title: Commission Decision of 20/07/2018 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.8823 - NESTE / Int. Handelsmaatschappij Demeter BV) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic)

text:
                                EUROPEAN COMMISSION
                                                                 Brussels, 20.7.2018
                                                                 C(2018) 4931 final
  In the published version of this decision, some
  information has been omitted pursuant to                                 PUBLIC VERSION
  Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
  No 139/2004 concerning non-disclosure of
  business secrets and other confidential
  information. The omissions are shown thus
  […]. Where possible the information omitted
  has been replaced by ranges of figures or a
  general description.
                                                                 To the notifying party
Subject:             Case M.8823 — Neste/Demeter Animal Fats and Proteins
                     Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council
                     Regulation No 139/20041 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the
                     European Economic Area2
Dear Sir or Madam,
(1)       On 15 June 2018, the European Commission received notification of a proposed
          concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which Neste Oyj
          ("Neste") intends to acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger
          Regulation sole control of the whole of Int. Handelsmaatschappij Demeter BV
          ("Demeter"), which will regroup the animal fats and proteins sourcing and supply
          activities of the Demeter group ("the Transaction").3 Neste and Demeter are
          collectively referred to as "the Parties", whilst the undertaking resulting from the
          Transaction is referred to as "the merged entity".
1         OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the 'Merger Regulation'). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty
          on the Functioning of the European Union ('TFEU') has introduced certain changes, such as the
          replacement of 'Community' by 'Union' and 'common market' by 'internal market'. The
          terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.
2         OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 (the 'EEA Agreement').
3         Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 218, 22.6.2018, p. 34.
Commission européenne, DG COMP MERGER REGISTRY, 1049 Bruxelles, BELGIQUE
Europese Commissie, DG COMP MERGER REGISTRY, 1049 Brussel, BELGIË
Tel: +32 229-91111. Fax: +32 229-64301. E-mail: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.  THE PARTIES
(2) Neste is a refining and marketing company focusing on low-emission, high-
    quality traffic fuels. For its production of renewable fuel, Neste uses a variety of
    renewable feedstock, including animal fats.
(3) Neste shares are listed and traded on the NASDAQ OMX Helsinki exchange.
    While, based on the information provided by the Parties, the Finnish State
    holds 44.75% % of Neste’s shares, the Parties argue that the company operates
    independently from the State, as evidenced by the following facts:
    (a)     all strategic decisions relating to the commercial or business policy
            (including budget, business plan, major investments or the appointment of
            senior management) are taken by the Board of Directors of Neste and the
            Neste President and CEO;
    (b)     all members of the Board are independent, non-executive directors and
            also independent of the company’s significant shareholders in accordance
            with the Finnish Corporate Governance Code 2010;
    (c)     the Finnish State only has the right to attend Neste’s annual General
            Meeting, whose power of decision is limited to matters belonging to the
            General Meeting by law, primarily (i) the adoption of the annual financial
            statements, (ii) the payment of dividends, (iii) the discharging from
            liability of the members of the Board of Directors, President and CEO, and
            (iv) the appointment of the Board of Directors and of the external auditors.
            As mentioned, those Board members are all independent from the main
            shareholders and their independence is re-assessed every year, in
            accordance with the Finnish Corporate Governance Code 2010.
(4) In any event, the competitive assessment of the Transaction would not be
    materially affected by a combination of the activities of other Finnish state-owned
    enterprises with those of Neste, given that there is no other Finnish state-owned
    enterprise that has any horizontal or vertical links with Demeter.
(5) Demeter is active in the purchase and resale of processed animal fats and of
    processed animal proteins. Demeter is a trader: it buys processed animal fats and
    proteins from renderers4 and sells them to different industries that use those
    materials as an input in their production of biofuels, oleo-chemical products,
    animal feed and pet food.
2.  THE OPERATION AND CONCENTRATION
(6) Pursuant to a Share Sale and Purchase Agreement ("SPA"), Neste will
    acquire 51% of Demeter shares and voting rights (the remaining 49% will be held
    by Demeter's current owners, the Ebeli brothers). According to the Shareholders
    Agreement, unanimity will only be required to protect the minority shareholders’
4   'Rendering' refers to the processing of animal by-products, mainly obtained from slaughterhouses
    and meat packing plants, to produce animal fats and protein meals as final products. This is done
    by cooking, grinding and drying the material in order to separate the fat from the protein.
                                                    2
 ---pagebreak---        financial interests.5 Demeter will therefore be solely controlled by Neste within
       the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.
(7)    The notified operation therefore consitutes a concentration pursuant to
       Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.
3.     UNION DIMENSION
(8)    The undertakings concerned have a combined aggregate world-wide turnover of
       more than EUR 5 000 million6 (Neste: EUR 13 216 million;
       Demeter: 328.8 million). Each of them has a Union-wide turnover in excess of
       EUR 250 million (Neste: […] million; Demeter […] million), but they do not
       achieve more than two-thirds of their aggregate Union-wide turnover within one
       and the same Member State. The notified operation therefore has a Union
       dimension within the meaning of […]∗.
4.     COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT
4.1.   Relevant product market definition
(9)    Neste's and Demeter’s activities overlap in the purchase of category 3 animal fats.
       In addition, there is a vertical link due to the fact that Neste is active downstream
       in the production of diesel-compatible biofuel for which it purchases category 3
       animal fats7.
4.1.1. Purchase of Category 3 animal fats
(10)   The Parties present a narrow product market for just Category 3 animal fats,
       noting however that animal fats may be replaced by other feedstocks in many
       applications. They claim that Category 1, 2, and 3 animal fats, used cooking oil,
       and vegetable oils are all substitutable feedstocks for the production of biofuels.
       They contend that, in any case, no competitive concerns arise even under the
       narrowest market definition, which is Category 3 animal fats, for which they have
       provided market shares and sales figures. In addition, the Parties consider that
       food grade Category 3 animal fats should be included in Category 3 animal fats.
5      For example: the approval or changes of constitutional documents (e.g. Articles of Association);
       any issue of shares, option rights or other rights entitling to any kind of shares or options related to
       the shares in the capital; any decision on liquidation, winding up, dissolving, bankruptcy,
       restructuring or other insolvency proceedings; and approval or amendment of a commercial
       contract between Neste and Demeter whereby Neste commits to buy Demeter's animal fats at
       arm's length (and not purchase price) in order not to destroy value for the minority shareholders. It
       will be Neste and not the minority shareholders who will decide from whom and at what price
       feedstock shall be purchased from the renderers. Moreover, Neste has no obligation under the
       Commercial Contract to purchase any defined quantity.
6      Turnover calculated in accordance with Article 5 of the Merger Regulation and the Commission
       Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice (OJ C 95, 16.4.2008, p. 1).
∗      Should read: Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation.
7      Neste also purchases category 2 animal fats in Finland, where Demeter is not present. Demeter
       also purchases small amounts of used cooking oil. In 2017 100% of its purchases were sold to
       Neste. Neste buys used cooking oil from Demeter and third parties. However, the combined share
       of Demeter and Neste’s purchases of used cooking oil in the EEA are below 5 %.
                                                          3
 ---pagebreak--- (11)    Purchasers of Category 3 fats from renderers use these fats for animal feed and
        pet food production, in the oleo-chemical industry or for the production of
        biofuels (as the Neste group does). Purchasers can also be traders, such as
        Demeter, who then sell the fats to the said users.
(12)    In its previous decisional practice, the Commission has distinguished three
        categories of animal by-products according to the risk that they pose to public and
        animal health: Category 1 (highest risk), Category 2 (high risk) and Category 3
        (low risk) by-products8. Furthermore, the Commission has considered the
        existence of a separate market for animal fats, with a possible further distinction
        between Category 3 fats and food grade fats.9
(13)    The Commission has also distinguished between the upstream market for
        (i) sourcing Category 3 animal by-products from slaughterhouses, the so-called
        “collection” of animal by-products from slaughterhouses and its processing,
        which is done by renderers; and (ii) the downstream market for the sale of
        processed animal by-products, such as possibly the sale of Category 3 fats.
(14)    The Commission's market investigation in the present case sought more
        information as to the product dimension of the relevant markets for the purchase
        of animal fats.
4.1.1.1. Category 3 animal fats vs Category 1 and 2 animal fats
(15)    A majority of biofuel competitors, animal fat customers and animal fat
        competitors indicated that Category 3 animal fats are not substitutable with
        Category 1 or Category 2 animal fats for the production of diesel compatible
        biofuel. Respondents pointed to quality and regulatory differences. A biofuel
        competitor commented: "Category 3 is a better feedstock but as it is not a waste it
        cannot be considered as such in the sustainability documentation delivered with
        the biodiesel produced."10
(16)    Several respondents cited differences in government incentives based on EU
        legislation. Unlike Category 1 and Category 2 animal fats, Category 3 animal fats
        are not listed in Annex 9 to the Renewable Energy Directive, which identifies the
        feedstocks and fuels which can be counted towards national quotas for the use of
        renewable energy sources.11 A biofuel competitor commented: "Biofuels from
        animal fats of Category 1 and 2 are included in Annex IX Part B of Directive
        2009/28/EC. Consequently, these biofuels can be counted twice towards the
        renewable transport target of 10 % in 2020 laid down in Article 3 (4) of the
        afore-mentioned Directive. Consequently, the use of biofuels of these feedstocks
        are additionally incentivized in several EU member states."12
8       Commission Decision of 7.10.2016 in Case M.7930 - ABP Group/Fane Valley Group/Slaney
        Foods, para. 188.
9       Ibid, at para. 190.
10      Responses to Question 11 of Q1 to Biofuel competitors.
11      Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the
        promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing
        Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, OJ L 140, 5.6.2009, p. 16–62.
12      Responses to Question 11.1 of Q1 to Biofuel competitors.
                                                      4
 ---pagebreak--- (17)    Another biofuel competitor responding to the market investigation underscored
        the difficulty for customers to switch to other categories of animal fats: "Once a
        HVO plant is set up and has received the corresponding regulatory approvals, it
        is almost impossible in practice to change the process and switch to other
        categories of Animal Fats."13
4.1.1.2. Category 3 animal fats vs vegetable oils
(18)    A majority of biofuel competitors indicated that animal fats are not substitutable
        with vegetable oils for the production of diesel compatible biofuel. A biofuel
        competitor commented: "Unlike vegetal oils, animal fats require pre-treatment
        facilities and processes; lead to a different output (from a regulatory/tax
        standpoint); have a different greenhouse gas footprint due to government
        incentives and tax regulations"14
(19)    Nonetheless, some replies to the market investigation indicated that there is some
        substitutability between animal fats, in particular Category 3 animal fats, and
        vegetable oils in the production of biofuel. A competitor noted that additional
        regulatory incentives apply only to Category 1 and 2 fats, and not to Category 3
        fats and vegetable oils: "Both biofuels from vegetable oils and animal fats can be
        counted towards blending obligations to increase the use of renewable energies
        in transport. However, in contrast to vegetable oil-based biofuels, biofuels of
        animal fats of Cat. 1 and 2 are additionally incentivized by double counting
        schemes and/or a beneficial GHG accounting methodology."15
4.1.1.3. Category 3 animal fats vs used cooking oil
(20)    A majority of biofuel competitors indicated that animal fats are not substitutable
        with used cooking oil for the production of diesel compatible biofuel. A biofuel
        competitor highlighted the price difference: "UCO16 are much more expensive
        than animal fat, less traceable and contain a high level of variability of
        contaminants components. They are subject to two different types of
        regulation/tax."17
(21)    In any event, for the purpose of this Decision, the exact delineation of the market
        for purchase of Category 3 animal fats can be left open as the outcome of the
        competitive assessment remains the same under any plausible product market
        definition.
4.1.2. Sale of Category 3 animal fats
(22)    Demeter is a trader and is thus active as a seller of Category 3 fats. The Parties do
        not see this selling activity as different from the selling activities of renderers on
        the grounds that users of Category 3 fats can purchase indifferently either directly
        from renderers and/or from traders. Moreover, the Parties claim that most
        purchases, whether from renderers or from traders, are, to their knowledge, spot-
        based and that they do not know what quantities transit or not through traders and
13      Responses to Question 11 of Q1 to Biofuel competitors.
14      Responses to Question 12 of Q1 to Biofuel competitors.
15      Responses to Question 12 of Q1 to Biofuel competitors.
16      Used Cooking Oil.
17      Responses to Question 13 of Q1 to Biofuel competitors.
                                                     5
 ---pagebreak---        whether the traders act as agents or independent sellers for the end-users. Finally,
       if there were to be a separate market for the sale by traders of processed
       Category 3 fats, the Parties submit that only Demeter would be active on this
       market and that Demeter would already today sell close to all of its Category 3
       fats to Neste.
(23)   The market investigation confirmed that sales of animal fats by renderers and
       sales of such fats by traders are part of the same market. Biofuel competitors and
       other purchasers of animal fats source animal fats from both traders and
       renderers, while pointing out certain advantages of one supply channel over the
       other.18 Some respondents mention that traders are able to blend animal fats from
       different sources to meet the final quality standard required by the customer,
       while others comment that renderers offer superior control of the supply chain
       and consistent supply of the feedstock structure. A biofuel competitor concluded:
       "Therefore, often the chain is the combination of smaller and spread operators
       with specific know-how for managing from rendering point to a terminal, and
       different operators with specific know-how in trading."19
(24)   In addition, the Commission found that the blending operations conducted by
       traders are not very cost-intensive. The blending process involves the discharging
       of fats from different origins into storage tanks which have a heating system to
       prevent the animal fat from solidifying in the tanks. Such tank capacities can be
       easily rented by any third party on the market. Demeter's storage costs
       (rental/handling/cleaning) required for blending came to EUR […] in 2017, out of
       EUR […] in total costs of sales (i.e. approximately [0-5]%).20
(25)   In the light of the results of the market investigation and taking account of all
       evidence available to it the Commission considers, for the purpose of this
       Decision, that the sale of Category 3 animal fats should not be further segmented
       into sales by renderers and sales by traders.
4.1.3. Production of diesel-compatible biofuel
(26)   As mentioned in recital 2, Neste is active downstream in the production and (ex-
       refinery) sale of diesel-compatible biofuels21. Neste uses all Category 3 fats (and
       other feedstock) internally for the production of renewable fuels used in the
       transport sector mainly by the fossil fuel suppliers (the major oil companies), and
       to some extent also by fleet operators and airlines.
(27)   The Parties submit that the different types of biofuel (ethanol, FAME22 and
       HVO23) all compete with fossil fuels and no segmentation is warranted. However,
       since Category 3 fats are only used in biofuels, and since Neste's market share on
       a broader biofuel + fossil fuel market is lower than on a market limited to biofuels
       only, the Parties focus on the market for biofuels alone.
18     Responses to Question 23 of Q1 to Biofuel competitors and Question 6 of Q3 to animal fat
       customers.
19     Responses to Question 23 of Q1 to Biofuel competitors.
20     Response to Question 2 of RFI No 1.
21     Neste also produces small quantities of gasoline-compatible biofuels.
22     Fatty Acid Methyl Ester.
23     Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil.
                                                       6
 ---pagebreak--- (28)    Neste also provide details on the narrower market for the production and sale of
        diesel-compatible biofuels, to include both HVO and FAME, as well as the
        market for only HVO diesel-compatible biofuels.
(29)    In its previous decisional practice, the Commission has considered biodiesel to be
        part of the fuel market. The Commission has left open both the distinction
        between diesel fuel and biodiesel, and the distinction by application.24
4.1.3.1. FAME vs HVO diesel-compatible biofuels
(30)    The main types of diesel-compatible biofuels currently produced on a commercial
        scale are HVO fuels and FAME fuels, which are also known under various other
        names and acronyms, such as biodiesel, RME25, SME26 or PME27).
(31)    The market investigation was inconclusive as regards the substitutability between
        FAME diesel-compatible biofuel and HVO diesel-compatible biofuel: a majority
        of biofuel competitors28 considered those types of biofuel to be interchangeable,
        while a majority of biofuel customers did not consider that this is the case.
(32)    Competitors pointed to similarities of use between FAME and HVO, as both
        products can be used towards biofuel mandates, but cited differences with regard
        to price and blending limitations. A competitor commented: "Economically, HVO
        is more expensive than FAME on the market. From this point of view, FAME and
        HVO are not interchangeable. Technically, FAME and HVO are
        interchangeable; both match biodiesel mandate. But there is a maximum spec
        content for FAME into diesel. So, when the mandate requires additional biofuel
        blending than FAME, HVO becomes the only feasible alternative."29
(33)    Customers cited differences in product characteristics between HVO and FAME,
        in particular with regard to cold properties. A customer commented: "FAME
        needs special engines/vehicles and cannot be used during the winter period in
        Sweden."30 The same customer suggested that, in contrast to FAME, HVO is fully
        substitutable with fossil diesel: "HVO diesel is fully interchangeable with
        standard diesel. It has the same or higher specifications regarding temperature
        and cfpp31 etc."32
(34)    In any event, for the purpose of this Decision, the exact product market definition
        for the production of diesel-compatible biofuels can be left open as the outcome
        of the competitive assessment would remain the same under any plausible product
        market definition.
24      Commission Decision of 04.02.2009 in Case M.5388 - Diester Industrie/Oleon, para.13.
25      Rape Seed Methyl Ester.
26      Soybean Methyl Ester.
27      Palm Oil Methyl Ester.
28      Responses to Question 18 of Q1 to Biofuel competitors and Question 6 of Q2 to Biofuel
        Customers.
29      Responses to Question 18 of Q1 to Biofuel competitors.
30      Responses to Question 7 of Q2 to Biofuel customers.
31      CFPP stands for Cold Filter Plugging Point, which is the lowest temperature, expressed in degrees
        Celsius (°C), at which a given volume of diesel type of fuel still passes through a standardized
        filtration device in a specified time when cooled under certain conditions.
32      Responses to Question 7 of Q2 to Biofuel customers.
                                                         7
 ---pagebreak--- 4.2.   Relevant geographic market definition
4.2.1. Purchase and sale of Category 3 animal fats
(35)   With regard to the geographic market and based on the Commission precedent in
       SARIA/Danish Crown/Daka JV33, Neste distinguishes three regions in which
       Category 3 fats are traded: North of Europe (comprising Austria, Benelux,
       Germany, France, Ireland, UK and the Nordic countries); South of Europe
       (comprising Croatia, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain); and Eastern
       Europe (comprising Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
       Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia). However, Southern Europe and
       Eastern Europe are not affected markets since the Parties have minimal purchases
       and sales in those areas. With regard to the North of Europe, the Parties have also
       provided information at national level.
(36)   In SARIA/Danish Crown/Daka JV the Commission left the exact geographic
       market definition open, while considering the market for the purchase of
       Category 3 animal fats to be broader than national, particularly in view of cross-
       border sales. The Commission considered that the market investigation had
       suggested the market to be regional, in particular covering certain Northern
       European Member States, namely Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland
       and Germany.34
(37)   The market investigation in the present case has confirmed that customers source
       Category 3 animal fats at least on a regional basis, if not wider.35 A customer
       commented: "Considering economical, sustainable and technical constraints, we
       prefer to source from neighbouring countries."36
(38)   In any event, for the purpose of this Decision, the question as to the scope of the
       geographic market for the purchase and sale of Category 3 animal fats may ultimately
       be left open as the outcome of the competitive assessment would remain the same
       under any plausible geographic market definition.
4.2.2. Production of diesel-compatible biofuel
(39)   As regards the geographical market, Neste submits that the relevant market for
       biofuels is at least EEA-wide. Nonetheless, it also provides data for the possible
       narrowest definition – national – in the countries where it is active.
(40)   In its previous decisional practice, the Commission has considered markets for
       biofuel that were at least regional37 or at least EEA-wide38 in scope, but ultimately
       left the exact geographical market definition open.
33     Commission Decision of 29.6.2012 in Case M.6285 - SARIA/Danish Crown/Daka JV,
       para. 48-51.
34     Commission Decision of 29.6.2012 in Case M.6285 - SARIA/Danish Crown /Daka JV, para. 51.
35     Responses to Question 16 of Q1 to Biofuel competitors, Questions 7 and 8 of Q3 to Animal Fat
       Customers and Questions 8 and 9 of Q4 to Animal Fat Competitors.
36     Responses to Question 16 of Q1 to Biofuel competitors.
37     Commission Decision of 08.01.2009 in Case M.3876 - Diester/Bunge and Commission Decision
       of 30.01.2003 in Case M.3039 - Soprol/Cereol-Lesieur.
38     Commission Decision of 04.02.2009 in Case M.5388 - Diester Industrie/Oleon.
                                                    8
 ---pagebreak--- (41)   The market investigation in the present case has been inconclusive with regard to
       the definition of the geographic market for biofuels as opinions diverged between
       competitors and customers. A majority of biofuel competitors stated that there is
       no maximum distance beyond which transport of diesel-compatible biofuel is
       economically non-viable. A competitor explained: "Diesel compatible biofuel can
       be transported all around the world as it can be stored easily and shipped in big
       vessels to be delivered where the demand is. This is already the case and we can
       consider that biodiesel and HVO markets are already global."39
(42)   By contrast, a majority of biofuel customers considered that there is a maximum
       distance beyond which transport of diesel-compatible biofuel is economically
       non-viable. Several replies seemed to suggest that the relevant market would be
       regional. A biofuel customer explained: "There is no technical maximum distance
       but economically, the cost of transportation can be significant versus that of the
       product and effectively render some source locations uneconomical."40
(43)   In any case, the question as to the scope of the geographic market for the supply
       of diesel-compatible biofuels can ultimately be left open as the outcome of the
       competitive assessment would remain the same under any plausible geographic
       market definition.
5.     COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT
5.1.   Introduction
(44)   Under Article 2(2) and (3) of the Merger Regulation, the Commission must assess
       whether a proposed concentration would significantly impede effective
       competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it, in particular
       through the creation or strengthening of a dominant position.
(45)   In this respect, a merger can entail horizontal and/or non-horizontal effects.
5.1.1. Horizontally affected markets: purchase of Category 3 animal fats
(46)   As regards horizontal effects, the Commission guidelines on the assessment of
       horizontal mergers under the Merger Regulation (“the Horizontal Mergers
       Guidelines”)41 distinguish between two main ways in which mergers between
       actual or potential competitors on the same relevant market may significantly
       impede competition, namely non-coordinated or coordinated effects. Non-
       coordinated effects may significantly impede competition by eliminating
       important competitive constraints on one or more firms, which consequently
       would have increased market power, without resorting to coordinated behaviour.
(47)   The Horizontal Merger Guidelines list a number of factors which may influence
       whether or not significant non-coordinated effects are likely to result from a
       merger, such as the large market shares of the merging firms, the fact that the
       merging firms are close competitors, the limited possibilities for customers to
39     Responses to Question 19 of Q1 to Biofuel competitors.
40     Responses to Question 7 of Q2 to Biofuel competitors.
41     Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control
       of concentrations between undertakings, OJ C 31, 5.2.2004 p. 5.
                                                     9
 ---pagebreak---      switch supplies, or the fact that a merger would eliminate an important
     competitive force. That list of factors applies equally if a merger would create or
     strengthen a dominant position, or would otherwise significantly impede effective
     competition due to non-coordinated effects.
(48) This Decision will analyse whether the Transaction is likely to raise serious
     doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market by the creation of non-
     coordinated effects in those markets on which the Parties’ activities lead to
     horizontal overlaps.
(49) The only horizontal overlap between the activities of the Parties in the EEA is in
     the procurement of processed Category 3 fats. Demeter is a trader and is thus
     active as purchaser and seller of Category 3 fats. The Neste group is not active in
     selling, as it uses the Category 3 fats it purchases as an input for its production of
     renewable fuels.
(50) Given that there is no overlap in the supply of Category 3 fats, and even Demeter
     itself does not produce or process this material, the only anti-competitive effect
     the Transaction could potentially bring to the markets in the purchase and sale of
     Category 3 animal fats due to horizontal overlaps would be excessive buying
     power that would harm suppliers and other customers of Category 3 fats.
(51) For the following reasons, the Commission considers that it is not likely that post-
     merger Neste could exert significant bargaining power towards suppliers of
     Category 3 animal fats (renderers), who would still have a vast customer base.
(52) First, the Parties' combined market share in the purchase of Category 3 animal
     fats amounted to [10-20]% (Demeter [10-20]%, with a low increment from Neste
     at [0-5]%) in the EEA and [20-30]% (Demeter [20-30]%, with a low increment
     from Neste at [5-10]%) in Northern Europe in 2017. At Northern European level,
     other purchasers of Category 3 animal fats include oleo-chemical producers
     Oleon ([5-10]%), KLK Emmerich ([5-10]%), Baerlocher ([0-5]%); AAK, a
     producer of high-value added vegetable oils and fats ([0-5]%); and animal fat
     traders MW Beer, Van Wijk & Olthuis, and Harris Tobias (each at [0-5]%).
     Within Northern Europe, the Parties' combined purchase shares would amount to
     circa [30-40]% of procurement for Category 3 animal fats in [countries]
     (Demeter [10-20]%, with a low increment from Neste at [10-20]%) and [country]
     (Demeter [20-30]%, with a low increment from Neste at [5-10]%) and circa
     [60-70]% in [countries] (Demeter [50-60]%, with a low increment from Neste
     at [5-10]%).
(53) Second, given that Category 3 animal fats are sourced for different applications,
     there are many other customers in the market who will continue to compete with
     the merged entity. Industry data show that biodiesel represents only
     approximately 20% by volume of the end uses of edible and Category 3 fats in the
     EU.42 In, addition, there are also other traders who have been identified by the
     market investigation respondents as close competitors to Demeter in the purchase
42   Based on the figure 'Destination of edible and category 3 fat', page 85 of the Form CO, taken from
     "Presentation material in EFPRA annual conference 2017 (Hamburg), Dirk Dobbelaere,
     "Statistical overview of the Animal By-Products Industry in the EU in 2016”. The edible fats
     included in this statistical figure refer to edible tallow and lard, which make up about 5% of the
     'edible and category 3 fats' category.
                                                       10
 ---pagebreak---         of animal fats: Van Wijk en Olthuis, Robie/Noba, Saria, Soleval, Leo Group,
        Darling, and Sapi.43
(54)    Third, purchases are made on a spot basis, without long term supply agreements.
        As suppliers are free to sell to any customers there is no risk of being locked in.
        An animal fat supplier commented: "The market will keep selling the material
        there where it brings the best money. Like it has always been".44
(55)    Fourth, none of the animal fat suppliers responding to the market investigation
        identified any impact from the Transaction on their business or the market.45 For
        example, an animal fat supplier described the potential impact of the Transaction
        as follows: "none. Market remains the same, the function of Demeter remains the
        same towards the market and Neste."46
(56)    For the reasons set out in recitals (49) to (55) the Commission concludes that the
        Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal
        market as regards the market for the purchase of Category 3 animal fats.
5.1.2. Vertically affected markets
5.1.2.1. Introduction
(57)    A vertical merger may result in anti-competitive effects due to foreclosure.
        Foreclosure concerns a situation where actual or potential rivals' access to
        supplies or markets is hampered or eliminated as a result of the merger, thereby
        reducing these companies' ability and/or incentive to compete.47
(58)    Two forms of foreclosure can be distinguished in a vertical relationship: input and
        customer foreclosure. The first is where the merger is likely to raise the costs of
        downstream rivals by restricting their access to an important input (input
        foreclosure). The second is where the merger is likely to foreclose upstream rivals
        by restricting their access to a sufficient customer base (customer foreclosure).48
(59)    Input foreclosure arises where, post-merger, the new entity would be likely to
        restrict access to the products or services that it would have otherwise supplied
        absent the merger, thereby raising its downstream rivals' costs by making it harder
        for them to obtain supplies of the input under similar prices and conditions as
        absent the merger.49
(60)    Customer foreclosure may occur when a supplier integrates with an important
        customer in the downstream market. Because of this downstream presence, the
        merged entity may foreclose access to a sufficient customer base to its actual or
        potential rivals in the upstream market (the input market) and reduce their ability
43      Responses to Question 11 of Q3 to animal fat customers and Question 13 of Q4 to animal fat
        competitors.
44      Responses to Question 12 of Q4 to animal fat suppliers.
45      Responses to Question 14, 15 and 16 of Q4 to animal fat suppliers.
46      Responses to Question 14 of Q4 to animal fat competitors.
47      Guidelines on the assessment of non-horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the
        control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ C 265, 18.10.2008, p. 6 (‘Non-Horizontal
        Guidelines’), paragraphs 29–30.
48      Non-Horizontal Guidelines, paragraphs 29–30.
49      Non-Horizontal Guidelines, paragraph 31.
                                                      11
 ---pagebreak---         or incentive to compete. In turn, this may raise downstream rivals' costs by
        making it harder for them to obtain supplies of the input under similar prices and
        conditions as absent the merger.50
(61)    For an input or customer foreclosure scenario to raise competition concerns, three
        cumulative factors need to be taken into account: (i) the ability of the merged
        entity to engage in foreclosure; (ii) the incentives of the merged entity to do so;
        and (iii) whether a foreclosure strategy would have a significant detrimental effect
        on competition in the downstream market.51
(62)    The Transaction gives rise to vertically affected markets as a result of Demeter's
        position in the supply of Category 3 animal fats in the Benelux, Germany, the UK
        and Ireland (upstream), and Neste's activities in the production of HVO biofuel,
        where it has market shares above 30% in a number of countries (downstream).
5.1.2.2. Input foreclosure
(63)    Three market participants expressed concerns that Neste could use the acquisition
        of Demeter to foreclose competing biofuel producers from access to Category 3
        animal fats. Among them, a biofuel customer argued that the acquisition of
        Demeter could create an entry or expansion barrier to actual or potential HVO
        competitors and ultimately enable Neste to increase its prices of HVO.
(64)    However, on the basis of the results of the market investigation, the Commission
        considers that such input foreclosure is unlikely to arise, mainly since the merged
        entity will lack the ability to foreclose competing biofuel producers from access
        to Category 3 fats. Accordingly, the Commission also considers that the
        acquisition of Demeter will not create a barrier to entry or expansion.
        Ability to foreclose
(65)    Post-merger, Neste will not have the ability to foreclose access to Category 3
        animal fats. First, Demeter had a market share in the sale of Category 3 animal
        fats of [20-30]% in the North of Europe, (Austria, Benelux, France, Germany,
        Ireland, Nordic countries, and the UK) in 2017. While its market share was high
        in Finland ([…]%) and the Netherlands ([…]%), this is where Neste has its
        refineries and where already today Demeter only sells to Neste.52
(66)    Second, already today [90-100]% of Demeter's Category 3 fats are sold to Neste
        and already today Demeter does not sell to any other biofuel producer. Therefore
        none of Neste’s competitors in biofuel production currently relies on purchases of
        Category 3 Animal Fats from Demeter.
(67)    Third, Demeter is a trader and not a renderer; therefore the number of available
        producers of Category 3 animal fats will not change post-Transaction. Some
        market participants, and in particular those who voiced concerns, referred to the
        competitive advantages that Demeter has over its competitors, namely its
50      Non-Horizontal Guidelines, paragraph 58.
51      Non-Horizontal Guidelines, paragraphs 32, 59.
52      Demeter does not have material sales in other countries. For instance, in 2017, its only other sales
        of Category 3 fats were in […] (for about EUR […]), […] (for about EUR […]) and […] (for
        about EUR […]).
                                                       12
 ---pagebreak---      blending capabilities and its vast network of contacts with renderers. However, as
     mentioned above, the cost of Demeter's blending operations is in the region of
     [0-5]% of its overall sales costs.53 Moreover, even though blending is important,
     Category 3 animal fat still needs to go through a pre-treatment process to make it
     suitable as a feedstock for HVO. This pre-treatment is always carried out by the
     HVO manufacturer and not by the supplier of the animal fat.
(68) Fourth, the market investigation and data provided by the Parties bear out the
     presence of various alternative suppliers of animal fats that meet the requirements
     of a producer like Neste or its competitors. Asked to identify close competitors to
     Demeter, able to supply very similar products and services in terms of
     characteristics, functionality and quality, an animal fat supplier replied: "There
     are various direct sellers to Neste, like Leo Group, Darling, Van Wijk en Olthuis.
     Besides that everybody is free to sell to Neste."54 The Commission contacted three
     suppliers of animal fats, who currently do not supply Neste, to enquire whether
     they would have the capacity, knowledge and know-how to serve any current or
     future producers of HVO biofuel with Category 3 animal fats in the EEA. All
     three indicated that they would be able to supply Category 3 animal fats to other
     HVO producers or increase their supplies to current HVO customers.55
(69) Fifth, Category 3 fats are just one of the possible feedstocks for both FAME and
     HVO processes. The ability and extent to which fats of any category can be used
     as feedstock depend on the technical set-up of a plant, and the preference of end
     markets for certain materials based on double counting towards biofuel mandates.
     This technical ability combined with end-market preferences differs for each
     producer, therefore affecting its choice of optimal feedstocks.
(70) Industry data shows that waste-based feedstocks, including animal fats, made up
     51% of feedstocks used in the overall production of HVO in Europe in 2017, with
     the remaining 49% coming from vegetable oils.56 The market investigation has
     shown that Neste's competitors use a combination of feedstocks, while one
     competitor does not use Category 3 animal fats in its production at all. A
     competitor stated that it "only uses crude tall oil (residue from chemical pulp
     process) as feedstock for its HVO production, and it has no plans to use animal
     fats or UCO in the future".57 Among the three companies who voiced concerns,
     two also recognised that Category 3 animal fats are not, or will not be, their main
     feedstock for HVO production. This even applies to those who indicated that they
     required, or were interested in, the use of Category 3 animal fats as a feedstock.58
(71) A potential entrant into the HVO market who is not currently a customer of
     Demeter claimed that the Transaction would discourage it from starting a supply
     relationship with Demeter. The company contended that following the
     Transaction, even if Demeter was willing to supply it, Demeter could provide less
     good quality animal fat. In addition, Demeter would gain access to commercially
53   Response to Question 2 of RFI No 1.
54   Responses to Question 13 of Q4 to animal fat suppliers.
55   Responses to request for information sent to three animal fat suppliers on 4 July 2018.
56   Form CO, p. 36.
57   Non-confidential minutes of a call with a competitor of 30 May 2018.
58   Non-confidential minutes of a call with a competitor of 12 June 2018 and non-confidential
     minutes of a call with a competitor of 7 June 2018.
                                                     13
 ---pagebreak---         sensitive information regarding its animal category 3 fat requirements and could
        pass it on to Neste.
(72)    This company has publicly announced its entry into the HVO market. Based on
        the available evidence, the Commission considers that the Transaction is unlikely
        to stop that company from entering the market. When asked to substantiate their
        claim on how important Demeter was for them as a supplier of Category 3 animal
        fat, the company did not provide such evidence.59 In addition, in the country
        where the potential entrant’s new refinery is based, Demeter's share of purchases
        is below 10% and the combined share of purchases of Demeter and Neste is
        below 15%. Moreover, the number of producers of Category 3 animal fats will
        not be reduced and there are close competitors of Demeter who are capable of
        providing similar offerings of Category 3 animal fat.
(73)    In the light of the results of the market investigation, it can be concluded that the
        merged entity is unlikely to have the ability to foreclose Neste's competitors from
        access to the sourcing of Category 3 animal fats.
5.1.2.3. Customer foreclosure
(74)    With regard to ability, first, Neste already today sources more than [70-80]% of
        its total sourcing of Category 3 fats from Demeter. Second, there is no shifting to
        in-house supplies post-merger as Demeter has no production activities of
        Category 3 fats and all Category 3 fats will continue to be purchased from
        renderers by both traders and users of Category 3 fats. Third, there is a wide base
        of companies interested in the purchase of animal fats, not only biofuel producers
        but also producers of animal feed and pet food and oleo-chemical companies. As
        mentioned in recital 53, biodiesel represents only approximately 20% by volume
        of the applications of edible and category 3 fats in the EU.
(75)    With regard to incentive, already today Neste sources [20-30]% of its needs from
        other Category 3 fat suppliers. Even if Neste were to expand Demeter's activities,
        as Demeter is a trader (and not a producer), Neste, directly or through Demeter
        would still be active in purchasing Category 3 animal fats. It has no incentive not
        to purchase animal fat that it needs for its HVO production.
(76)    This was confirmed by the market investigation, in which no animal fat suppliers
        raised any concerns on customer foreclosure, as none of them identified any
        impact from the Transaction on the market or their business.60
(77)    In the light of the results of the market investigation and taking account of all the
        evidence available to it, the Commission considers that the merged entity is
        unlikely to have the ability or incentive to foreclose Demeter's competitors from
        access to a sufficient customer base.
(78)    For the reasons set out in recitals (63) to (77), the Commission concludes that the
        Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal
        market as regards the markets vertically affected by the Transaction.
59      The company did inform the Commission that it plans to have 30% to 40% of its feedstock from
        waste and residues, and that it plans to have at least 15% of its total feedstock from Category 3
        animal fats.
60      Responses to Questions 14,15 and 16 of Q4 to animal fat suppliers.
                                                       14
 ---pagebreak--- 6.   CONCLUSION
(79) For the above reasons, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the
     notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with
     the EEA Agreement. This Decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of
     the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.
                                                  For the Commission
                                                  (Signed)
                                                  Margrethe VESTAGER
                                                  Member of the Commission
                                            15


title: Council Decision (EU) 2018/1870 of 26 November 2018 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil amending the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports

text:
                  30.11.2018

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 306/4

         COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2018/1870
         of 26 November 2018
         on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil amending the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports
         THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
         Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular point (a) of Article 77(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,
         Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) introduced horizontal changes in the Union's visa and border acquis and defined a short stay as a maximum of 90 days in any 180-day period.

                     (2)

                     It is necessary to incorporate this new defintion into the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports (2) in order to harmonise the Union's short-stay regime.

                     (3)

                     On 9 October 2014, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with the Federative Republic of Brazil for an agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil amending the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports (‘the Agreement’). Negotiations on the Agreement were successfully finalised by the initialling thereof on 31 October 2017.

                     (4)

                     This Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC (3); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

                     (5)

                     This Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC (4); Ireland is therefore not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

                     (6)

                     The Agreement should be signed and the text of the declaration annexed to this Decision as well as the text of the joint declarations attached to the Agreement should be approved, on behalf of the Union,

               HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

            Article 1
            The signing on behalf of the Union of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil amending the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports is hereby authorised, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (5)

            Article 2
            The text of the declaration annexed to this Decision and the text of the joint declarations attached to the Agreement shall be approved on behalf of the Union.

            Article 3
            The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.

            Article 4
            This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

            Done at Brussels, 26 November 2018.

                  For the Council

                  The President

               J. BOGNER-STRAUSS

            (1)  Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, Council Regulations (EC) No 1683/95 and (EC) No 539/2001 and Regulations (EC) No 767/2008 and (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 1).

            (2)  OJ L 255, 21.9.2012, p. 4.

            (3)  Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 131, 1.6.2000, p. 43).

            (4)  Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland's request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 20).

            (5)  The text of the Agreement will be published together with the decision on its conclusion.

            ANNEX

               Declaration of the Union concerning the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 establishing the Entry/Exit System (EES) and the Member States applying the Schengen acquis in full

            Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2017 establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register entry and exit data and refusal of entry data of third-country nationals crossing the external borders of the Member States and determining the conditions for access to the EES for law enforcement purposes, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and Regulations (EC) No 767/2008 and (EU) No 1077/2011 entered into force on 29 December 2017.
            As a consequence, as from the date of application of Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 (1) for the purposes of this Agreement Member States applying the Schengen acquis in full will mean Member States operating the Entry/Exit System at the external borders. The maximum period of 90 days in any 180-day period will be calculated taking into account the period of stay in all the Member States operating the Entry/Exit System at the external borders.

               (1)  The date of application will be decided by the Commission in accordance with Article 73 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2226.


title: Council Decision (EU) 2017/2284 of 11 December 2017 to provide support to States in the African, Asia-Pacific and Latin America and Caribbean regions to participate in the high-level fissile material cut-off treaty expert preparatory group consultative process

text:
               12.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 328/32

         COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2017/2284
   of 11 December 2017
   to provide support to States in the African, Asia-Pacific and Latin America and Caribbean regions to participate in the high-level fissile material cut-off treaty expert preparatory group consultative process
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 12 December 2003, the European Council adopted the EU Strategy against the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (‘Strategy’), Chapter II of which lists measures to be pursued for an effective multilateralism which is the cornerstone of the European strategy for combating proliferation of WMD. It states, inter alia, that the ‘EU is committed to the multilateral treaty system, which provides the legal and normative basis for all non-proliferation efforts’, and ‘the EU policy is to pursue an international agreement on the prohibition of the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices’.

               (2)

               The EU is actively implementing the Strategy and giving effect to the measures listed in Chapter III thereof, in particular by releasing financial resources to support specific projects aimed at enhancing the multilateral non-proliferation system and multilateral confidence building measures.

               (3)

               On 8 December 2008, the Council adopted its conclusions and a document entitled ‘New lines for action by the European Union in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems’. The document states, inter alia, that the EU undertakes to continue and intensify action ‘in favour of starting negotiations on FMCT’.

               (4)

               The EU has persistently called for the immediate commencement and early conclusion of the negotiation of a Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, on the basis of document CD/1299 and the mandate contained therein. In the same vein the EU has been encouraging all members of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) to exert their utmost efforts to break the impasse in the CD and adopt a comprehensive and balanced programme of work that includes the immediate commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT).

               (5)

               In 2013 the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution that established a Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) drawn from 25 states to make recommendations on possible aspects that would contribute to but not negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The GGE submitted its report to the UNGA First (Disarmament) Committee in 2015.

               (6)

               In 2016 the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 71/259, entitled ‘Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices’. Resolution 71/259 requests the Secretary-General to establish a high-level FMCT expert preparatory group to consider and make recommendations on substantial elements of a future non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices. The high-level FMCT expert preparatory group will have a membership of 25 States, and will hold two Informal Consultative meetings open to all United Nations Member States to allow for the participation of all States in the FMCT process. It is expected that the work to be carried out by the Preparatory Group will lead to negotiations on this important issue in order to further advance nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

               (7)

               All EU Member States voted in favour of the 2016 UN General Assembly Resolution 71/259 on the FMCT, which was presented by Canada, Germany and the Netherlands. The resolution sets up an inclusive process by organizing informal consultative meetings with all UN Member States and the Chair of the high-level FMCTexpert preparatory group. Several EU Member States will participate in the work of the high-level expert preparatory group, whose mandate is to make recommendations on substantial elements for a future treaty, without prejudice to national positions in future negotiations.

               (8)

               The high-level FMCT expert preparatory group will make a practical contribution to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. The Group of Governmental Experts (1) and two Secretary-General reports on this subject (2) have identified the complexity of the issue as well as topics that merit further analysis and consideration by UN Member States. The high-level FMCT expert preparatory group will report to the UN General Assembly at its 73rd session (2018).

               (9)

               More generally, fissile material (such as highly enriched uranium or plutonium) that can bring about an explosive fission chain reaction is an essential ingredient of nuclear weapons. The immediate commencement and early conclusion of the negotiation in the CD of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices has been a long standing priority for the EU.

               (10)

               A treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices would constitute an essential step towards creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons. The FMCT is considered to be a multilateral instrument to be negotiated in the nuclear disarmament field as a complement to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-ban Treaty (CTBT),

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   1.   In accordance with the EU Strategy, which sets the objective of upholding, implementing and strengthening the multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation treaties and agreements, the Union shall provide support to States in the African, the Asia-Pacific and the Latin America and Caribbean regions to participate in the high-level fissile material cut-off treaty expert preparatory group consultative process.
   2.   The projects providing support to States in the African, the Asia-Pacific and the Latin America and Caribbean regions to participate in the high-level FMCT expert preparatory group consultative process, corresponding to measures in line with the EU Strategy, shall consist of sub-regional workshops, expert meetings, substantive support activities provided to United Nations Member States, and the establishment of a repository of relevant information and publications.
   3.   The aim of the projects shall be:

               —

               the facilitation of dialogue at the regional level among States in the African, the Asia-Pacific and the Latin America and Caribbean regions;

               —

               the development of a sense of ownership of the issue among States in these regions;

               —

               the identification of the national needs and policy priorities of States in these regions;

               —

               the involvement of relevant regional organisations in the discussions on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices to be negotiated in the framework of the Conference on Disarmament;

               —

               the evaluation of the implications of the process at the regional level and of the role that relevant regional and international organization may play in that process;

               —

               the comparative analysis of the implications of the process for each region;

               —

               the facilitation of the transmission of knowledge between academia, civil society organisations and Member States relating to fissile materials.

         4.   A detailed description of the projects is set out in the Annex.
   Article 2
   1.   The High Representative (HR) shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision.
   2.   The technical implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be carried out by the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) through its Geneva Branch and its Regional Disarmament Branch, the three regional centres for peace and disarmament in Africa (UNREC), Asia and the Pacific (UNRCPD) and Latin America and the Caribbean (UNLIREC). UNODA shall perform this task under the responsibility of the HR. For this purpose, the HR shall enter into the necessary arrangements with UNODA.
   Article 3
   1.   The financial reference amount for the implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be EUR 1 220 880,51.
   2.   The expenditure financed by the amount set out in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.
   3.   The Commission shall supervise the proper management of the expenditure referred to in paragraph 1. For this purpose, it shall conclude a financing agreement with UNODA for the reference amount upon adoption of this Council Decision. The agreement shall stipulate that UNODA is to ensure visibility of the Union's contribution, appropriate to its size.
   4.   The Commission shall endeavour to conclude the financing agreement referred to in paragraph 3 as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Decision. It shall inform the Council of any difficulties in that process and of the date of conclusion of the financing agreement.
   Article 4
   1.   The HR shall report to the Council on the implementation of this Decision on the basis of regular reports prepared by UNODA. Those reports shall form the basis for the evaluation carried out by the Council.
   2.   The Commission shall provide information on the financial aspects of the projects referred to in Article 1(2).
   Article 5
   1.   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
   2.   This Decision shall expire 36 months after the date of the conclusion of the financing agreement referred to in Article 3(3). However, it shall expire six months after its entry into force if no financing agreement has been concluded by that time.

      Done at Brussels, 11 December 2017.

            For the Council

            The President

         F. MOGHERINI

      (1)  A/70/81, Report of the Group of Governmental Experts to make recommendations on possible aspects that could contribute to but not negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

      (2)  A/68/154, A/68/154/Add.1, A/71/140/Rev.1 and A/71/140/Rev.1/Add.1

      ANNEX
      1.   OBJECTIVE
      There is a need for States to fully comprehend the implications of a future treaty and its relationship with regional instruments on nuclear weapons free zones, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and other instruments at an early stage in the process. Therefore the overall goal of the new Council Decision should be to provide funding to build a broad knowledge base on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT) among the international community, in order to ensure that all UN Member States are in a position to fully engage in the consultative process as well as in any future negotiations in the framework of the Conference on Disarmament on such a treaty.
      Engaging UN Member States at the regional level will complement the informal consultative meetings that will be held by the Chair of the high-level FMCT expert preparatory group in New York, and thereby enhance the quantitative and qualitative participation of States, and strengthen the inclusivity of future negotiation in the framework of the Conference on Disarmament of such a treaty.
      The organization of a series of (sub)regional workshops will allow the sharing of knowledge and information within regions, as well as across regions. The workshops will include a mix of technical briefings and discussions on the implications and relevance of these future treaties on existing regional arrangements. The technical briefings by relevant experts will elaborate on the substantive issues related to the FMCT while the discussions will lead the participants to considering the regional implications and relevance of an eventual treaty.
      The high-level FMCT expert preparatory group will report to the UN General Assembly at its 73rd session (2018). The General Assembly may decide to take further action on this issue. In order to support participation of UN Member States in the discussion on this issue the project will continue until the end of the regular session of the 74th session of the General Assembly (December 2019).
      The United Nations Office for Disarmament (UNODA), through its Geneva Branch and its Regional Disarmament Branch, which includes the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament (UNREC) in Lomé, Togo, the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Asia and the Pacific (UNRCPD) in Kathmandu, Nepal, and United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean (UNLIREC) in Lima, Peru, all have a long experience of lending support to States and fostering dialogue in their respective region on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation issues.
      Experts will be drawn from several countries, on a broad geographical basis, from governments and regional organisations, as well as from civil society organisations, such as the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), the Verification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC), the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), and academia.
      Target 16.8 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals recognizes the need: ‘to broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance’. Therefore, the activities envisaged under this project could be a contribution towards this goal.
      2.   ACTIVITIES
      2.1.   Objectives of the activities

                  —

                  To facilitate dialogue at the regional and sub-regional level among States in the African, the Asia-Pacific and the Latin American and Caribbean regions;

                  —

                  To involve relevant regional organisations in the discussions on an FMCT;

                  —

                  To develop a sense of ownership in a future FMCT among all States;

                  —

                  To facilitate the transmission and application of knowledge between academia, civil society organisations and Member States on issues relevant to banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

            2.2.   Description of activities
      All activities will be organised by UNODA through its Geneva Branch and its Regional Disarmament Branch, including UNREC, based in Lomé, Togo, by UNRCPD based in Kathmandu, Nepal, and by UNLIREC, based in Lima, Peru.

                  (a)

                  Sub-regional workshops in Africa, Asia and the Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean
                  UNODA will organise up to six sub-regional seminars in the African, the Asia-Pacific and the Latin America and Caribbean regions. UNODA will organise one or two two-day sub-regional seminars in each of the African, the Asia-Pacific and the Latin America and Caribbean regions. The sub-regional seminars will focus on their respective regions.
                  The seminars will involve experts from the capitals of the countries of the respective sub-regions as well as high-level FMCT expert preparatory group, experts from the European Union, and from civil society and academia.
                  These seminars will complement the open-ended informal consultative meetings conducted by the Chair of the high-level FMCT expert preparatory group in New York in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 71/259 and will facilitate the involvement of experts from United Nations Member States at the capital in future FMCT negotiations.

                  (b)

                  Expert meetings with experts from regional organisations
                  UNODA will organise three expert meetings with relevant regional organisations in the African, the Asia-Pacific and the Latin America and Caribbean regions, including ABACC, AFCONE, OPANAL and the ASEAN Regional Forum, to bring together members of the high-level FMCT expert preparatory group, experts from regional organisations and experts from civil society organisations, including the EU Non-Proliferation Consortium, VERTIC, IPFM, ISS, to prepare for future FMCT negotiations and to facilitate the contribution of regional expertise and experience into these negotiations.

                  (c)

                  Substantive support to Member States
                  UNODA will respond to up to six requests for substantive support from Member States in the African, the Asia-Pacific and the Latin America Caribbean regions in follow up to the workshops, taking into account geographic balance.

                  (d)

                  Resource material repository and publication of outcomes
                  For the duration of the project, UNODA will develop and maintain a dedicated website containing relevant resource material, to help States prepare for future FMCT and to serve as a resource repository for States, regional organisations, civil society organisations and researchers, and to facilitate cross-regional communication.
                  UNODA will publish up to two UNODA Occasional Papers on the outcomes of the regional workshops and the expert meetings with regional organisations.

            2.3.   Impact of activities

                  —

                  The participation of States in the African, the Asia-Pacific and the Latin America and Caribbean regions in future FMCT negotiations will be facilitated;

                  —

                  Existing regional knowledge and expertise on banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices will be brought to the negotiations of a future FMCT;

                  —

                  Relevant resource material will be made available to future negotiators and to experts from States, regional organisations, civil society organisations and academia.

            3.   PARTNERS FOR THE MEASURES

                  —

                  UN System: UNODA through its Geneva Branch and its Regional Disarmament Branch, which includes the three regional centres for peace and disarmament in Africa (UNREC), Asia and the Pacific (UNRCPD) and Latin America and the Caribbean (UNLIREC);

                  —

                  Regional and sub-regional Organizations: ABACC, AFCONE, OPANAL, ASEAN Regional Forum;

                  —

                  Non-governmental organisations: EU Non-Proliferation Consortium, VERTIC, IPFM, ISS.

            4.   INTERACTION WITH UNION EFFORTS
      Based on the regular feedback from UNODA on its activities, the Union may decide to complement those efforts through targeted diplomatic action aimed at raising awareness of the importance of overcoming the longstanding deadlock in the Conference on Disarmament and the importance of the immediate commencement and early conclusion of the negotiation in the Conference on Disarmament of a Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT), on the basis of document CD/1299 and the mandate contained therein.
      5.   BENEFICIARIES OF THE ACTIVITIES

                  —

                  States in the Africa, the Asia-Pacific and the Latin America and Caribbean regions;

                  —

                  Members of the high-level FMCT expert preparatory group;

                  —

                  Group of Governmental Experts on Nuclear Disarmament Verification;

                  —

                  Civil society organisations in the African, the Asia-Pacific and the Latin America and Caribbean regions working on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

            6.   VENUE
      The sub-regional seminars will be organised either at the location of the regional centres or at a location with a United Nations regional office in the respective sub-region, in order to facilitate the participation of national experts coming from the capitals.
      The expert meetings will be held at the location of the regional organisations or the location of the regional centres.
      Substantive support to Member States will be provided in the capitals.
      7.   DURATION
      The total estimated duration of the project is 36 months.


title: Decision

text:
               15.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 432/1

         DECISION
   (2017/C 432/01)
   THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               HAVING REGARD TO Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 (2) and most recently by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, in particular Article 30 of those Staff Regulations,

               —

               HAVING REGARD TO the Bureau Decision of 13 January 2014 on the delegation of the powers of the appointing authority and of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (AECE),

               —

               HAVING REGARD TO the expiry date of 31 December 2017 set for the following European Parliament reserve lists:
               AD/1/12, AD/1/13, AD5/13, PE/179/S, PE/165/S, PE/168/S, PE/171/S, AST/4/11, AST/1/13,

               —

               Whereas the Joint Committee has been asked to deliver an opinion within 15 working days, in accordance with Article 10a of the Staff Regulations,

         HAS DECIDED
   Article 1
   The period of validity of the following reserve lists:

               AD/1/13, PE/179/S, PE/168/S, PE/171/S, AST/1/13, AST/4/11,

         shall be extended until 31 December 2018.
   Article 2
   The period of validity of the following reserve lists:

               AD/1/12, AD/5/13, PE/165/S (T)

         shall not be extended.

      Luxembourg, 15 November 2017.

         Klaus WELLE

            Secretary-General

      (1)  OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 15.


title: Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2322 of 29 May 2017 concerning the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between Canada and the European Union on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information

text:
               15.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 333/1

         COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2017/2322
   of 29 May 2017
   concerning the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between Canada and the European Union on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 37 thereof, in conjunction with Article 218(5) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               At its meeting on 27 and 28 November 2003, the Council decided to authorise the Presidency assisted by the Secretary-General/High Representative to open negotiations in order to conclude an Agreement on the security of information between the European Union and Canada.

               (2)

               Following that authorisation, the Presidency negotiated an Agreement with Canada on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information.

               (3)

               That agreement should be approved,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The Agreement between Canada and the European Union on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information (‘the Agreement’) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.
   The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 29 May 2017.

            For the Council

            The President

         C. CARDONA


title: Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2017/2439 of 19 December 2017 on the appointment of the EU Mission Force Commander of the European Union CSDP Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA) (EUTM RCA/4/2017)

text:
               23.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 344/40

         POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION (CFSP) 2017/2439
   of 19 December 2017
   on the appointment of the EU Mission Force Commander of the European Union CSDP Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA) (EUTM RCA/4/2017)
   THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 38 thereof,
   Having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/610 of 19 April 2016 on a European Union CSDP Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA) (1), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               By Decision (CFSP) 2016/610, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC), in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty on European Union, to take the relevant decisions concerning the political control and strategic direction of EUTM RCA, including the decisions on the appointment of subsequent EU Mission Force Commanders.

               (2)

               On 26 June 2017, the PSC adopted Decision (CFSP) 2017/1177 (2) appointing Brigadier General Fernando GARCÍA BLÁZQUEZ as the EU Mission Force Commander of EUTM RCA.

               (3)

               On 20 November 2017, the Military Committee of the European Union recommended the approval of the nomination of Brigadier General Hermínio TEODORO MAIO to succeed Brigadier General Fernando GARCÍA BLÁZQUEZ as the EU Mission Force Commander of EUTM RCA as from 11 January 2018.

               (4)

               In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Brigadier General Hermínio TEODORO MAIO is hereby appointed as the EU Mission Force Commander of the European Union CSDP Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA) as from 11 January 2018.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 19 December 2017.

            For the Political and Security Committee

            The Chairperson

         W. STEVENS

      (1)  OJ L 104, 20.4.2016, p. 21.

      (2)  Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2017/1177 of 26 June 2017 on the appointment of the EU Mission Force Commander of the European Union CSDP Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA) (EUTM RCA/2/2017) (OJ L 170, 1.7.2017, p. 96).


title: Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 11 December 2017 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament

text:
               28.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 445/8

         DECISION OF THE BUREAU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 11 December 2017
   amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament
   (2017/C 445/02)
   THE BUREAU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 223(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (1),
   Having regard to Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               In accordance with Article 69(1) of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (2) (‘the Implementing Measures’), the amounts of the reimbursable travel expenses, daily subsistence allowance and general expenditure allowance may be index-linked annually by the Bureau, up to a maximum increase equal to the annual inflation rate in the European Union in October of the previous year, as published by Eurostat.

               (2)

               The inflation rate in the European Union for the period from 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2017, as notified by Eurostat on 16 November 2017, stands at 1,7 %. The new amounts resulting from the adjustment needed in order to take that inflation rate into account should apply from 1 January 2018 and the Implementing Measures should be amended accordingly.

               (3)

               Pursuant to Article 69(2) of the Implementing Measures, the maximum amount of parliamentary assistance costs defrayable in respect of the personal staff referred to in Article 33(4) of the Implementing Measures shall be, where appropriate, index-linked annually on the basis of data established pursuant to Article 65 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union laid down by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (3).

               (4)

               In that connection, the Commission has fixed the adjustment rate for 2017 at 1,5 %. Accordingly, the maximum monthly amount defrayable for parliamentary assistance expenses should be increased to EUR 24 526 with effect from 1 July 2017,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The Implementing Measures are amended as follows:

               (1)

               Article 20(1) is amended as follows:

                           (a)

                           point (a) is replaced by the following:

                                       ‘(a)

                                       for the part of the journey between 0 and 50 km: EUR 23,12;’;

                           (b)

                           point (b) is replaced by the following:

                                       ‘(b)

                                       for the part of the journey between 51 and 250 km: EUR 0,13/km;’;

               (2)

               Article 22 is amended as follows:

                           (a)

                           paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

                                       ‘1.

                                       The maximum annual amount which may be reimbursed in respect of travel expenses incurred in the cases referred to in Article 10(1), point (b) shall be EUR 4 358.’;

                           (b)

                           the first subparagraph of paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:
                           ‘The maximum annual amount which may be reimbursed in respect of the travel expenses actually incurred by committee or subcommittee chairs travelling to attend conferences or events which deal with a matter of European interest falling within the sphere of responsibility of their committee or subcommittee and which have a parliamentary dimension shall be EUR 4 358. Such participation shall require prior authorisation from the President of Parliament, following verification that appropriations up to the maximum amount indicated above are available.’;

               (3)

               In Article 24, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

                           ‘2.

                           If the official activity takes place on the territory of the Union, a Member shall receive a lump-sum allowance of EUR 313.’;

               (4)

               In Article 26, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

                           ‘2.

                           The monthly amount of the allowance under Article 25 shall be EUR 4 416.’;

               (5)

               In Article 33, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

                           ‘4.

                           The maximum monthly amount defrayable in respect of all the personal staff referred to in Article 34 shall be EUR 24 526.’.

         Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
   This Decision shall apply from 1 January 2018, with the exception of Article 1(5), which shall apply from 1 July 2017.

      (1)  Decision 2005/684/EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ L 262, 7.10.2005, p. 1).

      (2)  Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008 concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ C 159, 13.7.2009, p. 1).

      (3)  OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.


title: Decision (EU) 2017/2444 of the European Central Bank of 8 December 2017 amending Decision (EU) 2015/2332 on the procedural framework for the approval of the volume of euro coin issuance (ECB/2017/41)

text:
               23.12.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 344/63

         DECISION (EU) 2017/2444 OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
   of 8 December 2017
   amending Decision (EU) 2015/2332 on the procedural framework for the approval of the volume of euro coin issuance (ECB/2017/41)
   THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 128(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 12.1 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Decision (EU) 2015/2332 of the European Central Bank (ECB/2015/43) (1) establishes rules related to the procedural framework for the approval of the volume of coin issuance.

               (2)

               The Governing Council considers that the power to adopt decisions on annual and ad hoc approval requests for the volume of coin issuance submitted by Member States whose currency is the euro should be delegated to the Executive Board when no modification of the requested volume of coin issuance is required.

               (3)

               Where the Executive Board considers that the volume of coin issuance requested by one or more Member States whose currency is the euro needs to be modified, it should submit a reasoned proposal explaining the required modifications to the Governing Council, and the Governing Council should remain competent for the adoption of a decision.

               (4)

               Therefore, Decision (EU) 2015/2332 (ECB/2015/43) should be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Amendments
   Decision (EU) 2015/2332 (ECB/2015/43) is amended as follows:

               1.

               Article 2 is amended as follows,

                           (a)

                           paragraph 9 is replaced by the following:
                           ‘9.   Where the Executive Board determines that the annual approval requests do not require a modification of the annual volume of coin issuance requested by each euro area Member State, the Executive Board shall adopt a decision on the approval of the annual volume of coin issuance for the euro area before the end of the calendar year preceding the year for which the requests for approval are made.’; and

                           (b)

                           the following paragraph 10 is added:
                           ‘10.   Where the Executive Board determines that the volume of coin issuance requested by one or more requesting euro area Member States requires modification, following consultation with the Member State concerned, it shall submit a reasoned proposal explaining the required modifications to the Governing Council. In such cases, the Governing Council shall adopt the decision on the approval of the annual volume of coin issuance for the euro area without undue delay.’;

               2.

               Article 3 is amended as follows:

                           (a)

                           paragraph 7 is replaced by the following:
                           ‘7.   Where the Executive Board determines that the additional volume of coin issuance requested by a euro area Member State pursuant to paragraph 5 does not require modification, the Executive Board shall adopt an individual decision on the ad hoc approval request without undue delay.’; and

                           (b)

                           the following paragraph 8 is added:
                           ‘8.   Where the Executive Board determines that the additional volume of coin issuance requested by a euro area Member State requires modification, it shall submit a reasoned proposal explaining the required modifications to the Governing Council. In such cases, the Governing Council shall adopt an individual decision on the ad hoc approval request without undue delay.’.

         Article 2
   Taking effect
   This Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification to the addressees.
   It shall apply from 1 January 2018.
   Article 3
   Addressees
   This Decision is addressed to the euro area Member States.

      Done at Frankfurt am Main, 8 December 2017.

            For the Governing Council of the ECB

            The President of the ECB

         Mario DRAGHI

      (1)  Decision (EU) 2015/2332 of the European Central Bank of 4 December 2015 on the procedural framework for the approval of the volume of euro coin issuance (ECB/2015/43) (OJ L 328, 12.12.2015, p. 123).


title: Decision (EU) 2018/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund following an application from Greece — EGF/2017/003 GR/Attica retail

text:
               6.1.2018

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 3/1

         DECISION (EU) 2018/6 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
   of 12 December 2017
   on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund following an application from Greece — EGF/2017/003 GR/Attica retail
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014-2020) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 (1), and in particular Article 15(4) thereof,
   Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management (2), and in particular point 13 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) aims to provide support for workers made redundant and self-employed persons whose activity has ceased as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation, as a result of a continuation of the global financial and economic crisis, or as a result of a new global financial and economic crisis, and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.

               (2)

               The EGF is not to exceed a maximum annual amount of EUR 150 million (2011 prices), as laid down in Article 12 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 (3).

               (3)

               On 13 April 2017, Greece submitted an application to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in 9 enterprises operating in the retail sector in the following regions: Attica, Eastern Macedonia, Thrace, Central Macedonia, Western Macedonia, Thessaly, Epirus, Western Greece, Central Greece, Peloponnese, Southern Aegean and Crete in Greece. It was supplemented by additional information provided in accordance with Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013. That application complies with the requirements for determining a financial contribution from the EGF as laid down in Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013.

               (4)

               In accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013, the application from Greece is considered admissible since the redundancies have a serious impact on employment and the local, regional or national economy.

               (5)

               The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution of EUR 2 949 150 in respect of the application submitted by Greece.

               (6)

               In order to minimise the time taken to mobilise the EGF, this decision should apply from the date of its adoption,

         HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   For the general budget of the Union for the financial year 2017, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the amount of EUR 2 949 150 in commitment and payment appropriations.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
   It shall apply from 12 December 2017.

      Done at Brussels, 12 December 2017.

            For the European Parliament

            The President

         A. TAJANI

            For the Council

            The President

         K. SIMSON

      (1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 855.

      (2)  OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884).