, where the market share held by the dumped imports in Ireland is so low and the quantities of dumped imports did not show a continuous increase, there is no imminent threat of material injury to the Irish industry for the product concerned.  (b) Imports into the United Kingdom  68. Dumped imports originating in the German Democratic Republic increased from 11 tonnes in 1981 to 17 977 tonnes in 1982 and further to 56 019 tonnes in 1983. In 1984 they amounted to 52 343 tonnes.  The market share held by these imports was negligible in 1981 and reached 0,14 % in 1982. In 1983 it increased to 0,42 %; in 1984 it dropped to 0,38 %.  69. Dumped imports originating in Poland increased from less than 60 tonnes in 1981 and 1982 to 13 207 tonnes in 1983 and further to almost 60 000 tonnes in 1984. The market share held by these imports was  negligible in 1981 and 1982; in 1983 it amounted to 0,1 % and increased in 1984 to 0,4 %.  70. Dumped imports originating in Spain no longer fall within the scope of this proceeding. There were no imports from other third countries into the United Kingdom.  71. It is considered that, apart from the facts already mentioned with regard to a possible threat of injury on a Community-wide basis, in the present case the aggregated market share of the dumped imports amounting to 0,78 % in 1984 does not represent an imminent threat of material injury to the manufacturers in the United Kingdom.  (c) Imports into Denmark  72. Dumped imports originating in the German Democratic Republic increased from 52 tonnes in 1981 to 182 tonnes in 1982; in 1983 they increased to 7 546 tonnes; in 1984 they decreased to 6 999 tonnes.  The market share held by these imports was negligible in 1981 and 1982; in 1983 it amounted to 0,62 % and in 1984 it decreased to 0,52 %.  73. Dumped imports originating in Poland increased from 13 157 tonnes in 1981 to 14 495 tonnes in 1982; in 1983 they decreased to 11 276 tonnes and in 1984 they increased to 18 146 tonnes.  The market share held by these dumped imports increased from 1,08 % in 1981 to 1,24 % in 1982. In 1985 it decreased, however, to 0,92 % and in 1984 increased to 1,34 %.  74. There were no imports from other third countries into Denmark.  75. In view of the fact that the dumped imports originating in the German Democratic Republic and Poland do not show a continuous increase, the market shares held by these imports are considered too low to represent an imminent threat of material injury to the Danish industry concerned.  2. IMPORTS INTO THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND ITALY  76. With regard to Community producers in the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy, the Commission found that plants situated in the north-eastern regions of those Member States were almost the only ones concerned by the dumped imports. Therefore the Commission examined whether those regions could be considered as distinct markets within the meaning of Article 4 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84. However, the evidence available to the Commission in particular with regard to sales made in those areas from elsewhere in the Community did not enable the Commission to determine that these regions may be considered as regional markets on their own.  Although the Commission did not receive full information with regard to the situation of all producers located elsewhere in the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy outside the north-eastern regions in those Member States, it appears on the basis of the information otherwise available that both Member States may be considered to constitute regional markets, considering that producers in the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy sell 93,8 % and 98,8 % respectively of their production on their domestic market and the market share held by supplies from elsewhere in the Community repre sents 2,85 % and 0,19 % respectively. However, the data available to the Commission show that the market share held by dumped imports in the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy amounted in 1984 only to 0,56 % and 0,44 % respectively, which is considered, in the light of the findings made above, insufficient for taking action.  F. Termination of the proceeding  77. In these circumstances, therefore, the proceeding concerning imports of Portland cement originating in the German Democratic Republic, Poland and Yugoslavia should be terminated without the imposition of measures.  78. However, as objections to this course of action were raised in the Advisory Committee by several Member States, the proceeding was not terminated by the Commission, but a proposal to that effect was submitted by the Commission to the Council.  Since the Council did not decide otherwise within one month, the proceeding stands terminated in accordance with Article 9 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84.  79. The complainants were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission intended to terminate this proceeding. Subsequently, they made their comments known to the Commission.  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Sole Article  The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of Portland cement originating in the German Democratic Republic, Poland and Yugoslavia is hereby terminated.  Done at Brussels, 17 July 1986.  For the Commission  Willy DE CLERCQ  Member of the Commission  (1) OJ No L 201, 30. 7. 1984, p. 1.  (2) OJ No C 84, 2. 4. 1985, p. 5.  (1) In the published version of the Decision, some figures have hereinafter been omitted, pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 concerning non-disclosure of business secrets.


European Parliament decision on the request for waiver of the immunity of Efstratios Korakas (2001/2230(IMM))