title: Council Decision 2005/719/JHA of 12 October 2005 fixing the date of application of certain provisions of Decision 2005/211/JHA concerning the introduction of some new functions for the Schengen Information System, including in the fight against terrorism

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 271/54

      COUNCIL DECISION 2005/719/JHA
   of 12 October 2005
   fixing the date of application of certain provisions of Decision 2005/211/JHA concerning the introduction of some new functions for the Schengen Information System, including in the fight against terrorism
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to Council Decision 2005/211/JHA of 24 February 2005 concerning the introduction of some new functions for the Schengen Information System, including in the fight against terrorism (1), and in particular to Article 2(4) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Decision 2005/211/JHA specifies that the provisions of Article 1 of that Decision shall apply from a date fixed by the Council, as soon as the necessary preconditions have been fulfilled, and that the Council may decide to fix different dates for the application of different provisions. Those preconditions have been fulfilled in respect of Article 1(12) of Decision 2005/211/JHA.

               (2)

               As regards Switzerland, this Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement signed between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning the association of the Swiss Confederation with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis
                   (2), which falls in the area referred to in Article 1, point G of Decision 1999/437/EC (3) read in conjunction with Article 4(1) of the Council Decisions 2004/849/EC (4) and 2004/860/EC (5) on the signing on behalf of the European Union, and on the signing on behalf of the European Community, and on the provisional application of certain provisions of that Agreement,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   Article 1(12) of Decision 2005/211/JHA shall apply from 15 October 2005.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Luxembourg, 12 October 2005.

            For the Council

            The President

         C. CLARKE

      (1)  OJ L 68, 15.3.2005, p. 44.

      (2)  Council document 13054/04 accessible on http://register.consilium.eu.int

      (3)  OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 31.

      (4)  OJ L 368, 15.12.2004, p. 26.

      (5)  OJ L 370, 17.12.2004, p. 78.


Avis juridique important

|

31999D0357

1999/319/CFSP: Council Decision of 1 June 1999 amending Decision 1999/319/CFSP implementing Common Position 1999/318/CFSP concerning additional restrictive measures against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Official Journal L 140 , 03/06/1999 P. 0001 - 0009

COUNCIL DECISIONof 1 June 1999amending Decision 1999/319/CFSP implementing Common Position 1999/318/CFSP concerning additional restrictive measures against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia(1999/357/CFSP)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to Common Position 1999/318/CFSP(1) adopted by the Council on 10 May 1999 concerning additional restrictive measures against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and Decision 1999/319/CFSP(2) implementing that Common Position,Whereas the list at Article 1 of Decision 1999/319/CFSP needs to be updated in accordance with Article 1(3) of Common Position 1999/318/CFSP,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Article 1Article 1 of Decision 1999/319/CFSP shall be replaced by the following: "Article 1The persons to which the obligation of non-admission referred to in Article 1 of Common Position 99/318/CFSP applies are the following:>TABLE>"Article 2This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.Article 3This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal.Done at Brussels, 1 June 1999.For the CouncilThe PresidentJ. FISCHER(1) OJ L 123, 13.5.1999, p. 1.(2) OJ L 123, 13.5.1999, p. 3.


title: 2010/289/: Council Decision of 19 January 2010 on the existence of an excessive deficit in Slovenia

text:
               21.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 125/46

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 19 January 2010
   on the existence of an excessive deficit in Slovenia
   (2010/289/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, in particular, Article 126(6) in conjunction with Article 126(13) and Article 136 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
   Having regard to the observations made by Slovenia,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               According to Article 126(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits.

               (2)

               The Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.

               (3)

               The excessive deficit procedure (EDP) under Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as clarified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (1) (which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact), provides for a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit. Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 also establishes provisions for the implementation of Article 104 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union sets out further provisions relating to the implementation of the EDP. Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 (2) lays down detailed rules and definitions for the application of the provisions of that Protocol.

               (4)

               The 2005 reform of the Stability and Growth Pact sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run. It aimed at ensuring that, in particular, the economic and budgetary background was taken into account fully in all steps in the EDP. In this way, the Stability and Growth Pact provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.

               (5)

               Article 104(5) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, required the Commission to address an opinion to the Council if the Commission considered that an excessive deficit in a Member State existed or might occur. Having taken into account its report in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee in accordance with Article 104(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission concluded that an excessive deficit existed in Slovenia. The Commission therefore addressed such an opinion to the Council in respect of Slovenia on 11 November 2009 (3).

               (6)

               Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the Council should consider any observations which the Member State concerned may wish to make before deciding, after an overall assessment, whether an excessive deficit exists. In the case of Slovenia, this overall assessment leads to the conclusions set out in this Decision.

               (7)

               According to data notified by the Slovenian authorities in October 2009, the general government deficit in Slovenia is planned to reach 5,9 % of GDP in 2009, thus exceeding and not close to the 3 % of GDP reference value. The planned excess over the reference value can be qualified as exceptional within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. In particular, it results, among other things, from a severe economic downturn in the sense of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. Real GDP growth, which halved between 2007 and 2008, is projected to be sharply negative in 2009 (– 7,4 %) according to the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast. Although Slovenia’s budgetary outcomes have been good in the recent past when economic conditions were still favourable, thanks to higher-than-budgeted revenue growth, budgetary execution was marked by expenditure overruns. Furthermore, the planned excess over the reference value cannot be considered temporary since, according to the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast, the deficit would widen from 6,3 % of GDP in 2009 to around 7 % of GDP in 2011 on a no-policy change assumption, while real GDP is forecast to recover to moderate positive growth. This assumption takes into account that, according to government plans, most measures of extraordinary nature linked to the crisis in line with the European Economic Recovery Plan, amounting to almost 1,25 % of GDP in 2009, will be gradually rolled back in 2010 and 2011. The deficit criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.

               (8)

               According to data notified by the Slovenian authorities in October 2009, the general government gross debt remains well below the 60 % of GDP reference value and is planned to stand at 34,2 % of GDP in 2009. According to the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast, the debt ratio would, on a no-policy change basis, rise further, to some 48 % of GDP by 2011.

               (9)

               According to Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, ‘relevant factors’ can only be taken into account in the steps leading to the Council decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in accordance with Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union if the double condition — that the deficit remains close to the reference value and that its excess over the reference value is temporary — is fully met. In the case of Slovenia, this double condition is not met. Therefore, relevant factors are not taken into account in the steps leading to this Decision,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   From an overall assessment it follows that an excessive deficit exists in Slovenia.
   Article 2
   This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Slovenia.

      Done at Brussels, 19 January 2010.

            For the Council

            The President

         E. SALGADO

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 6.

      (2)  OJ L 145, 10.6.2009, p. 1.

      (3)  All EDP-related documents for Slovenia can be found at the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/netstartsearch/pdfsearch/pdf.cfm?mode = _m2


title: Council Decision 2011/499/CFSP of 1 August 2011 amending and extending Decision 2010/450/CFSP appointing the European Union Special Representative for Sudan

text:
               11.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 206/50

         COUNCIL DECISION 2011/499/CFSP
   of 1 August 2011
   amending and extending Decision 2010/450/CFSP appointing the European Union Special Representative for Sudan
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 11 August 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/450/CFSP (1) appointing Mrs Rosalind MARSDEN as European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Sudan from 1 September 2010 to 31 August 2011.

               (2)

               On 9 July 2011, the Republic of South Sudan declared its independence and the EUSR henceforth covers two independent countries.

               (3)

               Mrs Rosalind MARSDEN should be appointed as EUSR for the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan from 9 July 2011 to 30 June 2012. Decision 2010/450/CFSP should therefore be amended and extended.

               (4)

               The EUSR will implement her mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union’s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Decision 2010/450/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:

               (1)

               the title is replaced by the following:

               (2)

               Articles 1, 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:
               ‘Article 1
               European Union Special Representative
               Mrs Rosalind MARSDEN is hereby appointed as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Republic of Sudan (Sudan) and the Republic of South Sudan (South Sudan) from 9 July 2011 until 30 June 2012. The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).
               Article 2
               Policy objectives
               The mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the policy objectives of the European Union (‘the EU’ or ‘the Union’) in relation to Sudan and South Sudan, working with the Sudanese parties, the African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN) and other national, regional and international stakeholders, to achieve a peaceful co-existence between Sudan and South Sudan following the expiry of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and South Sudan’s independence on 9 July 2011. The Union’s policy objectives include actively contributing to the resolution of any outstanding CPA and post-CPA issues and helping the parties to implement what has been agreed; supporting efforts to stabilise the volatile north-south border area; promoting institution building and fostering stability, security and development in South Sudan; facilitating a political solution to the conflict in Darfur; promoting democratic governance, accountability and respect for human rights, including cooperation with the International Criminal Court; maintaining engagement in eastern Sudan; and improving humanitarian access throughout Sudan and South Sudan.
               In addition, the mandate of the EUSR shall be based on the Union’s policy objective to contribute to the mitigation and elimination of threats to the stability of South Sudan and the wider region posed by the Lords Resistance Army (LRA).
               Article 3
               Mandate
               1.   In order to achieve the policy objectives, the EUSR’s mandate shall be to:

                           (a)

                           liaise with the Government of Sudan, the Government of South Sudan, Sudanese and South Sudanese political parties, the Darfur armed movements, civil society and non-governmental organisations, with the aim of pursuing the Union’s policy objectives;

                           (b)

                           maintain close cooperation with the UN, the AU and in particular the AU High-Level Implementation Panel for Sudan (AUHIP), the League of Arab States, the Inter-Governmental Agency for Development and other leading regional and international stakeholders including the US Special Envoy;

                           (c)

                           participate in relevant international and public forums to promote the Union’s policy objectives and the coherence of international efforts towards Sudan;

                           (d)

                           contribute to international efforts to facilitate a comprehensive, inclusive and durable peace agreement for Darfur working closely with the UN, the AU, the Governments of Qatar and other international stakeholders;

                           (e)

                           promote respect for human rights by maintaining regular contacts with the relevant authorities in Sudan and South Sudan, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the human rights observers active in the region;

                           (f)

                           contribute to the implementation of the Union’s human rights policy, including the Union Guidelines on human rights, in particular the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict as well as on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them, and the Union policy regarding UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security, including by monitoring and reporting on developments as well as formulating recommendations in this regard;

                           (g)

                           actively contribute to the implementation of a comprehensive Union approach to Sudan and South Sudan as agreed by the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 June 2011;

                           (h)

                           have oversight of and coordinate Union engagement with all relevant stakeholders to support efforts to mitigate and eliminate the threat to civilians and stability in South Sudan and the wider region posed by the LRA.

                     2.   For the purpose of the fulfilment of her mandate, the EUSR shall, inter alia:

                           (a)

                           advise and report on the definition of Union positions in international forums in order to proactively promote and strengthen a consistent Union policy approach towards Sudan and South Sudan;

                           (b)

                           maintain an overview of all activities of the Union and cooperate closely with the Union delegations in Khartoum, Juba and the Union delegations to the AU in Addis Ababa and to the UN in New York;

                           (c)

                           contribute to the political process and activities relating to the resolution of any outstanding CPA and post-CPA issues and help the parties to implement what has been agreed as well as support efforts in the area of institution-building in South Sudan;

                           (d)

                           contribute to the implementation of the Union’s human rights policy, including the Union Guidelines on Human Rights, in particular the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict as well as on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them, and the Union policy regarding UNSCR 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security, including by monitoring and reporting on developments in this regard; and

                           (e)

                           follow up and report on compliance by the Sudanese and South Sudanese parties with the relevant UNSCRs, in particular 1556 (2004), 1564 (2004), 1590 (2005), 1591 (2005), 1593 (2005), 1612 (2005), 1663 (2006), 1672 (2006), 1679 (2006), 1769 (2007), 1778 (2007), 1881 (2009), 1882 (2009), 1891 (2009), 1919 (2010).’;

               (3)

               in Article 4 the following paragraph is added:
               ‘3.   The EUSR shall work in close coordination with the European External Action Service (EEAS).’;

               (4)

               Article 5(1) is replaced by the following:
               ‘1.   The financial reference amount of EUR 1 820 000 shall be increased by EUR 955 000 to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR for the period from 1 September 2010 to 30 June 2012.’;

               (5)

               Article 6 is replaced by the following:
               ‘Article 6
               Constitution and composition of the team
               1.   Within the limits of her mandate and the corresponding financial means made available, the EUSR shall be responsible for constituting her team. The team shall include the expertise on specific policy issues as required by the mandate. The EUSR shall keep the Council and the Commission promptly informed of the composition of her team.
               2.   Member States, institutions of the Union and the EEAS may propose the secondment of staff to work with the EUSR. The salary of personnel who are seconded by a Member State or an institution of the Union to the EUSR shall be covered by the Member State, the institution of the Union concerned or the EEAS, respectively. Experts seconded by Member States to the institutions of the Union or the EEAS may also be posted to the EUSR. International contracted staff shall have the nationality of a Member State.
               3.   All seconded personnel shall remain under the administrative authority of the sending Member State, institution of the Union or the EEAS and shall carry out their duties and act in the interest of the mandate of the EUSR.
               4.   Offices of the EUSR shall be maintained in Brussels, Khartoum and Juba with the necessary political, administrative and logistic support staff.’;

               (6)

               Article 8 is replaced by the following:
               ‘Article 8
               Security of EU classified information
               The EUSR and the members of her team shall respect the security principles and minimum standards established by Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (2).

               (7)

               Article 10 is replaced by the following:
               ‘Article 10
               Security
               In accordance with the Union’s policy on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V of the Treaty, the EUSR shall take all reasonably practicable measures, in conformity with her mandate and the security situation in her geographical area of responsibility, for the security of all personnel under her direct authority, in particular by:

                           (a)

                           establishing a mission-specific security plan, including physical, organisational and procedural security measures, governing management of the secure movement of personnel to, and within, the mission area, as well as management of security incidents and including a mission contingency and evacuation plan;

                           (b)

                           ensuring that all personnel deployed outside the Union are covered by high risk insurance as required by the conditions in the mission area;

                           (c)

                           ensuring that all members of her team to be deployed outside the Union, including locally contracted personnel, have received appropriate security training before or upon arriving in the mission area, based on the risk ratings assigned to the mission area;

                           (d)

                           ensuring that all agreed recommendations made following regular security assessments are implemented and providing the Council, the HR and the Commission with written reports on their implementation and on other security issues within the framework of the mid-term and mandate implementation reports.’;

               (8)

               Article 11(2) is replaced by the following:
               ‘2.   The EUSR shall regularly report to the PSC on the situation in Darfur and on the situation in Sudan and South Sudan.’;

               (9)

               Article 12(2) is replaced by the following:
               ‘2.   In the field, close liaison shall be maintained with the Heads of the Union delegations, including in Khartoum, Juba, Addis Ababa and New York and with Member States’ Heads of Mission. They shall make best efforts to assist the EUSR in the implementation of the mandate. The EUSR shall also liaise with other international and regional actors in the field.’;

               (10)

               Article 13 is replaced by the following:
               ‘Article 13
               Review
               The implementation of this Decision and its consistency with other contributions from the Union to the region shall be kept under regular review. The EUSR shall present the Council, the HR and the Commission with a progress report before the end of January 2012 and a comprehensive mandate implementation report at the end of the mandate.’.

         Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
   It shall apply from 9 July 2011.

      Done at Brussels, 1 August 2011.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. DOWGIELEWICZ

      (1)  OJ L 211, 12.8.2010, p. 42.

      (2)  OJ L 141, 27.5.2011, p. 17.’;


Avis juridique important

|

32001D0786

2001/786/EC,ECSC,Euratom: Council Decision of 8 November 2001 appointing a member of the Court of Auditors

Official Journal L 295 , 13/11/2001 P. 0021 - 0021

Council Decisionof 8 November 2001appointing a member of the Court of Auditors(2001/786/EC, ECSC, Euratom)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 247(6) thereof,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article 45b(6) thereof,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 160b(6) thereof,Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament(1),Whereas:(1) Mr Jan O. KARLSSON, member of the Court of Auditors, has resigned with effect from 31 December 2001.(2) He should therefore be replaced for the remainder of his term of office,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1Mr Lars TOBISSON is hereby appointed a member of the Court of Auditors for the period from 1 January 2002 to 28 February 2006.Article 2This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.Done at Brussels, 8 November 2001.For the CouncilThe PresidentE. Boutmans(1) Opinion delivered on 23 October 2001 (not yet published in the Official Journal).


title: 2008/200/EC: Commission Decision of 20 February 2008 terminating the examination procedure concerning trade practices maintained by Argentina in relation to the imports of textile and clothing products

text:
               5.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 60/34

      COMMISSION DECISION

   of 20 February 2008
   terminating the examination procedure concerning trade practices maintained by Argentina in relation to the imports of textile and clothing products
   (2008/200/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community's rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation (1), and in particular Articles 11 (1) thereof,
   Whereas:
   A.   PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

               (1)

               On 11 October 1999, Euratex (European Apparel and Textile Organisation) lodged a complaint under Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 (hereinafter the Regulation) on behalf of those of its members which export to Argentina or wish to do so.

               (2)

               The complainant alleged that the Community sales of textile and clothing products in Argentina were hindered by obstacles to trade within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Regulation, i.e. ‘a practice adopted or maintained by a third country and in respect of which international trade rules establish a right of action’. The alleged obstacles to trade were the following.

                           (a)

                           pre-shipment inspection and minimum customs values,

                           (b)

                           excessive requirements for certificates of origin,

                           (c)

                           requirement to submit a Declaration Form on Product Composition,

                           (d)

                           excessively burdensome labelling requirement,

                           (e)

                           statistical tax and discriminatory VAT.

               (3)

               The complainant also claimed that these practices were causing adverse trade effects within the meaning of Article 2(4) of the Regulation.

               (4)

               The Commission decided therefore, after consultation of the Advisory Committee established by the Regulation, that there was sufficient evidence to justify initiating an examination procedure for the purpose of considering the legal and factual issues involved. Consequently, an examination procedure was initiated on 27 November 1999 (2).

         B.   THE FINDINGS OF THE EXAMINATION PROCEDURE

               (5)

               In 2000, the investigation concluded on the certificate of origin that the burdensome requirements appeared to infringe Article VIII.3 and X of GATT 1994, Article 7.1 of the WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing and to contravene the recommendations of Article VIII.1(c) of GATT 1994. The measures on labelling requirements appeared to violate Article 2.2 of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and to contravene the recommendations of Article VIII.1(c) of GATT 1994. As regards the requirements of the Declaration Form On Product Composition, they appeared to be in breach of Article 2 of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. As for the procedure for controlling the customs value, the Commission services could not express a definitive position due to the recent introduction of a new law regulating this matter. On the pre-shipment inspection issue, no violation of any particular provision of the WTO Agreement on Pre-shipment Inspection could be found. However, it did not appear to adhere to the purpose and spirit of the Agreement. Finally, no violation of WTO rules had been identified with respect to the statistical tax, and the issue of the discriminatory VAT was already addressed in the context of another TBR procedure concerning the import of finished leather in Argentina (3).

               (6)

               The investigation also concluded that the investigated measures had cumulatively caused or threaten to cause adverse effects within the meaning of Article 2(4) of the Regulation.

         C.   DEVELOPMENTS AFTER THE END OF THE INVESTIGATION

               (7)

               Following the investigation, discussions took place over the years with the Argentinean authorities with the aim of achieving an amicable settlement eliminating or gradually easing the above trade barriers.

               (8)

               With regard to customs valuation practices, the situation has improved over the last years. Transparency has improved while European manufacturers and exporters can participate in the determination of the indicative values for customs valuation. Pre-shipment inspection has been eliminated, and the requirement of a Declaration Form on Products Composition does not appear to create any problem to exporters.

               (9)

               On the question of the certificate of origin, substantial progress was achieved through the adoption of Instruccion General No 9/2002 de la Direccion General de Aduanas on 8 February 2002. Until recently, the main remaining obstacle to trade faced by the European industry was the requirement, in the case of triangular trade, to provide the Argentinean authorities not only with the certificate of origin but also with the invoice between the producer of the goods originating in a third country and the exporter in the country of shipping, thereby raising concerns of confidentiality on the original transaction. Through the adoption of Nota External No 3/07 of the Administracion Federal de Ingresos Publicos (Subdireccion general tecnico legal aduanera), Argentina effectively repealed the requirement of providing a copy of the original invoice, which is now replaced by a certificate issued by the competent authorities of the country of shipment, e.g. a Chamber of Commerce, and then legalised in the country of shipment by the Argentinean consulate.

               (10)

               With regard to the labelling requirements linked to the compulsory sewing of fiscal stamps, the Argentinean authorities provided information according to which the costs of such requirement compared to the value of the shipment is very limited. It thus appears that the possible adverse effects of this remaining obstacle to trade do not have and cannot have a material impact on the economy of the Community or of a region of the Community, or on the textile-producing sector therein.

         D.   CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

               (11)

               In view of the above analysis, it is considered that the examination procedure has led to a satisfactory situation with regard to the obstacles that faced the trade as alleged in the complaint lodged by Euratex, or that, in the case of the sewing of fiscal stamps, the investigated measure does not have on its own a material impact on the textile-producing regions of the European Community. The examination procedure should therefore be terminated in accordance with Article 11(1) of the Regulation.

               (12)

               The Advisory Committee has been consulted on the measures provided for in this Decision,

         HAS DECIDED:
   Sole Article
   The examination procedure concerning measures imposed by Argentina in relation to the imports of textile and clothing products is hereby terminated.

      Done at Brussels, 20 February 2008.

            For the Commission

         Peter MANDELSON

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 71. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 356/95 (OJ L 41, 23.2.1995, p. 3).

      (2)  OJ C 340, 27.11.1999, p. 70.

      (3)  OJ L 295, 4.11.1998, p. 46.


title: Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2016/1125 of 8 July 2016 appointing a member, proposed by the Portuguese Republic, of the European Economic and Social Committee

text:
               12.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 187/15

         COUNCIL DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2016/1125
   of 8 July 2016
   appointing a member, proposed by the Portuguese Republic, of the European Economic and Social Committee
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal of the Portuguese Government,
   Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 18 September 2015 and 1 October 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU, Euratom) 2015/1600 (1) and (EU, Euratom) 2015/1790 (2) appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020.

               (2)

               A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Lino DA SILVA MAIA,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Mr José Custódio LEIRIÃO, Member of the National Confederation of Solidarity Institutions (CNIS), is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2020.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 8 July 2016.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. LAJČÁK

      (1)  Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/1600 of 18 September 2015 appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020 (OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 53).

      (2)  Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/1790 of 1 October 2015 appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2015 to 20 September 2020 (OJ L 260, 7.10.2015, p. 23).


               15.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 468/284

         P7_TA(2013)0563
   Appointment of a member of the Court of Auditors (Danièle Lamarque — FR)
   European Parliament decision of 11 December 2013 on the nomination of Danièle Lamarque as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0311/2013 — 2013/0809(NLE))
   (Consultation)
   (2016/C 468/64)

      The European Parliament,

               —

               having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0311/2013),

               —

               having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0437/2013),

               A.

               whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               B.

               whereas at its meeting of 7 November 2013 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors;

               1.

               Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Danièle Lamarque as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

               2.

               Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.


title: 87/502/EEC: Council Decision of 14 September 1987 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Guatemala on trade in textile products

text:
15 . 10 . 87                            Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No L 292 / 25
                                                     COUNCIL DECISION
                                                      of 14 September 1987
                 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the
                 European Economic Community and the Republic of Guatemala on trade in textile
                                                              products
                                                          ( 87 / 502 / EEC )
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,                               Republic of Guatemala on trade in textile products is hereby
                                                                        approved on behalf of the Community .
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Economic Community , and in particular Article 113
                                                                        2.    The text of the Agreement is attached to this
thereof,                                                                Decision .
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission ,
Whereas the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters
                                                                                Article 2
between the European Economic Community and the
Republic of Guatemala on trade in textile products , initialled
in Brussels on 4 August 1986 and applied on a provisional               The President of the Council is hereby authorized to
basis , under Council Decision of 11 December 1986 , as from            designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement
 1 January 1987 should be approved ,                                    referred to in Article 1 in order to bind the Community .
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :
                                                                        Done at Brussels , 14 September 1987 .
                          Article 1                                                                              For the Council
                                                                                The President
 1.     The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters
between the European Economic Community and the                                                              U. ELLEMANN-JENSEN


title: 2009/844/EC: Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management

text:
               19.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 304/5

      DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

   of 21 October 2009
   on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management
   (2009/844/EC)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 26 thereof,
   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2),
   having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the ‘Fund’) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.

               (2)

               The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.

               (3)

               Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.

               (4)

               Italy submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by an earthquake,

         HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2009, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 493 771 159 in commitment and payment appropriations.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Strasbourg, 21 October 2009.

            For the European Parliament

            The President

         J. BUZEK

            For the Council

            The President

         C. MALMSTRÖM

      (1)  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.


title: 2009/517/EC: Council Decision of 22 June 2009 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on certain aspects of air services

text:
               3.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 173/11

      COUNCIL DECISION

   of 22 June 2009
   on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on certain aspects of air services
   (2009/517/EC)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 80(2) in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
   Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Council authorised the Commission on 5 June 2003 to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement.

               (2)

               On behalf of the Community, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement between the European Community and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on certain aspects of air services (1) (the Agreement) in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the Council Decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with a Community agreement.

               (3)

               The Agreement was signed on behalf of the Community on 24 February 2009 subject to its conclusion at a later date, in conformity with Council Decision 2009/302/EC (2).

               (4)

               The Agreement should be approved,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The Agreement between the European Community and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on certain aspects of air services is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.
   Article 2
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to make the notification provided for in Article 8(1) of the Agreement.

      Done at Luxembourg, 22 June 2009.

            For the Council

            The President

         J. ŠEBESTA

      (1)  OJ L 84, 31.3.2009, p. 34.

      (2)  OJ L 84, 31.3.2009, p. 33.


Avis juridique important

|

31993D0069

93/69/EEC: Council Decision of 19 December 1991 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland, the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Swiss Confederation relating to the amendment of the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure

Official Journal L 025 , 02/02/1993 P. 0026 - 0026

COUNCIL DECISION of 19 December 1991 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland, the Republic of Iceland, the  Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Swiss Confederation relating to the amendment of the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure(93/69/EEC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,  Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,  Whereas Article 15 (2) of the Convention between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland, the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Swiss Confederation on a common transit  procedure (1) empowers the Joint Committee set up by that Convention to make recommendations for amendments to the Convention;  Whereas the Convention has been amended to take account of recent changes to Community transit rules forming part of the reforms to that procedure with a view to the completion of the internal market by 1 January 1993;  Whereas the amendments in question are set out in Recommendation No 1/91 of the Joint Committee; whereas the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters relating to that recommendation should be approved,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  The Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland, the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Swiss  Confederation relating to the amendment of the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.  The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.  Article 2  The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community.  Done at Brussels, 19 December 1991.  For the Council The President P. DANKERT (1) OJ No L 226, 13. 8. 1987, p. 1.


title: 2014/268/EU: Council Decision of 6 May 2014 on the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, within the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms

text:
               13.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 138/102

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 6 May 2014
   on the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, within the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms
   (2014/268/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 165(4) and 166(4) and 218 (9) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 of 28 November 1994 concerning arrangements for implementing the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Agreement on the European Economic Area (2) (‘the EEA Agreement’) entered into force on 1 January 1994.

               (2)

               Pursuant to Article 98 of the EEA Agreement, the EEA Joint Committee may decide to amend, inter alia, Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement.

               (3)

               Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement contains provisions and arrangements concerning cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms.

               (4)

               It is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement to include Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).

               (5)

               Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended cooperation to take place from 1 January 2014.

               (6)

               The position of the Union within the EEA Joint Committee should therefore be based on the attached draft Decision,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The position to be adopted by the Union in the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms, shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 6 May 2014.

            For the Council

            The President

         G. STOURNARAS

      (1)  OJ L 305, 30.11.1994, p. 6.

      (2)  OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3.

      (3)  Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing ‘Erasmus+’: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 50).

      DRAFT
      DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No …/2014
      of …
      amending Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms
      THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,
      Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Articles 86 and 98 thereof,
      Whereas:

                  (1)

                  It is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement to include Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing ‘Erasmus+’: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC (1).

                  (2)

                  Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended cooperation to take place from 1 January 2014,

            HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
      Article 1
      Article 4 of Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement shall be amended as follows:

                  1.

                  The following paragraph is inserted after paragraph 2m:

                              ‘2n.

                              The EFTA States shall, with effect from 1 January 2014, participate in the following programme:

                                          —

                                             32013 R 1288: Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing “Erasmus+”: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 50).’

                  2.

                  The text of paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:
                  ‘The EFTA States shall contribute financially in accordance with Article 82(1)(a) of the Agreement to the programmes and actions referred to in paragraphs 1, 2, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, 2g, 2h, 2i, 2j, 2k, 2l, 2m and 2n.’

            Article 2
      This Decision shall enter into force on the day following the last notification under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement (2).
      It shall apply from 1 January 2014.
      Article 3
      This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

         Done at Brussels, …

               For the EEA Joint Committee

               The President

               The Secretaries to the EEA Joint Committee

         (1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 50.

         (2)  [No constitutional requirements indicated.] [Constitutional requirements indicated.]


title: 2005/303/: EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 303/05/COL of 30 November 2005 amending for the fifty-first time the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid

text:
               23.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 324/30

         EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

   No 303/05/COL
   of 30 November 2005
   amending for the fifty-first time the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid
   THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY (1),
   HAVING REGARD TO the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2), 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 (3), in particular to Article 24 and Article 5(2)(b) thereof and Article 1 in Part I of Protocol 3 thereof,
   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,
   RECALLING the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid (4) adopted on 19 January 1994 by the Authority (5),
   WHEREAS, on the 9 November 2005, the Commission of the European Communities (6) adopted a prolongation of the Community framework for State aid for research and development (7) until 31 December 2006,
   WHEREAS this prolongation is also of relevance for the European Economic Area,
   WHEREAS the rules corresponding to the Community framework for State aid for research and development are taken into Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines,
   WHEREAS, Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines expires on 31 December 2005,
   WHEREAS a uniform application of the EEA State aid rules is to be ensured throughout the European Economic Area,
   WHEREAS according to point II under the heading ‘GENERAL’ at the end of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement, the Authority is to adopt, after consultation with the European Commission, acts corresponding to those adopted by the European Commission,
   HAVING consulted the European Commission,
   RECALLING that the Authority has consulted the EFTA States in letters to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway dated 9 November 2005 on the subject,
   HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

               1.

               The validity of Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines, Aid for Research and Development, is prolonged until 31 December 2006. Paragraph (2) of Section 14.9 of the State Aid Guidelines, shall read as follows:
               ‘These guidelines will apply until 31 December 2006’.
               Footnote 1 to Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines shall read as follows:
               ‘This chapter has been amended by College decisions of 26 July 2002 and 30 November 2005. The Chapter corresponds to the Community framework for State aid for research and development (OJ C 45, 17.2.1996, p. 5) as amended by the Commission communication of 13 February 1998 (OJ C 48, 13.2.1998, p. 2), 8 May 2002 (OJ C 111, 8.5.2002, p. 3) and 9 November 2005.’

               2.

               The EFTA States shall be informed by means of a letter, including a copy of this Decision.

               3.

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

               4.

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

      Done at Brussels, 30 November 2005.

            For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

         Einar M. BULL

            President

         Kurt JÄGER

            College Member

      (1)  Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Authority’.

      (2)  Hereinafter referred to as the ‘EEA Agreement’.

      (3)  Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Surveillance and Court Agreement’.

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

      (5)  Initially published in OJ L 231, 3.9.1994, and in the EEA Supplement No 32, 3.9.1994, as last amended by Decision of 30.11.2005.

      (6)  Hereinafter referred to as the ‘EC Commission’.

      (7)  Community framework for aid for research and development, published in the OJ C 45, 17.2.1996, p. 5.


Avis juridique important

|

31987D0251

87/251/EEC: Commission Decision of 12 March 1987 on the initiation of an international consultation and disputes settlement procedure concerning a United States measure excluding imports of certain aramid fibres into the United States of America

Official Journal L 117 , 05/05/1987 P. 0018 - 0021 Finnish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 11 P. 0439  Swedish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 11 P. 0439

*****COMMISSION  DECISION  of 12 March 1987  on the initiation of an international consultation and disputes settlement procedure concerning a United States measure excluding imports of certain aramid fibres into the United States of America  (87/251/EEC)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2641/84 of 17 September 1984 on the strengthening of the common commercial policy with regard in particular to protection against illicit commercial practices (1), and in particular Article 11 (2) (a), thereof,  Whereas:  A. Procedure  (1) On 9 December 1985, the Commission received a complaint alleging that the application of Section 337 of the US Tariff Act of 1930 in the matter of 'certain aramid fibres', an action instigated by E.I. Dupont de Nemours (hereinafter Dupont), constituted an illicit commercial practice of the United States Government, and that the resulting order by the US International Trade Commission (USITC) to exclude from the US market unlicensed importations of certain forms of aramid fibre manufactured outside the United States by a Community producer, AKZO NV or its affiliated companies (hereinafter AKZO), was thereby causing or threatening to cause injury to a Community industry.  (2) The complaint was lodged on behalf of the AKZO group by ENKA BV of the Netherlands, the sole producer of aramid fibres in the Community. The complaint contained evidence judged by the Commission to be sufficient to warrant the opening of an investigation procedure under Regulation (EEC) No 2641/84.  (3) An examination procedure was initiated on 5 February 1986 (2). Details of the Community producer's allegations are contained in the notice of initiation.  (4) Following the publication of the notice of initiation numerous letters were received from the Union des Industries de la Communauté Européenne (UNICE), other national industrial organizations, as well as from individual trade organizations and companies supporting the complaint. UNICE in particular complained of certain aspects of Section 337 alleging, inter alia, harassment and inequitable treatment.  (5) The Commission notified the parties known to be concerned and gave them the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing.  The Commission received and examined extensive written submissions from the interested parties. In addition, hearings were granted to those primarily concerned parties who made such a request, i.e. AKZO and Dupont. No such request was made by the United States Government. Due to the  complexities of the United States legal issues under examination, the expert opinion of a United States patent lawyer was also sought by the Commission on the 'counterclaims' issue.  B. The alleged illicit commercial practice  (6) The Community producer alleged, inter alia, that the procedure followed by the ITC in the aramid fibre case pursuant to Section 337, and the resulting exclusion order, constituted an illicit commercial practice of the United States Government within the meaning of Article 2 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2641/84. Specifically, it was claimed that national treatment provided for by Article III (4) of the GATT had been denied in the ITC procedure in question. It was further alleged that it was impossible under the Section 337 ITC proceedings to raise a counterclaim which was considered to be essential to an effective defence; that full access to vital evidence presented by Dupont, the complainant in the ITC, was denied and in consequence the respondents were thereby prevented from effectively defending their case.  It was claimed that the ITC proceeding conducted in respect of certain aramid fibre produced by them was not 'necessary' within the meaning of Article XX (d) of the GATT for the protection of United States patent rights, so that the resulting exclusion order did not fall within the exceptions provided for under this article. It was also alleged that the exclusion order was causing both present and future injury to a Community industry.  (7) The United States Government responded by stating that the allegations were unfounded, that the issue in dispute was between private parties regarding the extent of rights conferred by national process patents, and that any EEC investigation of 'illicit commercial practices' should be based on evidence of a pattern, and not on the basis of a single dispute. It was further stated that the allegations made by the Community producer were essentially those asserted by Canada during a GATT panel procedure in the 'Spring Assemblies' case in 1982. It was further asserted that the complaint of the inability to raise counterclaims in ITC proceedings as opposed to a United States District Court, was currently under review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the appeal brought by AKZO against the ITC final order, and thus any Community investigation on this point was premature.  (8) Dupont, in supporting the United States Government's position, submitted, inter alia, that the Community producer had benefitted from a full and fair opportunity to defend itself in the ITC proceeding and enjoyed protection and rights of review which are not available to defendants in patent litigation in United States District Courts. On the impossibility of raising counterclaims, Dupont asserted that the complainant could not have defended its infringement of Dupont's patent in a United States District Court by alleging the invalidity of other Dupont patents or by alleging that Dupont was infringing one of the complainants United States process patents.  C. Recent developments  (9) On 22 December 1986 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied an appeal brought by AKZO against the exclusion order issued by the USITC under Section 337 prohibiting the importation into the United States of aramid fibres manufactured by AKZO in the Netherlands.  On 5 February 1987 the same court and judges, on appeal by AKZO, confirmed a ruling of the District Court of Richmond, Virginia, on 23 May 1986 which had declared that Dupont was not infringing AKZO's solvent process patent as AKZO had claimed and had upheld Dupont's counterclaim that the solvent patent was in any event invalid for obviousness.  D. The Commission's view  (10) It is not for the Commission, under Regulation (EEC) No 2641/84, to pronounce on the merits or otherwise of AKZO and Dupont's claims relating to their respective patents for aramid fibre which are in dispute. Nor does the Commission consider it appropriate or necessary, in this Decision, to address the question of whether the ITC procedures infringe the due process requirements of the United States constitution.  On the other hand, the Commission considers it to be relevant within the framework of Regulation (EEC) No 2641/84, to examine the practice of the United States authorities whereby imported goods, by virtue of their non-US origin, are subjected to a separate and distinct procedure for the purpose of enforcing private intellectual property rights, and to determine in this connection whether non-US origin goods are subjected to less favourable treatment as a result. Even if Section 337 does not specifically discriminate against foreign undertakings by virtue of their foreign status, in that it applies, in principle, to foreign and domestic undertakings alike, nonetheless Section 337 gives the ITC commission separate and distinct jurisdiction over products imported from a foreign country even if they are manufactured/imported by a United States undertaking or subsidiary. It is relevant to observe in this connection that virtually all Section 337 cases of the ITC and the Tariff Commission (the predecessor of the ITC) have involved foreign firms and foreign-manufactured goods, and that in practice Section 337 applies almost exclusively to foreign firms and products.  (11) In the Commission's view, the relevant enquiry is whether or not the different rules of procedure applicable in the ITC under Section 337 result in a denial of national treatment within the meaning of Article III of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and whether this denial comes within the exception provided for in Article XX (d) or is in violation of the Agreement.  The purpose of an examination procedure under Regulation (EEC) No 2641/84 is not to reconsider the findings of courts of a third country in disputes between private parties. The Commission is concerned with the AKZO/Dupont aramid fibre case before the ITC because it is a case in which national treatment, as required by the GATT, was not obtained.  (12) From the opinion and supporting evidence submitted by the United States legal expert, and from certain comments in the submissions of the interested parties, the Commission has concluded that, contrary to that which occurred in the ITC proceedings, the Community producer would have had the possibility under the rules applied by a United States Civil Court to make a counterclaim in the same action, alleging infringement of its own patent by the plaintiff which might have resulted in a different outcome of the dispute between the parties. The Commission has therefore concluded that the procedure under Section 337 in the ITC is less favourable to respondents than the procedures in the United States courts in respect of goods produced in the United States and therefore results in a denial of national treatment which is contrary to Article III of GATT.  Section 337 procedure is not necessary in the sense that, as the practice in pratically all other countries shows, infringements of domestic patents by imports can be dealt with in the same way as infringements by domestic products. Therefore, the application of Section 337 of the United States Tariff Act 1930 constitutes an illicit commercial practice within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 2641/84.  E. Injury  (13) In making its determination of injury the Commisison considered, inter alia, the following factors:  (a) the volume of Comunity exports concerned;  (b) prices;  (c) the consequent impact on the Community producer as indicated by the trend in economic factors such as production, sales, profitability, etc.  Considering that the exclusion order was issued in November 1985 and actual (limited sale) commercial production by the Community producer only started in mid-1986, the Commission considers that there is no present material injury resulting from the ITC exclusion order.  However, in a case where threat of injury is alleged - as in the present case - the Commission must examine whether or not any future injury is clearly foreseeable. In this respect, the complainant's arguments of loss of direct sales to the United States and the Community in the period up to 1990 and beyond were found to be convincing.  (14) Accordingly, although the Commission considers that the Community producer has failed to prove that the Community industry has already beene materially injured by the ITC exclusion order, it nonetheless finds the evidence submitted by the complainant in support of its allegations sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a threat of injury.  F. Community interest  (15) In the light of the results of the investigation, it appears that an important question of the application of GATT is at issue which has considerable economic implications. The previous findings of the GATT in the 'Spring Assemblies' case did not deal with the question of the compatibility of Section 337 with Article III of GATT. In view of the foregoing and the past criticisms raised by the Community against certain aspects of Section 337, the Commission considers that it is in the Community interest to initiatie international consultation and dispute settlement procedures with a view to achieving the alignment of United States legislation with its international obligations. G. Conclusion and action to be taken  (16) The Commission, having completed the examination procedure provided for under Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 2641/84, considers that the application of Section 337 of the United States Tariff Act of 1930 in the case of certain aramid fibre contains sufficient evidence of an illicit commercial practice and resultant threat of injury as defined by the said Regulation to warrant further action.  (17) The Advisory Committee has been consulted as provided for under Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 2641/84 as to the Comission's findings and on the decision to be taken, both of which met with the general agreement of the Advisory Committee,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Sole Article  The procedure for consultation and dispute settlements referred to in Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is to be initiated concerning the application of Section 337 of the United States Tariff Act of 1930 in respect of certain aramid fibre manufactured by AKZO NV or its affiliated companies outside the United States.  Done at Brussels, 12 March 1987.  For the Commission  Willy DE CLERCQ  Member of the Commission  (1) OJ No L 252, 20. 9. 1984, p. 1.  (2) OJ No C 25, 5. 2. 1986, p. 2.


title: 2014/47/EU: Council Decision of 28 January 2014 appointing eight Portuguese members and seven Portuguese alternate members of the Committee of the Regions

text:
               30.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 27/60

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 28 January 2014
   appointing eight Portuguese members and seven Portuguese alternate members of the Committee of the Regions
   (2014/47/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal of the Portuguese Government,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.

               (2)

               Eight members’ seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr José CORREIA, Mr Manuel FREXES, Mr Francisco MESQUITA MACHADO, Mr Carlos PINTO, Mr Carlos PINTO DE SÁ, Mr Joaquim RAPOSO, Mr Rui RIO and Mr Fernando RUAS.

               (3)

               Seven alternate members’ seats have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Álvaro AMARO, Mr António BORGES, Mr Joaquim DIAS VALENTE, Mr Carlos MARTA, Mr António Jorge NUNES, Mr Vítor PROENÇA and Mr Jaime SOARES,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

               (a)

               as members:

                           —

                           Mr José Agostinho RIBAU ESTEVES, Presidente da Câmara Municipal de Aveiro,

                           —

                           Mr Álvaro DOS SANTOS AMARO, Presidente da Câmara Municipal da Guarda,

                           —

                           Mr José Maria DA CUNHA COSTA, Presidente da Câmara Municipal de Viana do Castelo,

                           —

                           Mr Basílio Adolfo DE MENDONÇA HORTA DA FRANCA, Presidente da Câmara Municipal de Sintra,

                           —

                           Mr António Gonçalves BRAGANÇA FERNANDES, Presidente da Câmara Municipal da Maia,

                           —

                           Mr Carlos Manuel RODRIGUES PINTO DE SÁ, Presidente da Câmara Municipal de Évora,

                           —

                           Mr João Nuno FERREIRA GONÇALVES DE AZEVEDO, Presidente da Câmara Municipal de Mangualde,

                           —

                           Mr Luís Filipe SOROMENHO GOMES, Presidente da Câmara Municipal de Vila Real de Santo António;

                     and

               (b)

               as alternate members:

                           —

                           Mr Luís Manuel DOS SANTOS CORREIA, Presidente da Câmara Municipal de Castelo Branco,

                           —

                           Mr Francisco Manuel LOPES, Presidente da Câmara Municipal de Lamego,

                           —

                           Mr Paulo Jorge FRAZÃO BATISTA SANTOS, Presidente da Câmara Municipal da Batalha,

                           —

                           Mr Vitor Manuel MARTINS GUERREIRO, Presidente da Câmara Municipal de São Brás de Alportel,

                           —

                           Mr António BENJAMIM PEREIRA, Presidente da Câmara Municipal de Esposende,

                           —

                           Mr Vitor Manuel CHAVES DE CARO PROENÇA, Presidente da Câmara Municipal de Alcácer do Sal,

                           —

                           Mr Luís Miguel CORREIA ANTUNES, Presidente da Câmara Municipal da Lousã.

         Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 28 January 2014.

            For the Council

            The President

         G. STOURNARAS

      (1)  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

      (2)  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.