title: Decision (EU) 2017/1699 of the European Parliament of 27 April 2017 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Training Foundation for the financial year 2015

text:
               29.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 252/284

         DECISION (EU) 2017/1699 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 27 April 2017
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Training Foundation for the financial year 2015
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Training Foundation for the financial year 2015,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the European Training Foundation for the financial year 2015, together with the Foundation's reply (1),

               —

               having regard to the statement of assurance (2) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2015, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

               having regard to the Council's recommendation of 21 February 2017 on discharge to be given to the Foundation in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2015 (05873/2017 — C8-0057/2017),

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1339/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing a European Training Foundation (4), and in particular Article 17 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1271/2013 of 30 September 2013 on the framework financial regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 208 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), and in particular Article 108 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex IV to its Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A8-0118/2017),

               1.

               Grants the Director of the European Training Foundation discharge in respect of the implementation of the Foundation's budget for the financial year 2015;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this decision, and the resolution forming an integral part of it, to the Director of the European Training Foundation, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

            The President

         Antonio TAJANI

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ C 449, 1.12.2016, p. 168.

      (2)  See footnote 1.

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

      (4)  OJ L 354, 31.12.2008, p. 82.

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


Avis juridique important

|

E1996C0224

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION No 224/96/COL of 4 December 1996 replacing Decision No 189/94/COL setting up the list of establishments in the EFTA States for which are granted temporary and limited derogations from specific Community health rules on the production and marketing of fresh meat, in so far as the Decision concerns Norway

Official Journal L 078 , 20/03/1997 P. 0040 - 0042

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION No 224/96/COL of 4 December 1996 replacing Decision No 189/94/COL setting up the list of establishments in the EFTA States for which are granted temporary and limited derogations from specific Community health rules on the production and marketing of fresh meat, in so far as the Decision concerns Norway THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 17 and Protocol 1 (4) (d) thereof,Having regard to the Act referred to in point 19 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area on the conditions for granting temporary and limited derogations from specific Community health rules on the production and marketing of fresh meat (Council Directive 91/498/EEC), and in particular Article 2 (2) thereof,Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, and in particular Article 5 (2) (d) and Protocol 1, Article 1 (c) thereof,Whereas certain Norwegian establishments were granted temporary and limited derogations from specific Community health rules on the production and marketing of fresh meat by EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 189/94/COL (1);Whereas the Decision comprises, in addition to derogations granted to Norwegian establishments, similar derogations granted to Austria, Finland and Sweden;Whereas the Norwegian Government, while confirming that the material situation justifying Decision No 189/94/COL is unchanged, has requested that the Decision, in so far as it concerns granting Norwegian establishments temporary and limited derogations from specific Community health rules on the production and marketing of fresh meat, be replaced by a new decision, covering only Norwegian establishments granted temporary and limited derogations from specific Community health rules on the production and marketing of fresh meat, alleging this to be necessary for the solution foreseen in ongoing negotiations with the European Union in the veterinary field;Whereas such a new decision would not in any way alter the material situation compared to what applies by virtue of Decision No 189/94/COL;Whereas there is accordingly no obstacle in granting the request made by the Norwegian Government;Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the EFTA Veterinary Committee assisting the EFTA Surveillance Authority,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:1. Decision No 189/94/COL setting up the list of establishments in the EFTA States for which are granted temporary and limited derogations from specific Community health rules on the production and marketing of fresh meat shall be replaced by the text in the Annex hereto, in so far as the Decision concerns Norway.2. This Decision shall enter into force on 9 December 1996.3. This Decision is addressed to the EFTA States.4. This Decision shall be authentic in the English language.Done at Brussels, 4 December 1996.For the EFTA Surveillance AuthorityBjörn FRIÐFINNSSONCollege Member(1) OJ No L 383, 31. 12. 1994, p. 14.ANNEX '1. The establishments listed in the Annex are granted derogations in the sense of Article 2 of the Act referred to in point 19 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area on the conditions for granting temporary and limited derogations from specific Community health rules on the production and marketing of fresh meat (Council Directive 91/498/EEC).ANNEXList of establishments of the EFTA States for which is granted a temporary and limited derogation from specific health rules on the production and marketing of fresh meatActivity:S = slaughter houseC = cutting plantCS = cold store>TABLE>


Avis juridique important

|

31979D0556

79/556/EEC: Council Decision of 12 June 1979 concerning the signing and the deposit of a declaration of provisional application of the Protocols for the fifth extension of the Wheat Trade Convention and the Food Aid Convention constituting the International Wheat Agreement, 1971

Official Journal L 152 , 20/06/1979 P. 0008 - 0015 Greek special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 15 P. 0154

COUNCIL DECISION  of 12 June 1979  concerning the signing and the deposit of a declaration of provisional application of the Protocols for the fifth extension of the Wheat Trade Convention and the Food Aid Convention constituting the International Wheat Agreement, 1971  (79/556/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 recommendation from the Commission,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:    Sole Article The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person empowered to sign the declaration of provisional application of the Protocols for the fifth extension of the Wheat Trade Convention and the Food Aid Convention constituting the International Wheat Agreement, 1971, and to deposit this declaration with the Government of the United States of America.  The text of the Declaration is annexed to this Decision (1).     Done at Luxembourg, 12 June 1979.  For the Council  The President  J. FRANÇOIS-PONCET  (1)The text of these Protocols will be found in an addendum to this Decision.


title: 2013/672/EU: Council Decision of 15 November 2013 on the conclusion of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania for a period of two years

text:
               22.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 313/3

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 15 November 2013
   on the conclusion of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania for a period of two years
   (2013/672/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43, in conjunction with point (a) of Article 218(6), thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Having regard to the consent of the European Parliament,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 30 November 2006, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1801/2006 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania (1) (‘the Partnership Agreement’).

               (2)

               The Union has negotiated a new Protocol with the Islamic Republic of Mauritania (‘the new Protocol’) granting EU vessels fishing opportunities in waters in which Mauritania exercises its sovereignty or its jurisdiction as regards fishing.

               (3)

               The new Protocol was signed on the basis of Council Decision 2012/827/EU (2) and has been applied provisionally from the date of its signature.

               (4)

               The new Protocol should be approved,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania for a period of two years (‘the Protocol’) (3) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.
   Article 2
   The President of the Council shall proceed, on behalf of the Union, to the notification provided for in Article 11 of the Protocol (4).
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 15 November 2013.

            For the Council

            The President

         R. ŠADŽIUS

      (1)  OJ L 343, 8.12.2006, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 361, 31.12.2012, p. 43.

      (3)  The text of the Protocol has been published in OJ L 361, 31.12.2012, p. 44 together with the decision on the signature.

      (4)  The date of entry into force of the Protocol will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the General Secretariat of the Council.


title: Council Decision 2014/913/CFSP of 15 December 2014 in support of the Hague Code of Conduct and ballistic missile non-proliferation in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

text:
               17.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 360/44

         COUNCIL DECISION 2014/913/CFSP
   of 15 December 2014
   in support of the Hague Code of Conduct and ballistic missile non-proliferation in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 26(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 12 December 2003, the European Council adopted the EU Strategy against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (‘the Strategy’), Chapter III of which contains a list of measures that need to be taken both within the Union and in third countries to combat such proliferation.

               (2)

               The EU is actively implementing the Strategy and giving effect to the measures listed in Chapters II and III thereof, for example by releasing financial resources to support specific projects leading to the enhancement of a multilateral non-proliferation system and multilateral confidence building measures. The Hague Code of Conduct against ballistic missile proliferation (‘the Code’ or ‘HCoC’) and the Missile Technology Control Regime (‘MTCR’) are integral parts of that multilateral non-proliferation system. The Code and the MTCR aim to prevent and curb the proliferation of ballistic missile systems capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction (‘WMD’) and related technologies.

               (3)

               On 17 November 2003, the Council adopted Common Position 2003/805/CFSP (1). That Common Position calls, inter alia, for the promotion of the subscription of as many countries as possible to the Code, especially those with ballistic missile capabilities, as well as for the further development and implementation of the Code, especially its confidence-building measures, and for the promotion of a closer relationship between the Code and the UN multilateral non-proliferation system.

               (4)

               On 8 December 2008, the Council adopted its conclusions and a document entitled ‘New lines for action by the European Union in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems’. The document states, inter alia, that proliferation of WMD and their delivery systems continue to constitute one of the greatest security challenges and that non-proliferation policy constitute an essential part of Common Foreign and Security Policy. In the light of progress made and of ongoing efforts in the implementation of the ‘new lines for action’, the Council agreed in December 2010 to prolong their implementation period until the end of 2012.

               (5)

               On 18 December 2008, the Council adopted Decision 2008/974/CFSP (2) in support of the Code in the framework of the implementation of the Strategy.

               (6)

               On 23 July 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/423/CFSP (3). That Decision has allowed the successful promotion of the universality of the Code and compliance with its principles. It is a priority of the Union to continue dialogue among subscribing and non-subscribing States with the aim of further promoting the universality of the Code as well as its better implementation and enhancement. This Decision should contribute to this process.

               (7)

               More generally, the continued proliferation of ballistic missiles capable of delivering WMD constitutes a cause of growing concern for the international community, in particular ongoing missiles programmes in the Middle-East, North-East Asia and South-East Asia, including Iran, Syria and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (‘DPRK’).

               (8)

               The UN Security Council emphasised in UNSCR 1540 (2004) and recalled in UNSCR 1977 (2011) that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constituted a threat to international peace and security and obliged States, inter alia, to refrain from supporting by any means non-State actors from developing, acquiring, manufacturing, possessing, transporting, transferring or using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their delivery systems. The threat caused by nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery to international peace and security was reaffirmed in UNSCR 1887 (2009) on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. Furthermore, the UN Security Council decided in UNSCRs 1929 (2010) and 1718 (2006), based inter alia on UNSC resolutions 1540 (2004), 1977 (2011) and 1887 (2009), that Iran and the DPRK should not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States should take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran and DPRK related to such activities.

               (9)

               This Decision should serve, more generally, to support a range of activities aimed to fight against the proliferation of ballistic missiles,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   1.   For the purposes of ensuring the continuous and practical implementation of certain elements of the Strategy, as referred to in the Annex, the Union shall:

               (a)

               support activities in support of the Code and the MTCR, in particular with the aim to:

                           (i)

                           promote the universality, and in particular the subscription to the Code by all States with ballistic missile capabilities;

                           (ii)

                           support the implementation and reinforcing the visibility of the Code;

                           (iii)

                           promote adherence to the MTCR guidelines and the Annex thereto;

               (b)

               more generally, support a range of activities to fight against the proliferation of ballistic missiles, aimed in particular at raising awareness of this threat, stepping up efforts to increase the effectiveness of multilateral instruments, building up support to initiatives to address these specific challenges and helping interested countries to reinforce nationally their relevant export control regimes.

         2.   In this context, the projects to be supported by the Union shall cover the following specific activities:

               (a)

               activities in support of the Code:

                           (i)

                           prepare and publish a ‘welcome package’ for outreach activities towards non-subscribing States, also recalling obligations for subscribing States;

                           (ii)

                           organise outreach side events in Vienna in the margins of the HCoC annual meeting of subscribing States;

                           (iii)

                           organise outreach side events in support of the HCoC in the margins of the UN General Assembly First Committee meetings;

                           (iv)

                           organise up to three regional outreach seminars based on EU priorities (possibly Asia, Gulf countries and Latin America);

                           (v)

                           encourage subscribing and non-subscribing States' representatives from developing countries to attend the HCoC Annual meetings and outreach seminars;

                           (vi)

                           organise awareness sessions for States having recently joined the HCoC to assist them in fulfilling their obligations, including in the margins of the HCoC annual meeting in Vienna;

                           (vii)

                           support the coordination of HCoC promotion efforts with the activities of the UN 1540 Committee, including through financing the participation of HCoC experts into the 1540 Committee country visits;

                           (viii)

                           support the HCoC secure internet-based information and communication mechanism (e-ICC), including through technical enhancement of the website;

               (b)

               activities in support of ballistic missile non-proliferation in general:

                           (i)

                           organise up to four seminars to raise awareness on ballistic missile proliferation in the margins of multilateral fora, possibly linked with the HCoC outreach events referred to in point (a), such as a seminar in the margins of UNGA or the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory committees;

                           (ii)

                           organise up to three regional seminars to raise awareness on ballistic missile proliferation and encourage discussions on perspectives to better address the ballistic missile proliferation threat at a regional level, possibly linked with other EU outreach activities on HCoC; in association with the States concerned, seminars could take place in Asia, the Gulf region and Latin America;

                           (iii)

                           provide four food-for-thought papers on possible further multilateral steps to prevent the threat of missile proliferation and to promote disarmament efforts in the field of ballistic missiles, focusing in particular on possible confidence-building measures and exploring the possibility to adopt a regional focus as a first step, for instance in regions of particular interest for the Union and/or where progress can be expected in the near future;

                           (iv)

                           in order to prevent dual-use technology and knowledge transfer at an early stage, organise up to three awareness-building sessions for experts, especially from the scientific and/or space communities and the industry;

                           (v)

                           encourage access of academics from developing countries working on missile non-proliferation to projects of the EU Centres of Excellence;

                           (vi)

                           in coordination with the EU Centres of Excellence, organise targeted expert missions in third countries in order to share information and lessons learned regarding missile technology and dual use goods related export control and help them build up their national capabilities;

                           (vii)

                           support experts training on ballistic missiles non-proliferation, through participation in EU programmes such as that of the European Security and Defence College or in programmes of the Member States of the Union (‘Member States’).

         A detailed description of the projects is set out in the Annex.
   Article 2
   1.   The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) shall be responsible for the implementation of this Decision.
   2.   Technical implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be carried out by the Fondation pour la recherche stratégique (FRS), which shall perform this task under the responsibility of the HR. For this purpose, the HR shall enter into the necessary arrangements with the FRS.
   Article 3
   1.   The financial reference amount for the implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1(2) shall be EUR 990 000.
   2.   The expenditure financed by the amount set out in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.
   3.   The Commission shall supervise the proper management of the expenditure referred to in paragraph 1. For this purpose, it shall conclude a financing agreement with the FRS. The agreement shall stipulate that the FRS is to ensure visibility of the EU contribution, appropriate to its size.
   4.   The Commission shall endeavour to conclude the financing agreement referred to in paragraph 3 as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Decision. It shall inform the Council of any difficulties in that process and of the date of conclusion of the financing agreement.
   Article 4
   1.   The HR shall report to the Council on the implementation of this Decision on the basis of regular reports prepared by the FRS. Those reports shall form the basis for the evaluation carried out by the Council.
   2.   The Commission shall provide information on the financial aspects of the projects referred to in Article 1(2).
   Article 5
   1.   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.
   2.   This Decision shall expire 30 months after the date of the conclusion of the financing agreement referred to in Article 3(3). However, it shall expire six months after its entry into force if no financing agreement has been concluded by that time.

      Done at Brussels, 15 December 2014.

            For the Council

            The President

         F. MOGHERINI

      (1)  Council Common Position 2003/805/CFSP of 17 November 2003 on the universalisation and reinforcement of multilateral agreements in the field of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and means of delivery (OJ L 302, 20.11.2003, p. 34).

      (2)  Council Decision 2008/974/CFSP of 18 December 2008 in support of the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (OJ L 345, 23.12.2008, p. 91).

      (3)  Council Decision 2012/423/CFSP of 23 July 2012 in support of ballistic missile non-proliferation in the framework of the implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and of the Council Common Position 2003/805/CFSP (OJ L 196, 24.7.2012, p. 74).

      ANNEX
      1.   OBJECTIVES
      The Union is a strong promoter of missile non-proliferation. Its efforts in this regard include the Strategy and Common Position 2003/805/CFSP. In addition, the Council has endorsed ‘New lines for action by the European Union in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems’, and the EU supported UNSC Resolution 1540 (2004), which has since been recalled in UNSC resolution 1977 (2010).
      The Union considers the MTCR an important multilateral instrument which aims at curbing the proliferation of ballistic missile systems and related technologies and know-how through the establishment and the implementation of export control regulations on sensitive materials. 19 Member States are members of the MTCR and all Member States are implementing the MTCR export control list through Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 (1).
      The Union has also strongly supported the Code from its inception and has expressed regular concern over ballistic missile proliferation. The Union considers the Code as a central transparency and confidence building measure. All Member States have subscribed to the Code and are implementing the Code in good faith.
      In the past, the Union tried to overcome the remaining loopholes in the implementation of the Code and in its universality by organising workshops, expert meetings and regional awareness seminars. Those activities, which have been organised under Decision 2008/974/CFSP and implemented by the FRS, have proved their efficiency and relevance.
      Encouraged by the outcome of those events, the Union has pursued its initiative and supported three aspects of the Code as follows:

                  (a)

                  universality of the Code;

                  (b)

                  implementation of the Code;

                  (c)

                  enhancement and improved functioning of the Code.

            This action was undertaken under Decision 2012/423/CFSP, which allowed the development of several initiatives in support of HCoC including:

                  (a)

                  the development of a dedicated secure website;

                  (b)

                  the organisation of several side-events aimed at promoting the Code vis-à-vis non-subscribing States in Vienna, Geneva and New York;

                  (c)

                  awareness raising workshop for African and Middle Eastern Countries in Paris;

                  (d)

                  regional seminars in Singapore, Abu Dhabi and Lima;

                  (e)

                  preparation of food-for-thought papers.

            Decision 2012/423/CFSP has contributed to raising awareness about the Code and to its promotion vis-à-vis third countries. Through that Decision, the Union has supported Costa Rica, France, Hungary, Japan, Peru and Romania in their activities as HCoC Chairs. By raising the profile of the HCoC, it has facilitated the adherence of new members to the Code.
      In view of the results achieved, and of the continued proliferation of ballistic missiles capable of delivering WMD which constitute a cause of growing concern for the international community, in particular ongoing missile programmes in the Middle-East, North-East Asia and South-East Asia, including Iran and the DPRK, the following actions will be carried out:

                  (a)

                  project 1, information and communication;

                  (b)

                  project 2, strengthening the ballistic missile non-proliferation;

                  (c)

                  project 3, universalisation of the HCoC — Outreach activities;

            Going beyond the sole promotion of adherence to the Code and the MTCR, this Decision allows for the deepening of the international debate over missile proliferation and engaging new regional areas and new communities.
      2.   DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
      2.1.   Project 1: Information and Communication
      2.1.1.   Objective of the project
      The Code represents an important instrument for curbing the proliferation of ballistic missiles and related technologies through confidence-building and transparency measures. However, more needs to be done to support it, in particular with the aim of:

                  (a)

                  promoting the universality of the Code, and in particular the subscription to the Code by all States with ballistic missile and space capabilities;

                  (b)

                  supporting the implementation of the Code in all its aspects;

                  (c)

                  reinforcing the visibility of the Code.

            2.1.2.   Description of the project
      The project provides for three types of activities:

                  (a)

                  preparing, designing, printing and distributing up to 1 500 leaflets describing Union support for the Code. The leaflet will also include:

                              (i)

                              a description of the HCoC;

                              (ii)

                              the objectives of the HCoC;

                              (iii)

                              a description of the annual declarations, the pre-launch notifications and the voluntary observation visits;

                              (iv)

                              the European strategy towards the HCoC and the proliferation of WMD means of delivery;

                              (v)

                              demarches to be fulfilled in order to subscribe to the Code;

                              (vi)

                              contact details for non-subscribing States;

                  (b)

                  preparing, designing, printing and distributing up to 1 000‘welcome package’ printed booklets and a USB stick for outreach activities towards non-subscribing States, also recalling obligations for subscribing States. It will also be available online, covering all the necessary information about the Code and the relevant points of contact. The ‘welcome package’ will include the leaflet described in point (a);

                  (c)

                  supporting and updating the HCoC secure Internet-based information and communication mechanism (‘electronic Immediate Central Contact’ — e-ICC), including through technical enhancement of the website in close cooperation with the Austrian Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

            2.1.3.   Expected results of the project/indicators

                  (a)

                  through wide distribution of the ‘welcome package’ during the various events, greater awareness achieved amongst partners of the value added of the HCoC, and of the role of the Union;

                  (b)

                  more secure HCoC website enables improved exchange of relevant information amongst partners;

                  (c)

                  use of the ‘welcome package’ by the HCoC Chair, the Austrian Secretariat (‘Immediate Central Contact’ (‘ICC’)), the Union and other partners as necessary in their outreach activities.

            2.1.4.   Beneficiaries of the project
      The beneficiaries of the project are both States subscribing to the HCoC and non-subscribing States.
      2.2.   Project 2: strengthening the ballistic missile non-proliferation
      2.2.1.   Purpose of the project
      The continued proliferation and operational use of ballistic missiles capable of delivering WMD constitutes a cause of growing concern for the international community, in particular ongoing missiles programmes in the Middle-East, North-East Asia and South-East Asia, including Iran and the DPRK.
      More generally, the project will support a range of activities to fight against the proliferation of ballistic missiles, aimed in particular at raising awareness of the threat, stepping up efforts to increase the effectiveness of multilateral instruments, building support to initiatives to address those specific challenges and helping interested countries to reinforce nationally their relevant export control regimes.
      2.2.2.   Description of the project
      The publication of two food-for-thought papers per year (4 for the duration of the project). Possible subjects could include:

                  (a)

                  the use of the existing WMD free zones as an example and a potential framework for further initiatives banning ballistic missiles;

                  (b)

                  further multilateral steps to prevent the threat of missile proliferation and to promote disarmament efforts in the field of ballistic missiles, focusing in particular on possible confidence-building measures;

                  (c)

                  export and transit control mechanisms;

                  (d)

                  the role of Intangible Transfer of Technology (ITT) in the area of ballistic missiles.

            2.2.3.   Expected results of the project/indicators

                  (a)

                  Promoting multilateral efforts curbing missile proliferation including the HCoC and the MTCR increases the EU influence in the field of missile non-proliferation;

                  (b)

                  encouraging the debate on new initiatives to strengthen the Code and the MTCR and open the door for further initiatives;

                  (c)

                  fostering missile non-proliferation;

                  (d)

                  at least 4 food-for-thought papers to be published;

                  (e)

                  raising awareness about dual-use technology and knowledge transfer issues prevents unintentional transfer among Member States and increase global awareness of export control mechanism.

            2.2.4.   Project beneficiaries
      The Union and the Member States will benefit from the food-for-thought papers; wider distribution will be decided by the HR in close consultation with Member States in the framework of the competent Council Working Party. The final decision will be based on proposals by the implementing entity in accordance with Article 2(2) of this Decision.
      2.3.   Project 3: Universalisation of the HCoC — Outreach activities
      2.3.1.   Purpose of the project
      The project will raise awareness of both missile non-proliferation and the HCoC by organising several events aimed at engaging non-subscribing States. To this end, events will be organised in Vienna and New York to engage the UN delegations in the margins of relevant events.
      2.3.2.   Project description
      The project will provide for three types of events:

                  (a)

                  Financing of four outreach events (2 in each city) in support of both the HCoC and ballistic missile non-proliferation that will take place in two cities:

                              (i)

                              in New York, in the margins of the UN General Assembly First Committee meetings or of the non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committees meetings;

                              (ii)

                              in Vienna, in the margins of the HCoC or other relevant activities of the UN in Vienna.

                        Regarding the organisation of the seminars:

                              (i)

                              each seminar will last half a day and will gather up to 80 participants from UN missions in New York and Vienna around a selected group of speakers and EU officials;

                              (ii)

                              up to 6 speakers will be invited;

                              (iii)

                              the HCoC acting Chair will be invited;

                              (iv)

                              restricted lunches or dinners aimed at engaging senior officials from selected countries led by an EU senior representative and experts will be organised and funded under this Decision.
                              To this end, the implementing entity will propose for each event a list of countries, some of which will be non-subscribing States. This will allow the convening of senior representatives who deal with non-proliferation issues.

                  (b)

                  Financing of three regional outreach seminars that could take place in Latin America (e.g. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico or a non-member in the Caribbean region), the Middle East (e.g. the Gulf countries, Bahrain, Qatar or Saudi Arabia) and Asia (e.g. Indonesia or Vietnam). The choice of the location will be made in agreement with the HR, in close consultation with Member States in the framework of the competent Council Working Party. The seminar will be dedicated to trends in missile proliferation and a focus on regional issues and will address the HCoC and practical information about being a subscribing State. Subscribing States of the region will be invited at governmental level in order to share their experience with non-subscribing States. The HCoC acting Chair will also be invited to deliver a statement and chair the session. The attendance could include officials, diplomats, military staff, international organisation representatives, EU representatives, academics, etc.
                  Regarding the organisation of the seminars:

                              (i)

                              each seminar will last one day;

                              (ii)

                              up to 50 persons could be invited to attend;

                              (iii)

                              the HCoC acting Chair will be invited to deliver a statement.

                  (c)

                  Up to 10 targeted expert missions for non-subscribing States. They will mainly target the relevant industries, scientific community, export control experts and civil society representatives. In coordination with the European Union Centres of Excellence, two experts on ballistic missile non-proliferation from the implementing agency and an EU expert will conduct field missions in targeted countries. Possible destinations could include, but are not limited to Algeria, Bahrain, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Thailand. The final list of countries will be decided in close cooperation with the HR, as well as the opportunity of joint demarches with the UN 1540 Committee outreach efforts. The attendance could include officials, diplomats, military staff, academics, industry, researchers, etc. from the visited country. Priority will be given to officials and political deciders, diplomats, relevant military staff, etc.
                  Regarding the organisation of the seminars:

                              (i)

                              each seminar will last one day;

                              (ii)

                              up to 25 persons could be invited;

                              (iii)

                              3 experts will be invited;

                              (iv)

                              the HCoC acting Chair will be invited.

            2.3.3.   Expected results of the project/ indicators

                  (a)

                  At least 4 outreach events to be organised in New York and Vienna;

                  (b)

                  the 3 regional events have gathered an important diplomatic and academic community and allowed new perspectives on adhesions;

                  (c)

                  10 expert's missions were conducted in order to enhance the universalisation of the HCoC. Those missions have gathered at least 20 decision-makers and officials and increased the level of commitment from the officials and decision-makers in the visited countries;

                  (d)

                  raising awareness of missile proliferation trends and more particularly on the Code with regard to non-subscribing States promote discussions on further efforts to curb missile proliferation;

                  (e)

                  the project fosters the debate within and outside the Union on future initiatives;

                  (f)

                  the project raises the profile of missile proliferation as a strategic challenge.

            2.3.4.   Beneficiaries of the project
      The main focus of these events will be non-subscribing States, although subscribing States might be associated with some events for policy reasons. Participants should be primarily governmental experts and senior officials.
      The final choice of the beneficiary States will be made in consultation between the implementing entity and the HR in close consultation with Member States in the framework of the competent Council Working Party.
      3.   DURATION
      The total estimated duration of the implementation of the projects is 30 months.
      4.   IMPLEMENTING ENTITY

                  (a)

                  The FRS will be entrusted with the technical implementation of the projects;

                  (b)

                  co-funding will depend on the FRS;

                  (c)

                  the implementing entity will prepare:

                              (i)

                              quarterly reports on the implementation of the projects;

                              (ii)

                              a final report not later than one month after the end of the implementation of the projects;

                  (d)

                  reports will be sent to the HR;

                  (e)

                  the FRS will ensure the visibility of the Union contribution, appropriate to its size.

            5.   THIRD-PARTY PARTICIPANTS
      The projects will be financed in their entirety under this Decision. Experts from States subscribing to the Code or from non-subscribing States may be considered as third-party participants. They will work in accordance with the standard rules of the FRS.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (OJ L 134, 29.5.2009, p. 1).


title: Council Decision 2006/675/CFSP of 10 August 2006 concerning a contribution by the Swiss Confederation to the European Union military operation in support of the United Nations Organisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) during the election process (Operation EUFOR RD Congo)

text:
               7.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 276/109

      COUNCIL DECISION 2006/675/CFSP
   of 10 August 2006
   concerning a contribution by the Swiss Confederation to the European Union military operation in support of the United Nations Organisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) during the election process (Operation EUFOR RD Congo)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Political and Security Committee, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 25 of the Treaty and pursuant to Article 10(2) of Council Joint Action 2006/319/CFSP of 27 April 2006 on the European Union military operation in support of the United Nations Organisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) during the election process (1), adopted Decision MONUC SPT/1/2006 (2) and Decision MONUC SPT/2/2006 (3) on 30 May 2006.

               (2)

               Following recommendations on a contribution from the Swiss Confederation by the EU Operation Commander and the European Union Military Committee (EUMC), the contribution from the Swiss Confederation should be accepted.

               (3)

               In accordance with Article 6 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the European Union which have defence implications,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   1.   The offer for a contribution by the Swiss Confederation to Operation EUFOR RD Congo is hereby accepted.
   2.   The Swiss Confederation shall be represented in the Committee of Contributors set up by Decision MONUC SPT/2/2006.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 10 August 2006.

            For the Council

            The President

         E. TUOMIOJA

      (1)  OJ L 116, 29.4.2006, p. 98.

      (2)  OJ L 197, 19.7.2006, p. 14.

      (3)  OJ L 194, 14.7.2006, p. 31.


Avis juridique important

|

31986D0497

86/497/EEC: Commission Decision of 7 October 1986 accepting undertakings given in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of silicon carbide originating in the People's Republic of China, Norway, Poland and the USSR, and terminating the investigation regarding imports of that product originating in the People's Republic of China, Norway, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the USSR and Yugoslavia

Official Journal L 287 , 10/10/1986 P. 0025 - 0035

*****COMMISSION  DECISION  of 7 October 1986  accepting undertakings given in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of silicon carbide originating in the People's Republic of China, Norway, Poland and the USSR, and terminating the investigation regarding imports of that product originating in the People's Republic of China, Norway, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the USSR and Yugoslavia  (86/497/EEC)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 of 23 July 1984 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), and in particular Articles 10 and 11 thereof,  After consultations within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the above Regulation,  Whereas:  A. Procedure  (1) In May 1984 the Commission received a complaint lodged by the European Council of Chemical Manufacturers' Federations (CEFIC) on behalf of all Community producers of silicon carbide.  (2) The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding. The Commission accordingly announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of silicon carbide falling within Common Customs Tariff subheading 28.56 A, corresponding to NIMEXE code 28.56-10, and originating in the People's Republic of China, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Poland, the USSR, Spain, and Yugoslavia, and commenced an investigation.  (3) The Commission officially so advised the exporters and importers known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting countries, and the complainants, and gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing.  (4) All of the known producers and exporters, as well as most of the known importers, made their views known in writing or in the course of hearings, which were granted to all those who requested them.  (5) Submissions were made on behalf of users' associations and by users themselves.  (6) The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed to be necessary for the purposes of a preliminary determination from the following companies, where necessary carrying out investigations at their premises:  EEC producers:  - Elektroschmelzwerk Kempten GmbH, Muenchen, Federal Republic of Germany,  - Lonza-Werke GmbH, Waldshut-Tiengen,  Federal Republic of Germany,  - Pechiney Electrometallurgie (ex SOFREM),  Paris, France,  - Samim Abrasivi SpA, San Michele all'Adige, Italy;  Non-EEC producers and exporters:  - Navarro SA Madrid, Spain,  - Arendal Smelteverk A/S, Eydehavn, Norway,  - Norton A/S, Lillesand, Norway,  - Orkla Exolon A/S & Co., Orkanger, Norway,  - Tovarna Dusika, Ruse, Yugoslavia,  - Representation of the China National Machinery and Equipment Import & Export Corporation, Koeln, Federal Republic of Germany;  EEC importers:  - Internat SA, Liège, Belgium,  - SA Barascud Abrasifs-Chimie, 81102 Castres, France,  - Société Derognat et Cie, 21200 Comblanchien, France,  - DFG (Gremilliet) 88207 Remiremont, France,  - Mineralien-Werke Duisburg GmbH, Duisburg,  Federal Republic of Germany,  - Mineralien-Werke Kuppenheim GmbH, Kuppenheim, Federal Republic of Germany,  - Alfred Hempel GmbH & Co., Duesseldorf,  Federal Republic of Germany,  - Kerimpex Handelsgesellschaft GmbH, Selb,  Federal Republic of Germany,  - Werner Kessl Giessereibedarf GmbH, Baernwinkel, Federal Republic of Germany,  - Gesellschaft fuer Metallurgie Hafner und Polte GmbH, Duesseldorf, Federal Republic of Germany,  - Wilfried Post GmbH, Gut Junkerswald,  Federal Republic of Germany,  - Thyssen Schulte Metallurgie GmbH, Dortmund, Federal Republic of Germany,  - Smyris Abrasivi srl, Pero (Mi), Italy,  - Veneta Mineraria SpA, Milano, Italy,  - Carborundum Abrasives GB Ltd, Manchester, United Kingdom,  - Union Carbide UK Limited, Glossop, United Kingdom,  - Tennant Metallurgical Ltd, Sheffield, United Kingdom.  (7) The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 July 1983 to 30 June 1984.  (8) In view of Article 380 (3) of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, the results of the investigation in respect of imports from Spain will be dealt with separately, under the terms of Council Regulation (EEC) No 812/86 of 14 March 1986 on protection against imports that are the subject of dumping between the Community of Ten and the new Member States, or between the new Member States, during the period throughout which the transitional measures, laid down by the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, apply (1).  B. Normal value  Yugoslavia  (9) In the case of Yugoslavia, the sole producer manufactures only two basic grades of black silicon carbide, all of which, according to the evidence presented, is exported in a semi-finished state. Since there were therefore no domestic sales prices on which to base normal value, it was decided in this case - as in the case of Norway (see points 15 to 17) - to use constructed values. The full production, selling, and overhead costs for the product during the investigation period were taken into account, as recorded in the cost accounts of the producer. To these costs was added a reasonable profit based on what this producer normally earns on his domestic market from sales of artificial corundum, an analogous products.  Non-market economy countries  (10) With the exception of Spain, referred to under point 8, and Norway, the remaining exports covered by the investigation originate in State trading countries. In order to establish whether the imports from these countries were dumped, the Commission had to take account of the fact that the People's Republic of China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the USSR do not have market economies, and determinations therefore had to be based on the normal value in a market-economy country. In this connection, the complainants had suggested the Yugoslav market.  (11) The Commission decided not to accept this suggestion, for the following reasons. The silicon carbide customs heading covers a wide range of product grades, with a similarly wide range of market prices, used primarily for applications in the abrasives, refractory and metallurgical fields. As already mentioned under point 9, the Yugoslav producer was found to manufacture only two product grades, these being exported in a semi-finished state. In view of these facts, and in particular the extremely restricted range of product grades, and the incomplete production process stated to be operated by  this manufacturer, the Commission did not consider that the normal values established in Yugoslavia would be a technically satisfactory basis for the determination of normal value in respect of the non-market economy exporters concerned in the proceeding.  (12) The Spanish producer was found to possess a complete production process and reasonably wide range of product grades, sold as finished products, not only for export but mainly in the domestic market. Hwever, the Commission did not adopt this alternative basis for normal value in the non-market economy exporting countries, because of the comparatively protected nature of the Spanish market and the fact that there is only one producer on this market.  (13) The Commission concluded that it would be appropriate and not unreasonable to determine normal value for the non-market economy exporters on the basis of constructed value in Norway. The completeness of the range of product grades sold and of the production process operated by the Norewegian producers was an important factor in this conclusion. The fact that, as remarked below (point 15), the restricted nature of the Norwegian market rendered obligatory reference in the majority of cases to constructed values rather than domestic prices was not considered to be disadvantageous to non-market economy exporters, in view of the comparative advantage enjoyed by the Norwegian companies in this highly energy-intensive type of production.  (14) Several exporters and one importer raised objections to the use of Norway as an analogue country for the purpose of normal value, referring to differences in the physical characteristics of the products manufactured in some of the non-market economies as compared with those manufactured in Norway. The Commission's reply to these objections was that the wide variety of product grades for which normal values were established in Norway already permits a better comparison of each of these product grades with those that are sold by non-market economy exporters. In so far as differences in physical characteristics subsisted after such a comparison of appropriate product grades, these could be dealt with by allowances as explained in Section D, 'Comparison', below. While the exporters mentioned above did not make proposals as to alternative analogue countries, the importer mentioned, on the other hand, criticized the Commission's decision to discard the choice of Yugoslavia for this purpose, alleging that the reasons advanced for this decision in point 11 did not correspond with the real situation of the Yougoslav producer. However, no evidence for these allegations was produced, and none of the findings made by the Commission, while investigating the Yugoslav producer, support these allegations.  Norway  (15) In seeking to determine the normal value for the three Norwegian companies, the Commission had to take account of the relatively small quantities of the product which are normally sold on their domestic market. It was found, in fact, that during the reference period of the investigation some 96 % by value of these producers' turnover was for export sales, approximately half of total exports being to the Community.  In general, therefore, sales on the domestic market were too small to permit a valid comparison with export sales of the like product to the Community.  In the case of only one of these three companies - and for three of the product grades sold by it out of a total of nine taken into consideration - were domestic sales found which attained the threshold of 5 % by volume of the equivalent product grades exported to the Community market. The use of this threshold in such cases was established by the Commission in Regulation (EEC) No 3643/84 in the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of electronic typewriters from Japan (1). Consequently, for the three product grades mentioned and for this one company, normal value was provisionally determined on the basis of the domestic prices.  (16) Given the lack of adequate quantities of domestic sales to permit a proper comparison in the case of all other product grades produced by the Norwegian companies, it was necessary to determine normal value for these grades on another basis. The companies themselves proposed the use of export prices to third countries for this purpose.  This suggestion was not accepted by the Commission as it was not in a position to confirm that export prices to markets other than the Community were not in fact dumped prices. In addition, the period covered by the investigation was one of major fluctuation for certain important world currencies, which would have added a further element of uncertainty to any choice of an appropriate third country export market on which to base normal value.  (17) For the reasons set out above, normal value was provisionally determined on the basis of constructed values in Norway. Constructed values were established on the basis of costs, presented by the companies during the investigation, for each major product grade produced and sold by them. These product costs consisted of the actual expenses of producing the grade concerned, as reflected in the records of the companies for the period covered by the investigation. Where this cost of production did not already incorporate fixed costs, including selling, administrative and other general expenses, a percentage factor corresponding to that used by the company was added to take account of these expenses. This percentage factor appeared reasonable in the light of all the financial data verified during the investigation. A reasonable profit margin was then added to the above costs. In order to ensure that this profit margin reflected each company's performance over a representative period, it was decided to take for this purpose, from the audited sets of accounts presented by the companies, the average operating profit earned over the three most recent financial calendar years leading up to the investigation period.  In view of the extremely restricted proportion of domestic sales mentioned earlier, and since audited accounts did not apportion profits geographically, overall operating profits (and not specifically domestic profits) were taken to constitute the most reasonable basis for the determination of profit margin. It should be noted in this respect that all three companies produced and sold only silicon carbide material, and that the information provided by them indicates that in 1983/84 the profitability on Norwegian domestic sales - where these existed - was in general higher than, or at least equal to, overall profitability.  (18) There have been extensive contacts over a long period of time with Norwegian exporters, in the form of meetings and exchanges of correspondence, concerning provisional findings. At all stages, these producers have contested the Commission's findings of dumping and injury, and for analogous reasons in all three cases. Their objections to normal value findings are grouped under two main headings. In the first place, they object to constructed values bing used to determine normal value at all, as discussed under point 19, below. In the second place, they object to the way in which constructed values have been claculated, as discussed under points 20 to 23.  Norwegian producers' objection to use of constructed values as basis for normal value  (19) The argument has been advanced by the Norwegian producers that using constructed values, at least in the present case, is contrary to commercial logic in that it entails imputing a fixed and equal proportion of profit to each product grade, thus denying a producer with cost advantages the opportunity to compete freely, and to set selling prices, with profit margins which differ according to the product grade and to the competitive situation.  In the absence of any verifiable evidence which would have permitted the allocation of profit margins differing according to product grade, the Commission was obliged to allocate costs, as indicated by the companies during the investigation, and profits in a uniform manner on the basis of turnover, which ensured that they were completely absorbed by the sales of the same period.  Norwegian producers' objections to Commission's calculation of constructed values  (20) The Norwegian producers were informed, prior to the on-the-spot investigation by the Commission's services, that costs would be extensively examined. They collaborated, providing extensive cost and financial accounting data from the companies' internal records and independently audited annual accounts, as well as commercial and technical information. All companies were found to operate management accounting systems which took account of the differing variable costs of the main product categories. Selling and general administrative overheads were in general allocated over all product grades in conformity with each company's practice during the investigation period. As far as both variable and fixed costs are concerned therefore, no objections were raised at that stage by the companies to this form of constructing costs for individual product categories.  When the preliminary results of the investigation were discussed, showing dumping in varying degrees on several of each company's product grades, two main objections to the way constructed values had been calculated were voiced. Thes objections were put forward, in slightlty differing formulations, by all three companies.  (21) The first objection concerned the profit margins used in establishing the constructed values. The method of calculating these has already been described in point 17. The companies claim that 'a reasonable margin of profit', within the meaning of Article 2 (3) (b) (ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84, has not been used in determining constructed value. The basis of this objection appears to be the size of the profit margins found. These were larger than the profit margins attributed to other Norwegian industries for which constructed values had been determined in anti-dumping proceedings in past years. These proceedings, however, involved industries and companies experiencing losses or very reduced profits at the time of the investigation concerned, and for which an accurate profit margin was not available on the basis of the industry's or company's own recent performance. This cannot be said of the present proceeding, however, since the profit margins used are the audited real profits of the companies involved. Moreover, in this case averages of several years' profits were calculated, in order to avoid a possibly unfair determination based on one exceptionally profitable year. Indeed, one of the companies had itself described one of the years included in its average as the worst year for profitability in its history since 1945. The real profits earned, where they exist and can be accurately determined, evidently constitute the most reasonable measure of profitability to use for this purpose - and the one least likely to be unfair or discriminatory.  (22) The second objection concerned the remaining components of the constructed values: the costs. In general, all three companies pointed out detailed corrections that were necessary to the findings provisionally presented to them and, where these corrections could be justified on the basis of the evidence collected during the investigation, the Commission has modified those findings. However, at the time of the first presentation of preliminary findings, each company also raised the same point: their methods of costing product grades, employed hitherto, were not adequately reflecting technical and commercial realities. They argued that this had been known to the companies for some time, but that the Commission's investigation had accelerated this realization. They requested the time and the opportunity to present new material to the Commission on the basis of revised criteria. The Commission had considerable doubts as to the correctness of such a procedure, but decided to accede to this request and to examine carefully the submissions on their individual merits, without prejudice however to the question of whether such information could validly be taken into consideration in its provisional findings, since it was presented after the conclusion of the on-the-spot investigation.  The new material presented differed in scope and completeness from company to company, but was similar in purpose in all cases. Apart from detailed points relating to the evidence already collected, which have already been mentioned, each Norwegian producer claimed that important changes were necessary in certain costing criteria - justified largely on technical grounds - and that these criteria should be used retroactively to modify the initial investigation findings. Some modifications proposed on this basis were wide ranging - one company claimed to have completely reorganized its costing system as a result - but, quantitatively, the most significant result in all cases was to diminish significantly the costs and therefore the normal values of metallurgical and wiresawing product grades, for which the highest levels of dumping had been preliminary determined. At a later stage in the proceeding one of the companies submitted arguments for the revision of overhead allocation criteria, which would have had in practice a similar result on certain product grades.  (23) The Commission considers that - despite the extensive arguments and technical explanations put forward - no new facts have been presented by the companies in this field to justify the virtually complete abandonment of the findings made during its investigation. On the other hand, where the supplementary submissions contained new evidence on points of detail which bore an objectively verifiable relationship to the data already checked during the investigation, this was taken into account and findings were appropriately corrected by the Commission. As already explained, the constructed values in Norway were based exclusively on information presented by the companies themselves and verified in relation to accounting and costing systems which had been in everyday use in those companies for a considerable time, and which were in use throughout the investigation period.  One of the companies, before the investigation, drew attention to the fact that, although many grades of silicon carbide are often sold by reference to quality specifications that are defined by agreement with the individual customer concerned, its costing system was designed to reflect actual costs only in terms of broad product categories, which are normally distinguished by differences in chemical composition, colour, grain size, and application. The latter was, however, exactly the basis on which the Commission collected evidence and conducted its investigation. At the same time, this company indicated that its cost reporting was fully integrated into its accounting and management procedures, and this was found to be true also of the remaining Norwegian companies. The importance of the accounting and costing systems in use by the companies at the time of investigation lies not only in the objectively verifiable character of the evidence which they provided but also in their use by management over a long period leading up to and including that of the investigation. These systems therefore, in addition to recording the companies' results according to the criteria known to management at the time, have provided the framework within which management decisions, including pricing decisions, were taken. It is thus not possible to accept the claims that the Commission should adopt product costs estimated retroactively on the basis of radically revised criteria, in the place of those costs calculated by the normal management accounting procedures in force in the companies prior to, and during, the investigation period. Taking up a different position would imply that, in a case involving constructed values as a basis for normal value, the Commission would be departing from the figures used by the companies in the relevant period.  C. Export Prices  (24) Export prices were determined on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the products sold for export to the Community.  D. Comparison  (25) In comparing normal value with export prices, the Commission took account, where appropriate, of all differences affecting price comparability where claims of a direct relationship of these differences to the sales under consideration could be satisfactorily demonstrated. This was the case for differences in conditions and terms of sale, such as transport, credit terms, ancillary costs, packing, handling, and agents' commission. Also, where applicable, allowances claimed by interested parties were made for differences in physical characteristics.  All comparisons were made at ex works level.  (26) A Community importer of the product from the USSR criticized the making of comparisons at the ex works level, based on Article 2 (9) of Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84. The importer in question bought at a price which included the cost of transport over a long distance from the USSR to its premises. Such costs are important in the case of this material, which is of relatively low value in relation to its weight and volume. The Commission is obliged to exclude transport costs from the 'export price' at the Community frontier, if such costs are included in the price paid by the importer.  (27) The same importer has suggested that the requirement for 'like product', contained in Article 2 (12) of Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84, is not satisfied by the use of Norwegian constructed values as a basis for normal value.  The reasons for this choice have been explained above in points 10 to 14. Moreover, the granting of an allowance for a difference in physical characteristics of the imported product does not by itself demonstrate that a sufficiently similar product has not been chosen for comparison.  E. Dumping margin  (28) The above preliminary examination of the facts shows the existence of dumping in respect of the People's Republic of China, Norway, Poland and the USSR, the margins of dumping being equal to the amount by which the normal value as established exceeds the price for export to the Community, this dumping margin being expressed as a percentage of the total cif export price to the Community of the product investigated.  (29) These margins vary according to the importing Member State and the product grade of silicon carbide concerned. The weighted average margins (as defined below in point 30) are as follows for three of the exporting countries concerned:  1.2 //  //  //  // EEC overall margin   //    //  // People's Republic of China   // 31,5 %   // Poland   // 8,9 %   // USSR   // 23,2 %   //    //  In general the above producers exported only one or at most two different product grades of black silicon carbide. The great majority of the quantities imported into the Community from these countries concerned macro grits or the lumps from which such grits can be manufactured, for use in the production of abrasive appliances or in refractory and wiresawing applications. All such imports, with the exception of a very small quantity of abrasive grits from Poland, were dumped.  (30) In the case of Norway the margins also vary, according to the exporter and to the grade of silicon carbide concerned. As already explained, the three Norwegian companies manufacture a complete range of grades of this material. Although a large number of the grades were undumped, when the dumping margins which had been found by the Commission (mainly for grades sold in the largest quantities) were aggregated and weighted in relation to total exports to the Community of the grades investigated - without giving credit for the amount by which export prices exceeded normal value in the case of undumped grades - overall margins of dumping were found for each company as follows:  1.2 //  //  // Exporter  // EEC overall margin   //    //  // Arendal Smelteverk A/S   // 5,1 %   // Norton A/S   // 6,2 %   // Orkla Exolon A/S & Co   // 1,7 %   //    //  The overall margins set out, however, do not illustrate what the Commission considers to be an important feature of these findings - namely the concentration of more significant levels of dumping in two particular categories which accounted for some 35 % of the total quantities exported to the EEC by Norway. The dumping margins found on first metallurgical grades (with a minimum SiC content of 85 %) were in fact 40,6 and 14,6 % for the two larger exporters, the smallest of the three exporters not being significantly concerned with exports of this product category during the investigation period; for wiresawing grain mixes the range over all the three exporters was between 8,9 and 5,0 %.  In arriving at the above dumping margins, the Commission did not include in its calculations certain by-products and waste materials. It considers that the data used, relating to these companies' normal product sales and constructed values, provide a representative measure of the overall levels of dumping on exports to the Community.  (31) One of the Norwegian companies, which stated that it considered itself to be the exporter primarily targetted by the original complaint, claimed that the large disparity between the very high levels of dumping alleged in that complaint and the much more modest overall levels found in the investigation (which it nevertheless strongly contests, for the reasons set out in points 18 to 22), demonstrated the invalidity of the proceeding, which had been opened on the basis of a complaint motivated by commercial considerations and not backed by adequate evidence. The argument was particularly directed towards the indication of dumping contained in the complaint, which compared the domestic price in Norway of a relatively high quality abrasive grade with export prices of much lower level metallurgical material. The Commission could not accept this view: a proceeding is not invalidated simply because it results in showing certain data contained in the complaint to be incorrect. The investigation is designed precisely to show whether the allegations contained in a complaint are supported in fact. Furthermore, while overall dumping levels may have been found to be modest, this could not be said of certain specific levels.  (32) For imports originating in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia no dumping was found. Consequently, the proceeding in respect of these imports should be terminated.  F. Injury  (33) With regard to the injury caused by the dumped imports, the evidence available to the Commission shows that imports into the Community from the People's Republic of China, Norway, Poland and the USSR of silicon carbide increased from 36 966 tonnes in 1981 to 47 094 tonnes in 1984 (48 051 tonnes in 1985), which represents an increase of 27 % (30 % in 1985). At the same time, Community consumption of this material had returned to a level of 128 348 tonnes in 1984 as against 127 348 tonnes in 1981, having fallen back by 10 and 14 %, respectively, in 1982 and 1983.  (34) Consequently, the market share held by silicon carbide originating in the countries mentioned under the previous point progressed from 28,8 % in 1981 to 36,9 % in 1984. Over the same period, the market share of Community producers fell from 62,2 % in 1981 to 52,5 % in 1984 as a percentage of Community consumption. The impact of the dumped imports in the loss of sales by Community producers is demonstrated by the fact that, on the basis of consumption figures in the Community for 1981 and 1984, which are practically identical, the increase in the combined market share of the countries mentioned accounts for slightly less than the fall in market share of the Community producers.  (35) The effect of the lost market share mentioned under the previous point is not completely reflected in the production figures of Community industry. Approximately 100 000 tonnes of silicon carbide products were produced by the four Community producers in 1984, against 103 500 tonnes in 1981 - which already represented a depressed level in comparison with 1980 (115 000 tonnes). No Community producer significantly increased its production during this period while, in the case of the smallest producer, it fell by some 27 %. Capacity utilization also recovered in 1984, to 97 % of the levels of 1981 as a Community average, although remaining low by comparison with 1980, which was the last year of satisfactory - but not full - capacity working for the Commu nity industry. No producer in 1984 significantly improved his capacity utilization over the 1981 figure, and one producer remained seriously below it. During the intervening period, it should be noted, production fell to approximately 87 000 tonnes in both 1982 and 1983. While it can be seen that the above figures demonstrate a certain recovery in production in 1984, this appears, on the basis of the evidence available, to be largely related to increased exports from the Community, an ephemeral improvement since much of the additional export volume can be attributed to temporary exchange rate movements.  (36) Other economic indices referring to the Community producers demonstrate the pressure under which they were placed, largely as a result of dumped imports, during the period 1981 to 1983/84. The number of people permanently employed in the Community industry fell from 1 453 to 1 311 over the same period. Within these totals considerable numbers were involved in part-time working or technical lay-off: whereas in 1980 only 10 employees had been concerned, this total progressed to 528 in 1982 and was 387 in 1983.  In spite of these rationalization efforts, the overall profitability of sales of silicon carbide by the four Community producers diminished sharply. Whereas all these companies had been making profit or were near to break-even point in 1980, three of the companies made losses throughout the period from 1981 to 1983/84, and the profitability of the fourth company had descended to break-even at the end of the period.  While the general situation over all silicon carbide grades was one of diminished, or eliminated, profitability, evidence available concerning a more detailed analysis of certain individual companies' costs and profits, by main product grades, shows that the metallurgical sector of silicon carbide production and sales underwent a much more severe pressure than that indicated by the general figures.  The importance of this sector may be judged from the fact that metallurgical grades account for some 45 % of the total silicon carbide production volume of Community producers. The severity of the pressure is indicated by the fact that the major Community producers, accounting for two-thirds of Community production, experienced steadily growing losses in this area of activity between 1981 and 1983/84, so that by the end of this period their sales income from metallurgical silicon carbide covered only some 80 % of the total production, selling and administrative costs of this sector. This particular situation is referred to again in points 37 and 38 below.  (37) The Commission also examined whether the sale in the Community of silicon carbide from those exporters found to be dumping had been made at prices below the prices charged for equivalent qualities and product grades by the Community producers. Two factors concerning such a price comparison should be pointed out beforehand, however.  In the first place, the Commission found evidence that the level of prices in the Community had already undergone considerable depression before the opening of the investigation period. Over several years up to 1983, the selling prices of Community producers had either fallen or had risen much less quickly than their costs. While demand for silicon carbide in the Community stagnated over this period - or receded in certain years - the market share captured by imports from the exporters concerned nevertheless increased rapidly at the expense of the Community producers' share, as described in points 33 and 34. The inadequate levels of Community producers' selling prices were due to low-priced imports, rather than stagnant demand; this is shown by 1. the loss of previously established long-term customers by the Community industry to the exporters, 2. the movements in market share mentioned immediately above, and 3. the other market and economic data summarized in points 35 to 42.  Second, in the case of some non-market economy exporters, the allowances granted for differences in physical characteristics (point 25) were incorporated into the price comparison for injury assessment purposes, so that the gross difference in price actually found on the market - which naturally did not take account of any such allowance - was much larger than the percentages shown below. Comparing, on this basis, the weighted average resale prices of these imports during the investigation period with the equivalent prices of the Community producers gave the following results. In general, imports from the People's Republic of China were found to undercut local producers' prices by an average of 30 %, imports from Poland by 16 %, and imports from the USSR by 22 %. In the case of Norway, the situation is more complex, due partly to the much wider range of product grades and importing Member States involved, and partly to a particular situation regarding one important market sector. Over a wide range of standard product grades, which included wiresawing grain mixes, but excluded first metallurgical grades, a range of undercutting was found which varied between 0 and 24 %, with an average of 11 %.  In the case of first metallurgical grades, which concerned approximately one-fifth of all Norwegian imports of silicon carbide into the Community during the investigation period (but a much larger proportion of such imports into one of the Member States), undercutting was also found, of 18 % in the case of one Norwegian producer and of 21 to 33 % in the case of one other, in comparison with those Community producers' prices which were relatively unaffected by the price pressure from Norwegian imports; these cases were, for example, where the clients of Community producers had maintained purchase agreements at the price levels of earlier periods, or undertaken purchases on the basis of standard offer prices. (It will be recalled from point 30 that only two of the three Norwegian producers were significantly involved in this partiular market sector.)  (38) One Norwegian producer has argued on price undercutting, with particular reference to this product sector and to the competitive action of one Community producer, that price cutting moves were not initiated by him but merely followed the prices adopted by the Community industry.  Such a claim would be difficult to verify conclusively. The available data shows that, in this product sector, the Community industry has frequently matched the prices of Norwegian imports. The exporter concerned has alleged that this provides proof that his own extensive price cutting has not caused material injury to the Community producers. However, as aleady described in point 37, price undercutting by this Norwegian exporter has been found to be practised in this sector, although not in such a generalized manner as in the case of other product grades. The Community producers most committed in this sector have in fact increasingly adapted their pricing levels to those of Norwegian imports in order to avoid being undercut and losing further sales. The injury inflicted in this sector on Community producers is not therefore to be evaluated only on the basis of the price undercutting which could still be observed in the investigation period, but also in relation to the pronounced sectoral losses of Community producers described in point 36. The extent of these losses contradicts the allegation of the Norwegian exporter, since they provide rather a clear measure of the damage suffered by Community industry in seeking to defend its market share against unfairly priced imports.  (39) A further argument advanced by certain of the Norwegian producers also concerns the profitability of Community producers, whereby it is claimed that an allegation of material injury is not supported by, and is indeed inconsistent with, the financial reports for 1984 of certain companies in the Community. An improvement in the performance of the Community industry in 1984 has already been mentioned in point 35, but neither the official company reports in question, which the Commission has examined, nor the other evidence available to the Commission sustain this argument. The reports are not particularly specific in their comments, and give hardly any quantified information regarding the silicon carbide activities of the companies concerned, which in fact possess significant activities outside this area. In addition, the fact that the reports refer with satisfaction to the evolution in silicon carbide activities in 1984 must be viewed in the light of the losses made by these activities in the immediately preceding years: there is no contradiction here with the remarks already made about profitability - and especially sectoral profitability within the silicon carbide product grades - in point 36. Similary, arguments put forward by Norwegian industry concerning an important capital investment undertaken by one of the Community producers do not appear to the Commission to cast doubt on claims of injury suffered by that producer, whose investment was made to replace outdated installations with more efficient equipment, rather than to enlarge capacity. (40) In establishing the impact of the dumped imports on the Community industry the Commission has considered the effect of all dumped imports from all exporting countries and producers concerned. There were wide variations in the market shares of Community consumption held by exporters found to be dumping. Within the total share of 39,6 % mentioned in point 41 below, 30,3 % were held by Norway (24,7 % in 1981), while the remaining four countries accounted together for 9,3 % (5,1 % in 1981). Certain of the exporters argued that the impact of their own exports on the Community should be considered in isolation and judged not to have caused material injury in view of the low and/or decreasing level of their share in this market. In analysing whether cumulation was appropriate in such cases, the Commission took into account the comparability in terms of physical characteristics of the imported products with those produced in the Community, the volumes importd and the level of prices of the imported products compared with that of the competing grades produced in the Community. On the basis of this examination, it concluded that dumped imports from the exporters concerned should be considered as contributing to the material injury suffered by Community industry, and that these imports were made under such conditions that, should the Commission treat any one exporter in isolation, it would be acting in a discriminatory manner against the rest. Therefore, it was decided that dumped imports from all exporters should be cumulated in establishing the injury sustained.  (41) The Commission has examined the possibility of other factors, such as imports from other sources or a continuing downward trend in demand, causing the injury to Community industry. With regard to the former of these alternative or supplementary causes of injury, the information available concerning import volumes is completely at adds with such a possibility since, over the period from 1981 to 1984, while the combined market share of exports of silicon carbide to the Community originating in the People's Republic of China, Norway, Poland, Spain and the USSR progressed from 29,8 to 39,6 %, the share of all other exporters together remained practically constant at 8 %. Thus, the fall in the share of Community consumption held by Community industry may be directly attributed to the increase in imports from the countries named above, without any increase in imports from other exporters.  With regard to the trend of demand, it has already been mentioned in point 31 that overall Community consumption fell in 1982 and 1983, regaining in 1984 the level of 1981. However, it has been estblished that, in spite of this fall back in demand, imports of silicon carbide from exporters found to have been dumping increased by 27 %, while Community producers' sales fell by 13 000 tonnes, or 19 %, between 1981 and 1984.  (42) One exporter has cited the failure of the Commission to investigate the affiliate of a Community producer, situated in a third country, which exports significant quantities of silicon carbide to the Community, as a form of procedural discrimination.  The Commission does not share this view. The exporter concerned was not named in the complaint filed by the Community industry, and there was no obligation upon the related Community producer to introduce its affiliate into the proceeding in the absence of allegations of dumping and injury, nor was the Commission obliged to investigate the company concerned in the absence of a substantial complaint. In any case, the Commission normally takes into consideration the possibility that exporters not included in the proceeding may be responsible for injury to Community industry, as it has done in point 41 above. The examination mentioned there of other possible factors in the injury caused has not given any reason to suppose that this affiliate bears any such responsibility.  (43) As already explained in point 8, the findings made with regard to imports into the Community, as it was constituted on 31 December 1985, of silicon carbide from Spain will be dealt with separately. With regard to injury considerations, however, it is only necessary to underline at this stage that, when the effects of these imports are excluded, the injury to Community industry, resulting from the dumped imports from other exporters mentioned in the complaint, remains material.  (44) On the basis of the preceding analysis the Commission preliminarily determined that dumped imports of silicon carbide from the People's Republic of China, Norway, Poland and the USSR have caused material injury to the Community industry concerned. The extent of this injury is to be assessed primarily in terms of the price undercutting, and of the lost profitability, in certain sectors resulting from price depression, during the investigation period, as described in points 36 and 37. G. Community interest  (45) The representatives of Community processing industries, and of individual companies, have argued that the introduction of protective measures would not be in the Community interest because it would make them less competitive with imports of final products originating in third countries. These arguments were strongly related to particular market sectors, especially those of foundry briquette manufacture and the lower-priced range of abrasive grinding tools. In the latter case, it was additionally argued that protective measures on silicon carbide abrasive grains would also render such grinding tools less competitive on third country markets, to which many of the companies concerned exported.  (46) As in the case of any raw material or component, such price increases can be expected to have a certain incidence on the costs of the processing industries, but the extent to which the industries would be harmed depends on how far these cost increases can be transferred to their customers through higher selling prices without loss of sales volume. This may be prevented, for example, by competitive pressure from imported processed products, or by a reduction in consumption on account of the price elasticity of demand in this market sector. However, only one company provided evidence to the Commission as to the specific effect of an increase in the price of silicon carbide on its production costs, and no evidence was given as to the likely effects of increased prices of the processors' products on their total sales. In these circumstances, any evaluation of the possible impact of increases in the price of silicon carbide on the processing industries must remain purely speculative. After carefully weighing the above arguments against the serious difficulties for Community industry which can be directly attributed to the dumping of this material, the Commission has concluded that the taking of action against such dumping is in the Community's interest.  H. Undertakings  (47) The representatives of the exporters of the People's Republic of China, Norway, Poland and the USSR were informed of the findings of the preliminary investigation and commented on them. Subsequently, they offered satisfactory undertakings, the effects of which are that the import prices to the Community of silicon carbide originating in these countries will eliminate the injury found in the course of the investigation for exports from the People's Republic of China and the USSR, where the margin of injury was lower than the dumping margins determined, and will eliminate the dumping found in respect of Polish exports. In the case of the Norwegian exporters, the undertakings given will eliminate the margins of dumping or injury, whichever is the lowest, in respect of those product grades for which the Commission's preliminary findings indicate both injury and significant dumping.  In view of the above, and considering that circumstances in the present case make the application of such measures appropriate, the undertakings offered by the exporters mentioned above are considered acceptable and the investigation may, therefore, be terminated without the imposition of anti-dumping duties on material imported from these four countries.  (48) No objections were raised in the Advisory Committee to accepting the undertakings offered by the People's Republic of China, Norway, Poland and the USSR,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  The undertakings offered by the Representation of the China National Machinery and Equipment Import & Export Corporation in Koeln, Federal Republic of Germany, by Arendal Smelteverk A/S, Eydehavn, Norway, by Norton A/S, Lillesand, Norway, by Orkla Exolon A/S & Co., Orkanger, Norway, by Inter-Vis, Warsaw, Poland, and by v/o Stankoimport, Moscow, USSR, in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of silicon carbide originating in the People's of China Norway, Poland and the USSR, and falling within subheading 28.56 A of the Common Customs Tariff corresponding to NIMEXE code 28.56-10, are hereby accepted.  Article 2  The investigation in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding referred to in Article 1 is hereby terminated.  Article 3  The investigation in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of silicon carbide originating in Czechoslavakia and Yugoslavia is hereby terminated.  Done at Brussels, 7 October 1986.  For the Commission  Willy DE CLERCQ  Member of the Commission  (1) OJ No L 201, 30. 7. 1984, p. 1.  (2) OJ No C 202, 1. 8. 1984, p. 5.  (1) OJ No L 78, 24. 3. 1986, p. 1.  (1) OJ No L 335, 22. 12. 1984, p. 43.