Avis juridique important

|

31975D0406

75/406/Euratom: Council Decision of 26 June 1975 adopting a programme on the management and storage of radioactive waste

Official Journal L 178 , 09/07/1975 P. 0028 - 0029 Finnish special edition: Chapter 15 Volume 1 P. 0225  Swedish special edition: Chapter 15 Volume 1 P. 0225

COUNCIL DECISION  of 26 June 1975  adopting a programme on the management and storage of radioactive waste  (75/406/Euratom)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 7 thereof;  Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Scientific and Technical Committee;  Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament;  Having regard to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (1);  Whereas the Community environmental programme, approved in the declaration of 22 November 1973 (2) by the Council of the European Communities and the representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, underlines the need for Community measures on the management and storage of radioactive waste and specifies the content of and procedures for implementing such measures;  Whereas nuclear energy is bound in the near future to become one of the main sources of energy alongside traditional sources, and whereas its specific nature requires permanent monitoring of its potential effects and improved measures and research to protect the environment;  Whereas the development of nuclear energy inevitably involves the production of radioactive waste, and whereas it is therefore essential to find effective means for ensuring the safety and protection of both man and his environment against the potential hazards involved in the management of such waste,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:    Article 1 An environmental programme on the management and storage of radioactive waste, as set out in the Annex, is hereby adopted for a five-year period from 1 January 1975.   Article 2 The upper limit for expenditure commitments and for the staff necessary for the implementation of this programme shall be 19 716 million units of account and four staff respectively, the unit of account being as defined in Article 10 of the Financial Regulation of 25 April 1973 (3) applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.   Article 3 The programme set out in the Annex shall be reviewed at the end of the second year in accordance with the appropriate procedures.     Done at Luxembourg, 26 June 1975.  For the Council  The President  J. KEATING  (1)Doc. CES 617/75. (2)OJ No C 112, 20.12.1973, p. 3. (3)OJ No L 116, 1.5.1973, p. 1.     ANNEX ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT AND STORAGE OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE (INDIRECT ACTION)  An upper limit of 19 716 million units of account shall be allocated to this programme and the number of staff shall be four.  The aim of the programme shall be the joint development and perfecting of a system of management of radioactive waste produced by the nuclear industry which, at its various stages, affords man and his environment the best protection possible.  In order that the Commission may submit suitable proposals at the earliest opportunity, the programme shall seek to promote:    A. Work to solve certain technological problems posed by the processing, storage and disposal of radioactive waste.  Processing:      - medium activity solid waste : coating with plastic resins;           - high-activity solid waste : decontamination and conditioning of irradiated fuel element cladding;           - high-activity solid waste : immobilization of calcined waste from fission products in a metal matrix;           - plutonium-contaminated solid waste : incineration process;           - comparative study of the properties of various materials suitable for the immobilization of high-activity waste.             Storage and disposal:      - storage of solidified radioactive waste in engineered structures;           - disposal of radioactive waste in suitable geological formations, including those formations currently being studied;           - storage of gaseous waste.             Study of an advanced management model:    - separation and recycling of long-life waste (actinides).       B. Work contributing towards the definition of a general framework (legal, administrative, financial) for the implementation of radioactive waste storage and disposal measures:      - review of problems posed by the management of radioactive waste which could not be solved under existing international legal, administrative and financial provisions and proposals for solutions;           - study of principles which should govern the management of radioactive waste.                    The work described in A and B will in the main be carried out by means of contracts.


title: 2008/604/EC: Commission Decision of 22 July 2008 on the appointment of members of the Group of Experts on Trafficking in Human Beings

text:
               23.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 194/12

      COMMISSION DECISION

   of 22 July 2008
   on the appointment of members of the Group of Experts on Trafficking in Human Beings
   (2008/604/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Commission Decision 2007/675/EC of 17 October 2007 setting up the Group of Experts on Trafficking in Human Beings (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The group of experts should be composed of 21 members.

               (2)

               The members of the group of experts should be appointed from specialists with expertise and experience in the fight against trafficking in human beings, including its labour dimension.

               (3)

               Up to 11 members taken from administrations of the Member States should be appointed by the Commission on the proposal of Member States.

               (4)

               Up to 5 members taken from inter-governmental, international and non-governmental organisations active at European level, up to 4 members taken from social partners and employers' associations operating at European level, and up to 2 members taken from individuals with experience deriving from academic research should be appointed by the Commission from among those who have responded to the call for applications.

               (5)

               The Commission published a call for applications with a view to listing candidates to make up the group of experts on 19 January 2008 (2).

               (6)

               The Commission has conducted a selection procedure on the applications received. When assessing applications, the Commission has taken into account the criteria listed in the call for applications, and in particular under point 2 thereof.

               (7)

               It is advisable that the group of experts should include four additional members taken from inter-governmental, international and non-governmental organisations active at European level, to compensate for the lack of applications received from social partners and employers' associations operating at European level, so as to ensure a balanced topical and geographical representation and to make up the total of 21 members originally envisaged.

               (8)

               One member of the group has been appointed by Europol,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Decision 2007/675/EC is amended as follows:
   Article 3, paragraph 2 letter (b) is replaced by the following:

               ‘(b)

               inter-governmental, international and non-governmental organisations active at European level with well documented expertise and experience in the area of trafficking in human beings (up to 9 members)’.

         Article 2
   The Commission appoints the following members of the Group of Experts on Trafficking in Human Beings:

               1.

               Members appointed pursuant to Article 3 paragraph 2, letter (a) of Commission Decision 2007/675/EC:

                           Mr Jan AUSTAD

                           Mr Sandi ČURIN

                           Ms Rita THEODOROU SUPERMAN

                           Mr Luís GOUVEIA

                           Ms Jelena KAMINSKA

                           Mr Glynn RANKIN

                           Ms Bärbel Heide UHL

                           Mr Floris VAN DIJK

                           Ms Kajsa WAHLBERG

               2.

               Members appointed pursuant to Article 3 paragraph 2, letter (b), of Commission Decision 2007/675/EC, as amended by the present Decision:

                           Ms Antonia BALKANSKA LAVINE

                           Ms Stana BUCHOWSKA

                           Mr Marco BUFO

                           Ms Muireann O BRIAIN

                           Mr Martijn PLUIM

                           Ms Evelyn PROBST

                           Ms Klara SKRIVANKOVA

                           Ms Patsy SÖRENSEN

                           Ms Liliana SORRENTINO

               3.

               Members appointed pursuant to Article 3 paragraph 2, letter (e), of Commission Decision 2007/675/EC:

                           Mr Ryszard PIOTROWICZ

                           Ms Georgina VAZ CABRAL

         Article 3
   The Commission takes note of the appointment of Mr Steve HARVEY by Europol as member of the Group of Experts on Trafficking in Human beings pursuant to Article 3 paragraph 2, letter (d) and paragraph 3 of Commission Decision 2007/675/EC.
   Article 4
   Members of the Group of Experts are appointed in a personal capacity for a 3-year renewable period.
   Article 5
   Following the selection procedure, applicants deemed suitable candidates for membership in the group, but who are not appointed to be members of the Group of Experts shall be placed on a reserve list with their consent.
   Article 6
   The names of members appointed shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
   Article 7
   The decision shall take effect on the day after its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 22 July 2008.

            For the Commission

         Jacques BARROT

            Vice-President

      (1)  OJ L 277, 20.10.2007, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ C 14, 19.1.2008, p. 27.


title: 2013/554/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 17 April 2013 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators for the financial year 2011

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 308/161

      DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

   of 17 April 2013
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators for the financial year 2011
   (2013/554/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators for the financial year 2011,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators for the financial year 2011, together with the Agency’s replies (1),

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 12 February 2013 (05753/2013 — C7-0041/2013),

               —

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

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               having regard to Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (4), and in particular Article 24 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0068/2013),

               1.

               Grants the Director of the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2011;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

               3.

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

            The President

         Martin SCHULZ

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

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

      (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

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

      (4)  OJ L 211, 14.8.2009, p. 1.

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

         RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

      of 17 April 2013
      with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators for the financial year 2011
      THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

                  —

                  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators for the financial year 2011,

                  —

                  having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators for the financial year 2011, together with the Agency’s replies (1),

                  —

                  having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 12 February 2013 (05753/2013 — C7-0041/2013),

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (4), and in particular Article 24 thereof,

                  —

                  having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0068/2013),

                  A.

                  whereas the Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurances that the annual accounts of the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (‘the Agency’) for the financial year 2011 are reliable and that the underlying transactions are legal and regular,

                  B.

                  whereas the Agency moved from Brussels to its seat in Ljubljana, Slovenia, on 1 February 2011, officially started its activities on 3 March 2011, and achieved financial autonomy on 8 March 2011,

                  C.

                  whereas the overall budget of the Agency for 2011 was EUR 4 792 345; whereas the contribution of the Union to the budget of the Agency for 2011 amounted to EUR 4 362 607,98 (6),

         Budgetary and financial management

                  1.

                  Recalls that the initial Union contribution was EUR 4 362 607,98 in 2011; notes that this was the first year that the Agency was financially autonomous;

                  2.

                  Observes from the annual accounts that the Agency’s initial 2011 budget amounted to EUR 5 119 000 (including EUR 119 000 for the European Free Trade Association contribution);

                  3.

                  Establishes from the annual accounts that appropriations were committed at a rate of 67 %, while payments reached a level of 74 % of the total appropriations managed;

         Carry-over appropriations

                  4.

                  Notes with concern the Court of Auditors’ observation that the high level of appropriations not used and carry-overs, as well as the low level of payments, indicate shortcomings in budget planning and implementation and are at odds with the budgetary principle of annuality;

                  5.

                  Accepts the Agency’s explanation that during its first operational year, it had to recruit most of its staff, which resulted in the delayed commencement of opened positions, thus having a significant impact on the Agency’s budget implementation rate, as well as estimations of procurement needs, which led to a concentration of procurement procedures towards the end of the year; understands that this, in turn, resulted in a high level of carry-forwards in order to honour the signed legal and budgetary commitments;

                  6.

                  Takes note of the Agency’s statement that it is now in a much better position to implement its assigned tasks and the corresponding budget, and requires it to follow up this issue, and to report on it to the discharge authority;

         Irregular payments

                  7.

                  Notes with concern that in 2011, the Agency paid subsistence allowances amounting to EUR 10 839 to seconded experts who were nationals of the State where the Agency is situated, and that those payments conflicted with the Rules on the Secondment of National Experts adopted by the Administrative Board of the Agency, which provide for the granting of such allowances only to temporary agents who are not nationals of the Member State where they are employed;

                  8.

                  Notes that the Agency had already stopped the payment of allowances in such cases; nevertheless, given the irregular nature of those payments, requests the Agency to follow up the issue, to explore the possibilities to recover the subsistence allowances unduly paid, and to report on this issue to the discharge authority;

         Recruitment procedures

                  9.

                  Notes the observation of the Court of Auditors that there is room to improve the transparency of recruitment procedures; requests that the Agency follow up this issue and report on actions taken to the discharge authority; considers that some of the provisions of the Staff Regulations may present a considerable administrative burden; therefore encourages the Commission to allow for a certain degree of simplification under Article 110 of the Staff Regulations in regard to the agencies;

                  10.

                  Points out that although the recruitment of permanent staff has now been concluded, the Agency is short of capacity in terms of seconded national experts, and that doubts remain about the technical competence of some of the staff, potentially generating uncertainty around the Agency’s work; requests that the Agency follow up this issue and report to the discharge authority on actions taken;

                  11.

                  Urges the Agency to improve its cooperation with national regulators, particularly in order to ensure that its work is organised according to efficient principles and to establish a permanent headquarters, thus allowing both the Agency and national regulators to make substantial savings and to resolve the incipient problems of transport and limited resources;

                  12.

                  Refers, in respect of the other observations accompanying its Decision on discharge, which are of a horizontal nature, to its Resolution of 17 April 2013 (7) on the performance, financial management and control of the agencies.

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

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

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

         (4)  OJ L 211, 14.8.2009, p. 1.

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

         (6)  ACER Annual Activity report 2011, p. 85-91.

         (7)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0134 (see page 374 of this Official Journal).


title: 2006/464/EC: Commission Decision of  27 June 2006  on provisional emergency measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Community of  Dryocosmus kuriphilus  Yasumatsu  (notified under document number C(2006) 2881)

text:
               5.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 183/29

         COMMISSION DECISION
   of 27 June 2006
   on provisional emergency measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Community of Dryocosmus kuriphilus Yasumatsu
   (notified under document number C(2006) 2881)
   (2006/464/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1), and in particular Article 16(3), third sentence thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Under Directive 2000/29/EC, where a Member State considers that there is a danger of introduction into or spread within its territory of a harmful organism not listed in Annex I or Annex II to that Directive, it may temporarily take any additional measures necessary to protect itself from that danger.

               (2)

               As a result of the presence of Dryocosmus kuriphilus Yasumatsu, in China, Korea, Japan, USA and in a limited area of the Community, France informed the other Member States and the Commission on 14 March 2005 that on 16 February 2005 it had adopted official measures to protect its territory from the danger of the introduction of that organism.

               (3)

               Slovenia informed the Member States and the Commission on 29 June 2005 that because of outbreaks of the same organism on its territory it had on 24 June 2005 adopted additional measures to prevent the further introduction into and spread within its territory of that organism.

               (4)

                  Dryocosmus kuriphilus Yasumatsu is not listed in Annex I or II to Directive 2000/29/EC. However, a report of a pest-risk assessment based on limited available scientific information has demonstrated that it may be one of the most damaging insects to chestnut (Castanea Mill.). It could strongly reduce nut production and quality and there is some evidence it may even kill the trees. Chestnuts are often grown on marginal land in hills or mountains. Damage resulting from the spread of the insect could halt production of chestnuts for human consumption in those areas and thus lead to economic and environmental degradation.

               (5)

               It is therefore necessary to take provisional measures against the introduction into and spread within the Community of the said harmful organism.

               (6)

               The measures provided for in this Decision should apply to the introduction or the spread of the said organism, the production and movement of Castanea plants within the Community, the control of the organism and to a survey for the presence or continued absence of the said harmful organism in the Member States.

               (7)

               It is appropriate that the results of the measures be regularly assessed in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in particular on the basis of information to be provided by the Member States. Possible subsequent measures will be considered in the light of the results of that assessment.

               (8)

               Member States should adapt, if necessary, their legislation in order to comply with this Decision.

               (9)

               The results of the measures should be reviewed by 1 February 2008.

               (10)

               The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Definition
   In this Decision, ‘plants’ means plants or parts of plants of the genus Castanea Mill., intended for planting, other than fruit and seeds.
   Article 2
   Measures against Dryocosmus kuriphilus Yasumatsu
   The introduction into and spread within the Community of Dryocosmus kuriphilus Yasumatsu, hereinafter referred to as ‘the organism’, shall be prohibited.
   Article 3
   Import of plants
   Plants may be introduced into the Community only if:

               (a)

               they comply with the measures laid down in point 1 of Annex I, and

               (b)

               they are, on entry into the Community, inspected for the presence of the organism, in accordance with Article 13a(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC, and found free from it.

         Article 4
   Movement of plants within the Community
   Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 5(3)(a) and Annex II, Part II, plants originating in the Community or imported into the Community pursuant to Article 3 of this Decision may only be moved from their place of production in the Community, including, where appropriate, garden centres, if they meet the conditions laid down in point 2 of Annex I.
   Article 5
   Surveys and notifications
   1.   Member States shall conduct official annual surveys for the presence of the organism or evidence of infestation by the organism in their territory.
   Without prejudice to Article 16(2) of Directive 2000/29/EC, the results of those surveys shall be notified to the Commission and to the other Member States by 31 December of each year.
   2.   Any suspected occurrence or confirmed presence of the organism shall immediately be notified to the responsible official bodies.

               3.

                           (a)

                           Member States may require that the movement into or within their territory of plants, is subject to a traceability system, which may include a declaration of movement to the responsible official bodies by the person responsible for the movement.

                           (b)

                           Member States may require a declaration of planting to be made to the responsible official bodies by the persons responsible for the planting.

         Article 6
   Establishment of demarcated zones
   When the results of the surveys referred to in Article 5(1) or the notification referred to in Article 5(2) confirm the presence of the organism in an area, or there is evidence of the establishment of the organism by other means, Member States shall define demarcated zones and take official measures as laid down in points I and II respectively of Annex II.
   Article 7
   Compliance
   Member States shall, if necessary, amend the measures which they have adopted to protect themselves against the introduction and spread of the organism in such a manner that those measures comply with this Decision and shall forthwith inform the Commission of those measures.
   Article 8
   Review
   This Decision shall be reviewed by 1 February 2008 at the latest.
   Article 9
   Addressees
   This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

      Done at Brussels, 27 June 2006.

            For the Commission

         Markos KYPRIANOU

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 169, 10.7.2000, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2006/35/EC (OJ L 88, 25.3.2006, p. 9).

      ANNEX I
      MEASURES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLES 3 AND 4 OF THIS DECISION
      1.   Measures (Certificates)
      Without prejudice to Article 5(3)(a), of this Decision and Annex III, Part A(2) and Annex IV, Part A(I)(11.1), (11.2), (33), (36.1), (39) and (40) to Directive 2000/29/EC, plants originating in third countries shall be accompanied by a certificate as referred to in Article 13(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC which states under the rubric ‘Additional declaration’:

                  (a)

                  that the plants have been grown throughout their life in places of production in countries where the organism is not known to occur; or

                  (b)

                  that the plants have been grown throughout their life in places of production in a pest-free area, established by the national plant protection organisation in the country of origin in accordance with relevant International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures and under the rubric ‘place of origin’ the name of the pest-free area.

            2.   Conditions for movement
      Without prejudice to Article 5.3(a) and Annex II, part II of this Decision and Annex IV, Part A, Section II (7) to Directive 2000/29/EC, and Annex V, Part A, Section I, (2.1) to Directive 2000/29/EC, all plants either originating in the Community or imported into the Community pursuant to Article 3 of this Decision may only be moved from the place of production in a Member State, including, where appropriate, garden centres, if they are accompanied by a plant passport prepared and issued in accordance with the provisions of Commission Directive 92/105/EEC (1) and:

                  (a)

                  the plants originating in the said place of production have been grown throughout their life or since their introduction into the Community in a place of production in a Member State where the organism is not known to occur; or

                  (b)

                  the plants have been grown throughout their life or since their introduction into the Community in a place of production in a pest-free area, established by the national plant protection service in a Member State, in accordance with relevant International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures.

         (1)  OJ L 4, 8.1.1993, p. 22. Directive as amended by Directive 2005/17/EC (OJ L 57, 3.3.2005, p. 23).

      ANNEX II
      MEASURES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 6 OF THIS DECISION
      I.   Establishment of demarcated zones

                  1.

                  The demarcated zones referred to in Article 6 shall consist of the following parts:

                              (a)

                              an infested zone where the presence of the organism has been confirmed and which includes all plants showing symptoms caused by the organism, and, where appropriate, all plants belonging to the same lot at the time of planting,

                              (b)

                              a focus zone with a boundary at least 5 km beyond the boundary of the infested zone, and

                              (c)

                              a buffer zone with a boundary at least 10 km beyond the boundary of the focus zone.

                        In cases where several buffer zones overlap or are geographically close, a wider demarcated area shall be defined which includes the relevant demarcated zones and the zones between them.

                  2.

                  The exact delimitation of the zones referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on sound scientific principles, the biology of the organism, the level of infestation, the period of the year and the particular distribution of plants in the Member State concerned.

                  3.

                  If the presence of the organism is confirmed outside the infested zone, the delimitation of the demarcated zones shall be changed accordingly.

                  4.

                  If, based on the annual surveys referred to in Article 5.1, the organism is not detected in any of the demarcated zones for a period of three years, these zones shall cease to exist and the measures referred to in part II of this Annex shall no longer be necessary.

                  5.

                  The Member States shall inform immediately the other Member States and the Commission of the zones referred to in paragraph 1 by providing suitable scale maps, and the nature of measures taken to either eradicate or contain the organism.

            II.   Measures in demarcated zones
      The official measures referred to in Article 6 to be taken in the demarcated zones, shall include at least:

                  —

                  the prohibition of movement of plants out of or within the demarcated zones

                  —

                  in cases where the presence of the organism has been confirmed on the plants at a place of production, appropriate measures aiming at eradicating the harmful organism, consisting of at least destruction of the infested plants, all those plants showing symptoms caused by the organism and, where appropriate, all such plants belonging to the same lot at the time of planting and a monitoring of the presence of the organism through appropriate inspections during the period of potential presence of the inhabited galls.


title: EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 57/11/COL of 2 March 2011 amending, for the 82nd time, the procedural and substantive rules in the field of State aid by introducing a new chapter on the application, from 1 January 2011 , of State aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis

text:
               15.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 332/20

         EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION
   No 57/11/COL
   of 2 March 2011
   amending, for the 82nd time, the procedural and substantive rules in the field of State aid by introducing a new chapter on the application, from 1 January 2011, of State aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis
   THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY (‘the Authority’),
   HAVING REGARD to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), in particular to Articles 61,
   HAVING REGARD to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (‘the Surveillance and Court Agreement’), in particular to Article 24 and Article 5(2)(b),
   WHEREAS under Article 24 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the Authority shall give effect to the provisions of the EEA Agreement concerning State aid,
   WHEREAS under Article 5(2)(b) of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the Authority shall issue notices or guidelines on matters dealt with in the EEA Agreement, if that Agreement or the Surveillance and Court Agreement expressly so provides or if the Authority considers it necessary,
   WHEREAS, on 1 December 2010, the European Commission adopted a Communication on the application, from 1 January 2011, of State aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis (1),
   WHEREAS this Communication is also of relevance for the European Economic Area,
   WHEREAS uniform application of the EEA State aid rules is to be ensured throughout the European Economic Area in line with the objective of homogeneity established in Article 1 of the EEA Agreement,
   WHEREAS, according to point II under the heading ‘GENERAL’ on page 11 of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement, the Authority, after consultation with the Commission, is to adopt acts corresponding to those adopted by the European Commission,
   HAVING consulted the European Commission,
   HAVING consulted the EFTA States by letters dated 10 February 2011 on the subject,
   HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The State Aid Guidelines shall be amended by introducing a new chapter on the application, from 1 January 2011, of State aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis.
   The new chapter is set out in the Annex to this Decision.
   Article 2
   Only the English version of this Decision is authentic.

      Done at Brussels, 2 March 2011.

            For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

         Per SANDERUD

            President

         Sabine MONAUNI-TÖMÖRDY

            College Member

      (1)  OJ C 329, 7.12.2010, p. 7.

      ANNEX

         THE APPLICATION, FROM 1 JANUARY 2011, OF STATE AID RULES TO SUPPORT MEASURES IN FAVOUR OF BANKS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS

      1.   Introduction

                  1.

                  Since the beginning of the global financial crisis in the autumn of 2008, the EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘the Authority’) has adopted four sets of Guidelines (1) which provide detailed guidance on the criteria for the compatibility of State support to financial institutions (2) with the requirements of Article 61(3)(b) of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’). The chapters of the Guidelines in question are the application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions (3) (‘the Banking Guidelines’); the recapitalisation of financial institutions in the current financial crisis (4) (‘the Recapitalisation Guidelines’); the treatment of impaired assets in the EEA banking sector (5) (‘the Impaired Assets Guidelines’) and return to viability and the assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current crisis under the State aid rules (6) (‘the Restructuring Guidelines’). Three of those four Guidelines, the Banking, Recapitalisation and Impaired Assets Guidelines, set out the prerequisites for the compatibility of the main types of assistance granted by EFTA States — guarantees on liabilities, recapitalisations and asset relief measures — while the Restructuring Guidelines detail the particular features that a restructuring plan (or a viability plan) has to display in the specific context of crisis-related State aid granted to financial institutions on the basis of Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement.

                  2.

                  All four chapters of the Guidelines highlight the temporary nature of the acceptability of such aid measures; each states that any such aid measure can only be justified as an emergency response to the unprecedented stress in financial markets and only as long as those exceptional circumstances prevail. The Restructuring Guidelines are valid for restructuring aid notified by 31 December 2010 whilst the other Guidelines do not have an expiry date.

                  3.

                  These Guidelines set out the parameters for the temporary acceptability of crisis-related assistance to banks as from 1 January 2011.

            2.   The continued applicability of Article 61(3)(b) EEA and the extension of the Restructuring Guidelines

                  4.

                  The Authority’s Guidelines on crisis-related aid to banks, as well as all individual decisions on aid measures and schemes falling within the scope of those Guidelines, are adopted on the legal basis of Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement, which exceptionally allows for aid to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of an EFTA State. In the most acute stage of the crisis, the condition of a serious disturbance was unquestionably met across the EEA in view of the extraordinary stress in financial markets, later combined with an exceptionally severe contraction in the real economy.

                  5.

                  The economic recovery, which has slowly taken hold since the beginning of 2010, has been proceeding at a somewhat faster pace than expected earlier in 2010. While recovery is still fragile and uneven across the EEA, some states are showing modest or even more robust growth rates. In addition, despite some pockets of vulnerability, in broad terms the health of the banking sector has improved compared with the situation one year ago. As a result, the existence of a serious disturbance in the economy of the EFTA States is no longer as self-evident as in earlier stages of the crisis. While it is aware of those developments, the Authority still considers that the requirements for State aid to be approved pursuant to Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement are fulfilled in view of the recent reappearance of stress in financial markets and the risk of wider negative spill-over effects, for the reasons set out in these Guidelines.

                  6.

                  The re-emergence of tensions in sovereign debt markets forcefully illustrates the continued volatility in financial markets. The high level of interconnectedness and interdependence within the financial sector in the EEA has given rise to market concerns about contagion. The high volatility of financial markets and the uncertainty about the economic outlook justifies maintaining, as a safety net, the possibility for EFTA States to argue the need to have recourse to crisis-related support measures on the basis of Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement.

                  7.

                  Therefore, the Banking, Recapitalisation and Impaired Assets Guidelines, which provide guidance on the criteria for the compatibility of crisis-related aid to banks on the basis of Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement — most notably in the form of government guarantees, recapitalisations and asset relief measures — need to stay in place beyond 31 December 2010. In the same vein, the Restructuring Guidelines, which address the follow-up to such support measures, also have to remain applicable beyond that date. The temporal scope of the Restructuring Guidelines — the only one of the four Guidelines with a specified expiry date, 31 December 2010 — should therefore be extended to restructuring aid notified by 31 December 2011.

                  8.

                  The Guidelines, however, need to be adapted with a view of preparing the transition to the post-crisis regime. In parallel, new, permanent State aid rules for bank rescue and restructuring in normal market conditions will have to be drawn up and should, market conditions permitting, apply as of 1 January 2012. The possible continued need for crisis-induced extraordinary State aid to the financial sector has to be evaluated with that objective in mind. It must be addressed by setting the requirements for the compatibility of such assistance in a way that best prepares for the new regime for the rescue and restructuring of banks based on Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.

            3.   The advancement of the exit process

                  9.

                  The continued availability of aid measures pursuant to Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement in the face of exceptional market conditions should not obstruct the process of disengagement from temporary extraordinary support measures for banks. At its meeting on 2 December 2009 the Economic and Financial Affairs Council concluded on the necessity to design a strategy for the phasing out of support measures which should be transparent and duly coordinated among EU Member States to avoid negative spill-over effects but take into account the different specific circumstances across EU Member States (7). The conclusions further set out that, in principle, the phasing-out process concerning the various forms of assistance to banks should start with the unwinding of government guarantee schemes, encouraging the exit of sound banks and inducing other banks to address their weaknesses.

                  10.

                  In the following paragraphs, the Authority will set out the steps of a gradual phasing out with regard to recapitalisation and impaired asset measures.

            3.1.   Tighter conditions for the compatibility of government guarantees under Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement

                  11.

                  From 1 January 2011 the Authority will apply tighter conditions for the compatibility of government guarantees under Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement by introducing an increased guarantee fee and the requirement of a viability plan for beneficiaries that have recourse to new guarantees and exceed a certain threshold of total outstanding guaranteed liabilities both in absolute terms and in relation to total liabilities (8). Considering the current market these conditions appear necessary at present. Government guarantee schemes can therefore be authorised until 30 June 2011, on the basis of the following conditions introduced as of 1 January 2011. The Authority will reassess the conditions for the compatibility of state guarantees beyond 30 June 2011 in the first half of 2011.

            3.1.1.   Pricing conditions

                  12.

                  Access to the government guarantees has been subject to a fee, which is determined following the ECB recommendations. In the case of a bond with maturity over one year, the fee comprises a flat charge of 50 basis points augmented by each bank’s median five-year senior debt credit default swap (‘CDS’) spread observed in the period 1 January 2007 to 31 August 2008 (9).

                  13.

                  The credit risk element in the current pricing model is based upon data that predates the most acute phase of the crisis in 2008. CDS spread differentials across banks are currently significantly higher than pre-crisis and are likely to remain so. Up to now, this has been considered necessary to facilitate banks’ access to external funding and thereby safeguard financial stability. However, financial-market developments in the two years since 31 August 2008, including changes in the banks’ credit status, are not taken into account. Thus, while access to market financing has generally improved, banks which have been downgraded are still benefiting from their pre-crisis credit rating and perceived creditworthiness. This increases the likelihood of competition distortions. Evidence shows that banks with low rating benefit disproportionately more from guarantees than banks with higher rating because they would normally pay a higher market price due to their low rating.

                  14.

                  In order to address these distortions, the pricing of government support should be brought closer to current market conditions, better reflecting individual banks’ current creditworthiness. De facto, this requires that the guarantee fee payable by beneficiary institutions would be increased.

                  15.

                  A coordinated approach among EFTA States should promote a gradual phasing out of guarantee schemes while retaining a certain degree of flexibility to take account of the different situations of EFTA States and their banks. To this end, the Authority considers it appropriate to introduce a minimum increase in the fee for guarantees that should be differentiated according to the beneficiary bank's creditworthiness. The differentiation based on creditworthiness strengthens the price signal for weaker banks, allows to better align the price of guarantees with the risk profile of the beneficiary institution thus lowering distortions of competition between institutions and contributing to the protection of a level playing field across banks in the single market.

                  16.

                  The approval of the extension of a guarantee scheme (10) beyond 1 January 2011 would therefore require the fee for a government guarantee (11) to be higher than under the pricing formula recommended by the ECB in October 2008 at least:

                              —

                              by 20 basis points for banks with a rating of A+ or A (12),

                              —

                              by 30 basis points for banks rated A- (13), and

                              —

                              by 40 basis points for banks rated below A-. Banks without rating will be considered to belong to the category of banks with a BBB rating (14).

                  17.

                  EFTA States would have the possibility to go beyond these minimum requirements in defining the top-ups for the guarantee fee. As a further element of flexibility allowing EFTA States to adjust the conditions to the specific circumstances prevailing in their financial sectors, the Authority would accept a different model for the calculation of a fee increase provided that it can be unequivocally demonstrated that this formula leads at least to the minimum rise set out above for the banks concerned (15).

            3.1.2.   Viability review of banks still dependent on government debt guarantees

                  18.

                  At the current juncture in the evolution of market conditions, access to liquidity on the market no longer represents a serious obstacle for banks across the board as in the more acute crisis period. Accordingly, it seems justified to introduce a differentiation in the conditions attached to the use of state guarantees based on the extent to which banks rely on them. While limited usage could be allowed without prompting further scrutiny, a larger usage both in absolute terms and in relation to the bank's total amount of liabilities should trigger the requirement of a viability review as a prerequisite for the conformity of the further extension of guarantee schemes with Article 61(3)(b) EEA. A persistent failure to obtain a considerable proportion of the funding needed without government guarantees may indicate a lack of confidence in the viability of a bank's business model. It should be avoided that a bank retains a heavy reliance on guarantee schemes, which were designed to tackle unprecedented difficulties in access to financing, even when these exceptional circumstances have subsided, thereby possibly allowing that bank to postpone necessary structural adjustments.

                  19.

                  Therefore, the Authority considers it appropriate that guarantee schemes to be prolonged beyond 1 January 2011 should include a threshold concerning the ratio of total guaranteed liabilities outstanding over total liabilities of a bank and the absolute amount of guaranteed liabilities which, if exceeded, triggers the requirement of a viability review. For any bank that requests government guarantees under a scheme covering new or renewed debt to be issued as from 1 January 2011 which takes or keeps the total amount of outstanding guaranteed liabilities beyond this threshold in relation to both of its elements (absolute and relative size) (16) the EFTA State concerned would be required to submit a review demonstrating the bank's long-term viability to the Authority within three months of the granting of guarantees.

                  20.

                  This mechanism does not apply to banks that are already in restructuring or are obliged to present a restructuring plan or that are already subject to a pending viability review at the material time. In those scenarios the award of additional State aid will have to be taken into account within the framework of the ongoing restructuring/viability review process (17).

                  21.

                  The threshold is set at a ratio of 5 % of outstanding guaranteed liabilities over total liabilities and at a total amount of guaranteed debt of EUR 500 million. The determination of this trigger threshold is based on a comparative analysis which illustrates that the vast majority of banks that use guarantees and are presently not under restructuring obligations (and even a significant proportion of banks that are subject to such obligations) stay well below this level. For the small but not negligible group of banks exceeding this limit, it is warranted to scrutinise whether the considerable reliance on guarantees for funding indicates a more structural weakness of their business models. The trigger function provides an incentive for sound banks to initiate a swift process of return to funding predominantly or exclusively on undistorted market terms. For all banks undergoing a thorough viability review either their long-term viability will be confirmed or doubts in that respect will indicate the need to confront the necessity of a farther-reaching restructuring.

                  22.

                  In relation to the content to be provided in a viability review exercise, reference can be made to the Restructuring Guidelines which set out that the principles concerning the analysis of a bank's situation with a view to the restoration of long-term viability in a restructuring plan apply by analogy to cases where the aid beneficiary is not under a formal obligation to present a restructuring plan but is nonetheless required to demonstrate long-term viability. In particular the bank will have to demonstrate the solidity of its funding capacity and, where necessary, to undergo a liquidity stress test (18). A viability review should also take account of any factors specific to the beneficiary financial institutions (19) or to the EFTA State concerned (20) and the situation of its financial markets that have an impact on the viability assessment and on the indicative value of the ratio of guaranteed liabilities over total liabilities. As a general rule, the more significant the reliance on government guarantees is and the more it is combined with the use of other forms of State assistance and/or a low creditworthiness (21) the stronger the indication of a need to undergo changes in the business model in order to ensure long-term viability.

                  23.

                  The mechanism triggering the requirement of a viability review conveys the signal that banks have to prepare for a return to normal market mechanisms without state support as the financial sector gradually emerges from crisis conditions and represents an incentive for individual institutions to scale down the reliance on government guarantees or to refrain from their use altogether. At the same time, it affords sufficient flexibility to duly take account of potentially diverse circumstances affecting the situation of different banks or national financial markets and also caters for the possibility of an overall deterioration in relation to financial stability which cannot be excluded at this stage given the residual fragility in the recovery of financial markets.

            4.   Removal of the distinction between sound and distressed banks for the purposes of submitting a restructuring plan

                  24.

                  At the beginning of the crisis, the Authority established a distinction between unsound/distressed financial institutions and fundamentally sound financial institutions, that is to say, financial institutions suffering from endogenous, structural problems linked, for instance, to their particular business model or investment strategy and financial institutions whose problems merely and largely had to do with the extreme situation in the financial crisis rather than with the soundness of their business model, inefficiency or excessive risk taking. The distinction is defined in particular on the basis of a number of indicators set out in the Recapitalisation Guidelines: capital adequacy, current CDS spreads, current rating of the bank and its outlook as well as, inter alia, the relative size of the recapitalisation. Regarding the latter, the Authority deems aid received under the form of recapitalisation and asset relief measures of more than 2 % of the bank's risk weighted assets to be an indicator to distinguish between fundamentally sound and distressed banks. The recapitalisation of a distressed bank triggers the requirement to submit a restructuring plan to the Authority, while the recapitalisation of a sound bank triggers the requirement to submit a viability plan.

                  25.

                  The original rationale for establishing that distinction and for setting a range of indicators, including a threshold of 2 % of the bank's risk weighted assets, was the fear that capital needs resulting from impairments, higher expectations of the markets as to the capital levels of banks and temporary difficulties in raising capital on markets would otherwise lead to sound banks diminishing their lending to the real economy in order to avoid having to submit a restructuring plan when having recourse to State resources. At present, however, the banking sector overall faces fewer difficulties in raising capital on the markets or, inter alia, through retained earnings (22) and can therefore meet their capital needs without recourse to State aid (23). The amount of capital raised by financial institutions on the market has significantly increased over the course of 2009 and 2010, demonstrating renewed access for financial institutions to capital markets as well as anticipation of new regulatory requirements (24).

                  26.

                  The distinction between sound and distressed banks therefore no longer seems relevant in order to determine which banks should enter into a discussion about their restructuring with the Authority. As a result, banks which still have recourse to the State in 2011 for raising capital or for impaired assets measures should be required to submit to the Authority a restructuring plan showing the bank’s determination to undertake the necessary restructuring efforts and return to viability without undue delay. Thus, as of 1 January 2011, a restructuring plan will be required from every beneficiary of a new recapitalisation or an impaired asset measure (25).

                  27.

                  In assessing the restructuring needs of banks, the Authority will take into consideration the specific situation of each institution, the degree to which such a restructuring is necessary to restore viability without further state support as well as prior reliance on State aid. As a general rule, the more significant the reliance on State aid, the stronger the indication of a need to undergo in-depth restructuring in order to ensure long-term viability. In addition, the individual assessment will take account of any specific situation on the markets and will apply the restructuring framework in an appropriately flexible manner in the event of a severe shock endangering financial stability in one or more EFTA States.

                  28.

                  Requiring a restructuring plan for banks benefiting from structural aid (that is to say, recapitalisation and/or impaired asset measures) — while at the same time accepting that the mere use of refinancing guarantees would still not trigger the requirement to submit a restructuring plan — conveys the signal that banks have to prepare for a return to normal market mechanisms without state support as the financial sector gradually emerges from crisis conditions. It provides an incentive for individual institutions that still need aid to accelerate the necessary restructuring. At the same time, it affords sufficient flexibility to duly take account of potentially diverse circumstances affecting the situation of different banks or national financial markets. It also caters for the possibility of an overall or country-specific deterioration in relation to financial stability, which cannot be excluded at present, given the residual fragility in the situation of financial markets.

            5.   Temporal scope, general outlook

                  29.

                  The continued applicability of Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement and the extension of the Restructuring Guidelines will be from 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2011 (26). This extension under changed conditions should also be seen in the context of a gradual transition to a more permanent regime of State aid guidelines for the rescue and restructuring of banks based on Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement which should, market conditions permitting, apply as of 1 January 2012.

         (1)  Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the Authority on 19.1.1994, published in OJ L 231, 3.9.1994, p. 1 and EEA Supplement No 32, 3.9.1994, p. 1. The Guidelines were last amended on 17 December 2008 (‘the State Aid Guidelines’). The updated version of the State Aid Guidelines is published on the Authority’s website:
      http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/state-aid-guidelines/

         (2)  For the convenience of the reader, financial institutions are referred to simply as ‘banks’ in this document.

         (3)  Decision 28/09/COL of 29.1.2009.

         (4)  Decision 28/09/COL of 29.1.2009.

         (5)  Decision 191/09/COL of 22.4.2009.

         (6)  Decision 472/09/COL of 25.11.2009.

         (7)  These conclusions were endorsed by the European Council at its meeting on 11 December 2009. In the same vein, the European Parliament insisted in its Resolution of 9 March 2010 on the Report on Competition Policy 2008
      (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2010-0050) that state support to financial institutions should not be unduly prolonged and that exit strategies should be elaborated as soon as possible.

         (8)  With a flexibility clause permitting a re-assessment of the situation and appropriate remedies in the event of a severe new shock to the financial markets across the EEA or in one or more EFTA States.

         (9)  See http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/recommendations_on_guaranteesen.pdf

         (10)  Individual notifications of government guarantees outside a scheme will generally require a guarantee fee along the same lines. Where the beneficiary is under restructuring obligations and a lower fee may be justified depending on the specific circumstances this deviation will have to be taken into account in the overall assessment of the restructuring and the measures necessary to minimise distortions of competition.

         (11)  This includes guarantees covering liabilities of one year or less.

         (12)  Or A1 and A2 depending on the rating system employed.

         (13)  Or A3 depending on the rating system employed.

         (14)  In the case of divergent assessments by different rating agencies the relevant rating for the calculation of the fee increase should be the higher rating. The material time for the rating in the determination of the guarantee fee is the day on which the guarantee is granted in relation to a specific bond issuance by the beneficiary.

         (15)  E.g. an update of the CDS reference period stipulated in the ECB recommendations of October 2008 that demonstrably leads to an increase of at least 20 bp for banks rated A+ and A, 30 bp for banks rated A- and 40 bp for banks rated below A-.

         (16)  The assessment will be carried out when an EFTA State receives the application for an approval of guarantees for the issuance of new or renewed debt as from 1 January 2011 and will include the amount of debt to be covered by the requested guarantees as well as all existing outstanding guaranteed liabilities in relation to total liabilities/balance sheet at the material time. Outstanding liabilities that exceed the threshold due to issuances before 1 January 2011 do not trigger a viability review unless the bank resorts to the issuance of new debt keeping the guaranteed liabilities above the threshold.

         (17)  For example, where a bank is already undergoing a viability review because of a recapitalisation and the threshold for guarantees is exceeded, the review has to the extended to address the reasons why the bank continues to rely on state guarantees, to include a liquidity test, and to analyse if and to what extent further use of state guarantee is foreseen.

         (18)  Restructuring Guidelines, point 8 and section 2, also pointing to the related sections in point 40 of the Recapitalisation Guidelines and Annex V to the Impaired Assets Guidelines.

         (19)  Including, for example, a higher ratio of guaranteed debts that is explained by a particular effort to sustain or increase lending to the real economy in the public interest and with the backing of the EFTA State concerned provided that such conduct is compatible with the common market.

         (20)  Having due regard to the macro-economic situation of the EFTA State in general and in particular to those elements such as the sovereign risk that have a direct bearing on the terms of access to funding for banks located in the EFTA State.

         (21)  As expressed in the beneficiary’s rating or CDS spread.

         (22)  In order to increase capital buffers, banks have decided to sell non-strategic assets such as industrial participations, or to focus on specific geographical sectors. See on this point European Central Bank, ‘EU Banking Sector Stability, September 2010’.

         (23)  According to the European Central Bank, banks’ overall solvency ratio increased substantially in the course of 2009 in all EU Member States. In addition, information for a sample of large banks in the European Union suggests that the improvement in capital ratios continued into the first half of 2010, supported by an increase in retained earnings as well as by further private capital raising and public capital injections for some banks. See European Central Bank: ‘EU Banking Sector Stability, September 2010’.

         (24)  The future regulatory environment drawn up by the Basel Committee on the Banking Supervision (BCBS), so-called Basel III, sets a path for the implementation of the new capital rules which should allow banks to meet the new capital needs over time. In this context, it is interesting to note that, first, most of the largest banks in the European Union have reinforced their capital buffers over the last two years to increase their loss absorption capacity and, second, the other banks in the European Union should have sufficient time (up to 2019) to build up their capital buffer using, inter alia, retained earnings. It should also be noted that the ‘transitional arrangements’ provided by the new regulatory framework have established a ‘grandfathering period’ until 1 January 2018 for existing public sector capital injections. Moreover, a quantitative impact assessment done by the Basel Committee, confirmed by Commission calculations, points to a rather moderate impact on bank lending. Therefore, the new capital requirements are not expected to impact the proposal outlined in these Guidelines.

         (25)  This will apply to all recapitalisation or impaired asset measures, irrespective of whether they are designed as individual measures or granted in the context of a scheme.

         (26)  Existing or new bank support schemes (irrespective of the support instruments they contain: guarantee, recapitalisation, liquidity, asset relief, other) will only be prolonged/approved for a duration of six months to allow for further adjustments, if necessary, in mid-2011.


title: 2012/549/EU, Euratom: Decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2012 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers for the financial year 2010

text:
               17.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 286/90

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 10 May 2012
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers for the financial year 2010
   (2012/549/EU, Euratom)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010 (1),

               —

               having regard to the annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2010 (COM(2011) 473 – C7-0256/2011) (2),

               —

               having regard to the annual accounts of the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers for the financial year 2010,

               —

               having regard to the Commission’s report on the follow-up to the discharge for the 2009 financial year (COM(2011) 736), and to the Commission staff working documents accompanying that report (SEC(2011) 1350 and SEC(2011) 1351),

               —

               having regard to the Commission’s annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2010 (COM(2011) 643), and to the Commission staff working document accompanying that report (SEC(2011) 1189),

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers for the financial year 2010, together with the Agency’s reply (3),

               —

               having regard to the statement of assurance (4) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2010 pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 21 February 2012 on discharge to be given to the executive agencies in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2010 (06084/2012 – C7-0052/2012), and noting that the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Sweden have for the first time refused to recommend granting discharge,

               —

               having regard to Articles 317, 318 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty,

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), and in particular Articles 55, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (6), and in particular Article 14(3) thereof,

               —

               having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1653/2004 of 21 September 2004 on a standard financial regulation for the executive agencies pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (7), and in particular the first and second paragraphs of Article 66 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Commission Decision 2004/858/EC of 15 December 2004 setting up an executive agency, the ‘Executive Agency for the Public Health Programme’ for the management of Community action in the field of public health pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 (8),

               —

               having regard to Commission Decision 2008/544/EC of 20 June 2008 amending Decision 2004/858/EC in order to transform the Executive Agency for the Public Health Programme into the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers (9),

               —

               having regard to Rule 76 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinions of the other committees concerned (A7-0098/2012),

               A.

               whereas under Article 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union the Commission shall execute the budget and manage programmes and shall do so, under Article 317 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in cooperation with the Member States on its own responsibility, having regard to the principle of sound financial management,

               1.

               Grants the Director of the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2010;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the resolution that forms an integral part of its Decisions on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section III – Commission and executive agencies;

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this Decision, together with its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section III – Commission and the resolution that forms an integral part of those Decisions, to the Director of the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

            The President

         Martin SCHULZ

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ L 64, 12.3.2010.

      (2)  OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ C 366, 15.12.2011, p. 93.

      (4)  OJ C 332, 14.11.2011, p. 134.

      (5)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (6)  OJ L 11, 16.1.2003, p. 1.

      (7)  OJ L 297, 22.9.2004, p. 6.

      (8)  OJ L 369, 16.12.2004, p. 73.

      (9)  OJ L 173, 3.7.2008, p. 27.


title: EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision — No 40/04/COL of  17 March 2004  amending for the fortythird time the procedural and substantive rules in the field of State aid by amending chapter 26A:  multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects  and proposal for appropriate measures

text:
               20.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/15

      EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

   No 40/04/COL
   of 17 March 2004
   amending for the fortythird time the procedural and substantive rules in the field of State aid by amending chapter 26A: ‘multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects’ and proposal for appropriate measures
   (2006/C 168/07)
   THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,
   HAVING REGARD TO the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26 thereof,
   HAVING REGARD TO the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (2), in particular to Article 24, Article 5 (2) (b), Article 1 in Part I of Protocol 3 and Articles 18 and 19 in Part II of Protocol 3 thereof (3),
   WHEREAS under Article 24 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall give effect to the provisions of the EEA Agreement concerning State aid,
   WHEREAS under Article 5 (2)(b) of the Surveillance and Court Agreement the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall issue notices or guidelines on matters dealt with in the EEA Agreement, if that Agreement or the Surveillance and Court Agreement expressly so provides or if the EFTA Surveillance Authority considers it necessary,
   RECALLING the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid (4) adopted on 19 January 1994 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (5),
   WHEREAS, on 1 November 2003, the Commission of the European Communities (hereinafter the EC Commission) published a communication on the modification of the Mutlisectoral Framework on regional aid for large investment projects (2002) with regard to the establishment of a list of sectors facing structural problems and on a proposal of appropriate measures pursuant to Article 88 paragraph 1 of the EC Treaty, concerning the motor vehicle sector and the synthetic fibres sector (6),
   WHEREAS this framework is also of relevance for the European Economic Area,
   WHEREAS a uniform application of the EEA State aid rules is to be ensured throughout the European Economic Area,
   WHEREAS, experience gathered in recent years and information available on the current situation of the relevant sectors have led the Authority to decide that limitations currently applying to regional investment aid in the motor vehicle sector and in the synthetic fibres sector should be maintained,
   WHEREAS, the EFTA Surveillance Authority has decided not to include the shipbuilding sector within the scope of the Multisectoral Framework,
   WHEREAS, the EFTA Surveillance Authority has decided to introduce a technical correction to the wording of the transitional rules to the motor vehicle sector, to become applicable for aid awarded after 31 December 2003,
   WHEREAS, according to point II under the heading ‘GENERAL’ at the end of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement, the EFTA Surveillance Authority is to adopt, after consultation with the EC Commission, acts corresponding to those adopted by the EC Commission,
   HAVING consulted the EC Commission,
   RECALLING that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has consulted the EFTA States in a multilateral meeting on 3 February 2004 on the subject,
   HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

               1.

               Chapter 26A of the State Aid Guidelines is amended as described in Annex I to this decision and appropriate measures, contained in Annex I, are proposed.

               2.

               The EFTA States shall be informed by means of a letter, including a copy of this Decision and including Annex I. The EFTA States shall be requested to signify their agreement to the appropriate measures within one month from receipt of this proposal.

               3.

               The EC Commission shall be informed, in accordance with point (d) of Protocol 27 of the EEA Agreement, by means of a copy of this Decision, including Annex I.

               4.

               The Decision, including Annex I, shall be published in the EEA Section of and in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union.

               5.

               In case the EFTA States accept the proposal for appropriate measures, a summary notice shall be published in the EEA Section of and in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (attached in Annex 2).

               6.

               The Decision is authentic in the English language.

      Done at Brussels, 17 March 2004.

         For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

            President

         Hannes HAFSTEIN

            College Member

         Einar M. BULL

      (1)  Hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement.

      (2)  Hereinafter referred to as the Surveillance and Court Agreement.

      (3)  Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement as amended by the EFTA States on 10 December 2001. The amendments entered into force on 28 August 2003.

      (4)  Hereinafter referred to as the State Aid Guidelines.

      (5)  Initially published in OJ L 231, 3.9.1994, and in the EEA Supplement thereto No 32 on the same date, last amended by College Decision No.39/04/COL, of 17.3.2004, not yet published.

      (6)  OJ C 263, 1.11.2003, p. 3.

      ANNEX I
      AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26A ON THE MULTISECTORAL FRAMEWORK ON REGIONAL AID FOR LARGE INVESTMENT PROJECTS (1)

      The present point 26A.5. (4) is replaced by:

         Sectors where serious structural problems prevail may be specified in a list of sectors to be annexed to the framework. No regional investment aid will be authorised in these sectors, subject to the provisions laid down in this section. The technical feasibility and political and economic opportunity to adopt such a list of sectors will be examined before the end of 2005. If the Authority should decide to adopt such a list of sectors, it will be adopted and published before 31 March 2006 and become applicable on the 1 of January 2007. Any appropriate measures pursuant to Article 1(1) in Part I and Article 18 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement that may become necessary in this context will be proposed before 1 July 2006.

      The present point 26A.5. (5) is replaced by:

         For the purpose of examining the technical feasibility of drawing up the list of sectors, serious structural problems will in principle be measured on the basis of apparent consumption data, at the appropriate level of the CPA classification (2) in the EEA, or, if such information is not available, on the basis of any other market segmentation generally accepted for the products concerned and for which statistical data are readily available. Other relevant data and information, including sectoral studies, may also be taken into account. No sector will be included on the basis of a purely mechanistic statistical approach. The list of sectors may be updated whenever necessary.

      The first sentence of the present point 26A.5. (6) is replaced by:

         If the Authority should decide to adopt such a list of sectors, as from 1 January 2007, for sectors included in the list of sectors with serious structural problems, all regional investment aid concerning an investment project involving eligible expenditure above an amount to be determined by the Authority at the time of drawing up the list of sectors (3) must be individually notified to the Authority, without prejudice to the provisions laid down in the State aid block exemption concerning small and medium-sized enterprises (4), as incorporated into the EEA Agreement by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 88/2002 of 25 June 2002 (5).

      The present point 26A.8. (1) is replaced by:
      Until 31 December 2006, and without prejudice to the Act referred to in point 1f of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement (6), as incorporated into that Annex by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 88/2002:

                  (a)

                  for aid amounts exceeding EUR 5 million, expressed in gross grant equivalent, the maximum aid intensity for regional investment aid in the motor vehicle sector as defined in Annex C to be granted under existing aid schemes, is limited to 30 % of the corresponding regional aid ceiling;

                  (b)

                  no expenditure incurred in the context of investment projects in the synthetic fibres sector as defined in Annex D will be eligible for investment aid.

            This point enters into force as from 1 January 2004.
      The present points 26A. 8 (2) and (3) are repealed.
      After the present points 26A.9. (2), two new points 26A.9. (3) and 26A.9 (4) are inserted:

                     26A.9. (3):

                     In order to have, in the absence of a list of sectors where serious structural problems prevail, a clear set of rules applicable to regional investment in the motor vehicle sector and in the synthetic fibres sector as from 1 January 2004, the Authority has decided to propose as appropriate measures under Article 1(1) in Part I and Article 18 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement:

                                 —

                                 to continue to apply the existing transitional rules for the synthetic fibres sectors as defined in Annex D until 31 December 2006,

                                 —

                                 for aid amounts exceeding EUR 5 million, expressed in gross grant equivalent, to limit the maximum aid intensity for regional investment aid in the motor vehicle sector as defined in Annex C to be granted under existing aid schemes, to 30 % of the corresponding regional aid ceiling.

                     26A.9 (4):

                     The EFTA States are invited to give their explicit agreement to the proposed appropriate measures within the deadline specified in the letter addressed to them. In the absence of any reply, the Authority will assume that the EFTA State in question does not agree with the proposed measures.

         (1)  This amendments correspond to the European Commission communication on the modification of the Mutlisectoral Framework on regional aid for large investment projects (2002) with regard to the establishment of a list of sectors facing structural problems and on a proposal of appropriate measures pursuant to Article 88 paragraph 1 of the EC Treaty, concerning the motor vehicle sector and the synthetic fibres sector (OJ C 263, 01.11.2003, p. 3).

         (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3696/93 of 29 October 1993 on the statistical classification of products by activity (CPA) in the European Economic Community (OJ L 342, 31.12.1993, p. 1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 204/2002 (OJ L 36, 6.2.2002, p. 1). Council Regulation (EEC) No 3696/93 was incorporated into the EEA Agreement by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 7/94 of 21 March 1994, OJ L 160, 28.6.94, as last amended by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 110/2002, OJ L 298, 31.10.2002 and EEA Supplement No 54. cf. point 20b of Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement.

         (3)  This amount can in principle be set at EUR 25 million but may vary from sector to sector.

         (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-seized enterprises (OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 33).

         (5)  OJ L 266, 3.10.2002 and EEA Supplement No 49, cf. point 1f of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement.

         (6)  The State aid block exemption concerning small and medium-sized enterprises.


				|

		52014PC0223

			Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION establishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organization on the accession of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to the WTO /* COM/2014/0223 final - 2014/0125 (NLE) */

			   	EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
I. INTRODUCTION
Members of the World Trade Organization
(WTO) and Afghanistan have reached the concluding stage of an agreement on the
terms for the accession of Afghanistan to the organization. This comes after 10
years of negotiations, which began when Afghanistan submitted its application
to join the WTO in 2004. Afghanistan’s request for accession has been examined
in accordance with the guidelines set out by the WTO General Council on the
accession of least-developed countries (LDC) and now a Council Decision
approving the terms of Afghanistan’s accession is required by the TFEU, before
the EU can formally support that approval in the WTO.
A summary of the terms of the accession is
set out below.
II. SUMMARY OF TERMS OF AFGHANISTAN’S WTO ACCESSION BY SECTOR
Schedules of commitments
Goods (overall)
The average final bound rate (FBR) in the
accession schedule of Afghanistan is 15.1%.
The average FBR is higher at 29.6% for
agriculture products than the 8.8% observed for industrial goods. Tariff peaks
are also higher in agriculture (60-70% maximum in some agriculture products
versus 50% maximum observed in industrial goods).
Afghanistan will
implement the FBRs as from the date of accession, with the exception of imports
of a handful of Information Technology products – such as electronic circuits,
video cameras - (which will be fully liberalised by 2019 anyway).
These average
levels for tariffs are very reasonable considering the LDC status of Afghanistan as well as the small size and vulnerability of its economy. Past EU practice in
relation to LDCs has been to accept higher tariff levels than these as
reasonable for economies of comparable size. Against this background, the
schedule leaves unbound:
–
41 tariff lines on agriculture products whose
trade is considered as prohibited in Afghanistan (pork and pork products, beer,
wine and spirits); and
–
183 tariff lines of industrial goods, corresponding
to 4.4% of the number of industrial TLs in the schedule (in compliance with the
recently approved “Guidelines for negotiation of LDCs accession to the WTO”
which allow up to a 5% of unbound industrial tariff lines).
Industrial Goods
–
The average FBR for non-agriculture products is
8.8%.
–
The highest averages of 30% are observed in
ceramics, and then averages of 15-20% in furniture, glass and textiles.
–
The lowest, 0%, is offered in Information
Technology (ITA) products that will be implemented by 2019.
–
The highest industrial tariff peaks are 50%
(passenger vehicles) followed by peaks of 30% in ceramics and diverse textile
products.
–
The 183 unbound tariff lines on industrial goods
correspond to raw materials, carpets, footwear and furniture.
Agricultural goods
–
The average FBR for agriculture products is
29.6%.
–
The highest tariff peaks in agriculture are of
70% for some fruit juices, and 60% in a wide variety of agriculture products
such as lamb and beef meat, vegetables, fruits, nuts, tomatoes, potatoes,
tobacco and mineral waters.
–
The 41 unbound tariff lines on agriculture
products concern products whose trade is considered as prohibited in Afghanistan (pork and pork products, beer, wine and spirits).
Export duties
Afghanistan has
undertaken standstill and reduction commitments on export duties. It will not
introduce export duties on products which are not currently subject to such
duties. As regards existing duties, the maximum rates bound for critical raw
materials will be reduced within five years as from the date of accession.
Services
Afghanistan's schedule
of specific commitments in services is satisfactory considering its LDC status.
Afghanistan will undertake market access and national treatment commitments in
a broad range of services sectors, including professional, computer and other
business services, communication services (courier services and
telecommunications), construction services, distribution services, private
educational services, environmental services, financial (insurance and banking)
services, hospital services, hotel and restaurant services and transport
services (maritime and air transport services and auxiliary services).
Protocol commitments
In the final, multilateral stage of the
accession process, WTO Members collectively sought to ensure the basic
compatibility of Afghanistan’s trade laws and institutions with WTO rules and
agreements, setting these out in the Protocol of accession and Working Party
Report.
Transitional periods were requested in a
number of fields; the following are of particular interest to the EU:
Application of internal taxes to imports: a fixed tax and a business receipts tax currently applied will
only be in full conformity with WTO obligations in 2020; for the rest of
internal taxes and charges levied on imports, WTO alignment will take place as
form the date of accession.
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT): Afghanistan will fully implement the Agreement on
Technical Barriers to Trade by 1 January 2016. An action plan is set out in the
Working Party Report.
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures
(SPS): Afghanistan will benefit from a transition period till 1
January 2018 for full implementation of the SPS Agreement, as set out in
an action plan included in the Working Party Report.
Trade-related investment measures (TRIMS): The full implementation of the TRIMS Agreement
will be effective by 31 December 2020, date at which local content requirements
for goods in the Hydrocarbon Law and the Mining Law would have to be
eliminated.
Trade-related intellectual property
rights (TRIPS): The full implementation of the
TRIPS Agreement will be effective by 1 January 2016, as set out in an action
plan included in the Working Party Report.
III. RECOMMENDATION
In submitting the terms of Accession of Afghanistan
to the WTO for approval by the Council, the Commission considers these terms as
representing a balanced and ambitious package of market opening commitments,
which will bring substantial benefits to Afghanistan and its WTO trading
partners alike.
2014/0125 (NLE)
Proposal for a
COUNCIL DECISION
establishing the position to be taken by
the European Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organization
on the accession of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to the WTO
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 91, 100(2) and the
first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(9)
thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the
European Commission,
Whereas:
(1)       On
21 November 2004 the Government of the Islamic Republic
of Afghanistan applied for accession to the Marrakesh Agreement
establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO), pursuant to Article XII of
that Agreement.
(2)       A Working Party on the accession of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was established on 13 December 2004 in order to reach agreement on terms of accession acceptable to the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and all WTO Members.
(3)       The Commission, on behalf
of the Union, has negotiated a comprehensive series of market opening
commitments on the part of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan which satisfy
the Union's requests.
(4)       These commitments are now
embodied in the Protocol of Accession of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to
the WTO.
(5)       Accession to the WTO is
expected to make a positive and lasting contribution to the process of economic
reform and sustainable development in the Islamic Republic Afghanistan.
(6)       The Protocol of Accession
should therefore be approved.
(7)       Article XII of the
Agreement establishing the WTO provides that the terms of accession are to be
agreed between the acceding Member and the WTO, and that the Ministerial
Conference of the WTO approves the terms of accession on the WTO side. Article
IV.2 of the Agreement establishing the WTO provides that in the intervals
between meetings of the Ministerial Conference, its functions shall be
conducted by the General Council.
(8)       Accordingly, it is
necessary to establish the position to be taken by the Union within the General
Council of the WTO on the accession of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to
the WTO,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The position to be taken by the European
Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organization on the
accession of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to the WTO is to approve the
accession.
Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the
day of its adoption.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President