title: EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 357/15/COL of 23 September 2015 to close the formal investigation into State aid in favour of Sandefjord Fotball AS (Norway) [2016/906]

text:
               9.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 152/59

         EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION
   No 357/15/COL
   of 23 September 2015
   to close the formal investigation into State aid in favour of Sandefjord Fotball AS (Norway) [2016/906]
   THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY (‘THE AUTHORITY’),
   Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), in particular to Article 61 and Protocol 26,
   Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (‘the Surveillance and Court Agreement’), in particular to Article 24,
   Having regard to Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (‘Protocol 3’), in particular to Article 7(3) of Part II,
   Whereas:
   I.   FACTS

   1.   Procedure

               (1)

               Following the receipt of complaints and market information, the Authority notified the Norwegian authorities of State aid allegations regarding the financing of the new football stadium in Sandefjord on 31 October 2013 (Document No 686574). In the same correspondence, the Authority requested information on the alleged aid measure, which the Norwegian authorities provided on 29 November 2013 (Documents Nos 691773 and 691774).

               (2)

               The Authority requested further information from the Norwegian authorities on 16 January 2014 (Document No 694963), which was provided on 14 February 2014 (Document No 699518).

               (3)

               Based on the information at its disposal, the Authority decided to adopt Decision No 444/14/COL opening the formal investigation procedure into aid in favour of Sandefjord Fotball AS on 22 October 2014 and invited the Norwegian authorities to provide comments. The decision was published in the Official Journal on 15 January 2015, inviting third parties to provide comments within a month of publication.

               (4)

               The Norwegian authorities were granted an extension of the deadline for comments until 23 December 2014 and provided comments on that date (Documents No 733899-733901). The Authority did not receive any further comments.

         2.   The beneficiary — Sandefjord Fotball AS

               (5)

               Sandefjord Fotball club is an association established in 1998 on the basis of a cooperation agreement between the two largest football clubs in the Sandefjord area, namely Sandefjord Ballklubb and IL Runar. The objective of the cooperation was to create a professional football team in Sandefjord that could reach the Norwegian top division.

               (6)

               Sandefjord Fotball AS, a limited-liability company, operates the professional (‘Elite’) team (1). The cooperation between Sandefjord Fotball club and Sandefjord Fotball AS is based on the requirements of the Norwegian Football Association. The club further operates an amateur team and a junior football team. It also runs football summer schools and organises regional football competitions for young amateur players

         3.   Description of the measure

   3.1.
         Background

               (7)

               Until 2007, Sandefjord Fotball's Elite team used the municipally owned stadium in Bugårdsparken for training purposes and matches. However, this stadium did not comply with the requirements of the Norwegian football federation for clubs playing in the highest division. An upgrade of the existing stadium was estimated to cost around NOK 40 million, which the municipality of Sandefjord was unwilling to invest.

         3.2.
         The construction of the new stadium

               (8)

               In 2005, the municipality of Sandefjord and Sandefjord Fotball AS discussed the possibility of constructing a new stadium. The municipality agreed to provide the necessary land, and Sandefjord Fotball AS to finance and run the stadium.

               (9)

               The municipality acquired several plots of land in the Pindsle area for a total of around NOK 3,7 million. The land was regulated as farmland at the time. The municipality's decision of 6 September 2005 authorising the acquisition foresaw the land to be rezoned for business use and to require the construction of a stadium. In the new zoning plan, the land was split into two parts: plot 152/96 was zoned for mixed stadium and business use, and plot 152/97 for business use. By way of an agreement dated 28 November 2006, both plots of land were then transferred to two wholly-owned subsidiaries of Sandefjord Fotball AS: plot 152/96 to Sandefjord Fotball Stadion AS and plot 152/97 to Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS.

               (10)

               According to the agreement, Sandefjord Fotball AS was responsible for organising the necessary financing to build the stadium. The construction costs were estimated at NOK 110 million for the project. Sandefjord Fotball AS would contribute NOK 70 million from its own funds and from outside investors, the sale of naming rights, etc., and take out a loan for the remaining NOK 40 million. The contribution of Sandefjord Fotball AS would partly be raised by the sale of the land zoned for business use (plot 152/97) to Pindsle Property AS.

               (11)

               Besides the construction of the stadium, the agreement contained a number of further obligations. In particular, Sandefjord Fotball AS agreed to carry out road works at the stadium site and to cover costs in relation to the discontinued use of the old stadium, including repairs.

               (12)

               Shortly after the signing of the agreement, the shares in Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS, which owned plot 152/97, were acquired by Pindsle Property AS for NOK 40 million. No valuation of the company was undertaken prior to the sale.

               (13)

               The new stadium was completed in July 2007 at a total construction cost of NOK 110 million (2). In addition to the football pitch and stands, it contains a number of other facilities, including an athletics track, a fitness centre and meeting rooms. These are rented out free of charge to other (mainly amateur sport) organisations.

         3.3.
         Subsequent sale of the stadium

               (14)

               In 2009, Sandefjord Fotball AS encountered financial difficulties. The club decided to raise funds by selling Sandefjord Fotball Stadion AS (the company owning the stadium and adjacent properties on plot 152/96) to Pindsle Property AS. This time, a third-party company valuation was required under Norwegian law as several individuals held board positions and shareholdings in both the company and Pindsle Property AS.

               (15)

               The expert report of 6 April 2009 valued Sandefjord Fotball Stadion AS at between NOK 14 million and NOK 16 million. The company was sold at a price of NOK 15 million on 9 June 2009.

         4.   The opening decision

               (16)

               On 22 October 2014, the Authority issued its Decision No 444/14/COL opening the formal investigation procedure into aid in favour of Sandefjord Fotball AS.

               (17)

               In its decision, the Authority came to the preliminary conclusion that the transfer of land to Sandefjord Fotball AS constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. In particular, the Authority considered that the transfer took place at below market value both for plot 152/96 (zoned for mixed stadium and business use) and plot 152/97 (zoned for business use).

               (18)

               As no arguments regarding the compatibility assessment had been put forward by the Norwegian authorities, the Authority had doubts whether the measure could be declared compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

         5.   Comments from the Norwegian authorities

               (19)

               The Norwegian authorities provided comments on the opening decision by way of a letter dated 23 December 2014 (Documents No 733899-733901).

         5.1.
         The transaction does not involve State aid

               (20)

               In their comments, the Norwegian authorities argue that the transfer of land from Sandefjord municipality to Sandefjord Fotball AS did not amount to State aid, as there was no advantage conferred on the alleged beneficiary.

               (21)

               The Norwegian authorities argue in particular that the market value of the land at issue was negative at the time of the transaction, and have submitted an expert valuation dated 5 February 2014 to that effect. The main reason for the alleged negative value of the land is that Sandefjord Fotball AS was obliged (by the terms of the transfer of land as well as under the zoning rules) to construct a football stadium as part of the transaction, and that the cost of the stadium construction exceeded the value of the land.

               (22)

               According to the Norwegian authorities, the obligation to construct a stadium could validly be imposed as a ‘special obligation’ in line with point 2.2(c) of Part V of the Authority's Guidelines on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities (‘Sale of Land Guidelines’) (3).

         5.2.
         Any aid amount would be very limited

               (23)

               Concerning the amount of the alleged State aid, the Norwegian authorities argue that in the event the Authority were to find that the land at issue had a positive market value, this value would be very limited.

               (24)

               The Norwegian authorities explain that agricultural land enjoys a special protection in Norway. Its sale and/or a change of use for other purposes are subject to strict controls by regional agricultural boards. In the case of the land at issue, the competent agricultural board only accepted the zoning proposal based on the public interest objective of building a stadium. It would not have been possible for a developer to acquire the land for pure business use. Therefore, the market investor principle cannot be applied to the transfer of land. Instead, the Norwegian authorities consider that any market valuation should be based on the price of agricultural land, which was the only realistic alternative use.

               (25)

               In the alternative, regarding the value of the land zoned for business use (plot 152/97) the Norwegian authorities argue that Pindsle Property AS, the company that acquired Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS for NOK 40 million, paid more than market price. In support of this argument, they refer to the valuation report (Annex 11 of Document No 699518), which concluded that plot 152/97 had a market value of about NOK 15 million (4). The valuation is based on the average price of land zoned for business use in the Pindsle area at the time of the transaction.

               (26)

               Furthermore, the Norwegian authorities argue that in any event, a number of deductions have to be made to calculate the aid amount. These deductions result from certain obligations Sandefjord Fotball AS assumed for the benefit of the municipality under the agreement dated 28 November 2006: (i) NOK 2,6 million for the renovation of the old stadium; (ii) NOK 400 000 for the replacement of floodlights in the old stadium; (iii) NOK 1,5 million for the construction of a public walkway; and (iv) NOK 5 million for the construction of a roundabout and a pedestrian crossing. In total, the agreement thus foresaw that Sandefjord Fotball AS had to incur costs amounting to NOK 9,5 million (as estimated at the time) in order to provide services for the municipality (5).

         5.3.
         Any potential State aid should be declared compatible

               (27)

               The Norwegian authorities argue that in the event the Authority found a State aid element in the transaction at issue, any such aid should be declared compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement under its Article 61(3)(c).

               (28)

               The Norwegian authorities highlight that the promotion of sport, including the construction of sport infrastructure, constitutes an objective of common interest. They further argue that State aid is necessary and an appropriate instrument in the present case.

               (29)

               In particular, the Norwegian authorities explain that there was a need for a new stadium in Sandefjord. They point to the high usage pressure on the existing municipal stadium, which was used by Sandefjord Fotball and other teams at the time. Furthermore, a more modern stadium was required to meet the licensing requirements of the Norwegian Football Association to allow Sandefjord Fotball's Elite team — which had been operating under a temporary exemption — to remain in the highest Norwegian league.

               (30)

               Sandefjord municipality examined the option of upgrading the existing stadium, which would, however, not have addressed the lack of capacity. In contrast, building a new stadium would solve both the capacity and the licensing problems, and in addition create a venue for football across the county of Vestfold. As can be seen from the table below, the new stadium is used by a variety of clubs. Furthermore, the old municipal stadium has been renovated (financed by Sandefjord Fotball AS) and is fully utilised today by local sports clubs (athletics and football), schools and the general public. This further shows that there was a need for a new stadium in Sandefjord and that any state support was appropriate. Furthermore, upgrading the existing stadium would have required an investment of around NOK 40 million by the municipality, without any prospect of attracting private funds.

               (31)

               The Norwegian authorities also argue that any aid would be proportionate. First of all, they point to the fact that most of the investment costs for the new stadium were financed by Sandefjord Fotball AS, which contributed the maximum amount possible to the construction costs from its own resources and bank loans. This own contribution ensured that the aid amount was kept to the minimum.

               (32)

               The Norwegian authorities also highlight the non-economic social and amateur sport activities that have been made possible by the stadium construction. The existing municipal stadium is now fully available for amateur sports. In addition, a number of amateur sport and social activities, including school events, are performed on a regular basis in the new stadium.

               (33)

               To illustrate this point, the Norwegian authorities have submitted the following table summarising the estimated annual occupation of the stadium by various users for the period 2007 to 2014:

                           Club

                           Activities

                           Hours per year

                           Payment

                           Sandefjord Fotball Elite team

                           20 matches (April-October/November) 100 hrs
                           Training April-October/November 2hrs × 5 × 16 = 160 hrs (6)

                           260

                           Yes

                           Sandefjord Fotball Junior and Recruit teams

                           Training and matches May-September

                           60

                           Yes

                           Cooperation clubs

                           Training and matches May-September

                           30

                           No

                           Cooperation clubs

                           Premises for courses and conferences, celebrations, coach and manager forum, lectures

                           30

                           No

                           Sandar IL (sports club)

                           End games age 14-19 in the Sandar-cup including opening ceremony (and use of the locker rooms)

                           25

                           No

                           Vestfold Fotballkrets (County football association)

                           Gatherings for teams in Sandefjord and the rest of the county age 14-16 including training and matches, courses and education for coaches

                           30

                           No

                           Sandefjord Fotball Bredde (children and youth sports), amateur tournaments

                           The administration of the club uses the premises for courses and conferences. Football school during summer, fall and Easter break age 6-12 on the football field. Amateur tournaments ‘Company cups’

                           90

                           No

               (34)

               In addition, nearby schools and several athletic clubs use the athletics track during weekdays. There are also school-organised activity days taking place in the stadium.

               (35)

               The non-professional use of the stadium thus accounts for more than 50 %. The main limitation on a further increase in non-professional use is the resiliency of the natural grass pitch (7). The professional team is granted preferential access to the stadium by reservation of the football field for home matches and preferential access to the football field for training. The indoor premises (e.g. the locker rooms and the office premises) can be used all year round by any organisation.

               (36)

               As can been seen from the table above, most non-professional users of the stadium do not pay any rent. In contrast, the Elite team pays an annual rent of NOK 3 million plus 20 % of ticket sales for the use of the stadium. The Norwegian authorities consider this amount to correspond to market rent: comparable teams pay a rent per hour in the range of NOK 2 000 to 5 000, which in sum results in a lower total rent than NOK 3 million annually. The Norwegian authorities therefore consider that Sandefjord Fotball's Elite team does not benefit from any advantage over its competitors from the rent it pays for the stadium use.

               (37)

               Furthermore, the Norwegian authorities highlight that any effect on trade and competition would be very limited due to the local character of the club. Tickets to home matches are in general only sold locally and to supporters of visiting Norwegian teams. Income from kiosk sales during matches varies between NOK 600 000 and NOK 1 million annually. As regards branded merchandise, the market is mostly limited to the supporters in the county of Vestfold. There is no competition between clubs regarding these products. The arena name has been sold to Komplett.no, which is a Sandefjord-based web shop for electronics. Only local firms advertise at the arena.

               (38)

               Even regarding the market for players, the effect on trade and competition is limited. Sandefjord Fotball AS trades players only to a very limited extent and only with other Norwegian clubs. For instance, during the period 2011 to 2013, trading in players has resulted in an income of merely NOK 1,35 million and costs of NOK 860 000.

               (39)

               Regarding TV rights, the Norwegian authorities explain that these rights are administered centrally by the Norwegian Football Association. A club's share of proceeds depends on its ranking in two highest Norwegian leagues. As there is no real interest for Norwegian league football outside Norway, these TV rights do not have any real impact on trade and competition.

         II.   ASSESSMENT

   1.   Presence of State aid

               (40)

               Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows: ‘Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement’.

               (41)

               This means that a measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement if the following conditions are cumulatively fulfilled: the measure is granted by the state or through state resources, confers a selective economic advantage on an undertaking, and is liable to affect trade between Contracting Parties and to distort competition.

         1.1.
         State resources

               (42)

               In order to constitute State aid, a measure must be granted by the state or through state resources. The concept of the state does not only refer to the central government, but embraces all levels of the state administration (including municipalities) as well as public undertakings (8).

               (43)

               The land at issue was acquired by Sandefjord municipality and then transferred to two subsidiaries of Sandefjord Fotball AS. The Authority therefore concludes that the transfer of land involves state resources.

         1.2.
         Undertaking

               (44)

               It is well-established case law that undertakings are entities engaged in economic activities, regardless of their legal status and the way in which they are financed (9). Economic activities are activities consisting of offering goods or services on a market (10).

               (45)

               Sandefjord Fotball AS is a professional football club organised as a private company. It is active on several markets, including the transfer market for football players as well as the markets for ticket sales, television rights, club memorabilia and sponsorship.

               (46)

               The Authority therefore concludes that Sandefjord Fotball AS constitutes an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.

         1.3.
         Economic advantage

               (47)

               A transfer of land to an undertaking may confer an economic advantage, in particular if it takes place at a price that is below the market price.

               (48)

               A transaction transferring state resources does not constitute State aid when it is carried out in line with normal market conditions so that it does not confer an advantage on an undertaking (11). This is known as the market economy operator test.

         1.3.1.   Transfer of plot 152/96

               (49)

               At the time of the transfer to Sandefjord Fotball AS, plot 152/96 was zoned for the construction of a football stadium and business use. Any construction on the plot of land therefore needs to include a stadium in order to receive planning permission. Given that the construction costs of the stadium exceeded any potential value of the land, the Norwegian authorities argue that the market price of plot 152/96 was zero, if not negative.

               (50)

               The Authority notes that zoning obligations can influence the market price of land. However, the obligation to build a football stadium cannot reduce the market price to zero, in particular in case of a transaction aimed at assisting a football club in building a new stadium (12).

               (51)

               In addition, the Authority refers to Section 2.2(d) of its Sale of Land Guidelines, which states that in principle, ‘the market value should not be set below primary (13) costs during a period of at least three years after acquisition unless the independent valuer specifically identifies a general decline in market prices for land and buildings in the relevant market.’ In the case at hand, the municipality of Sandefjord acquired the land that was later divided into plots 152/96 and 152/97 for NOK 3,7 million. The Authority notes that the transfer of land to Sandefjord Fotball AS took place at a price below the acquisition cost for the municipality.

               (52)

               Based on the above, the Authority concludes that the transfer of plot 152/96 conferred an economic advantage on Sandefjord Fotball AS.

         1.3.2.   Transfer of plot 152/97

               (53)

               Plot 152/97 was zoned for business use at the time of the transfer to Sandefjord Fotball AS. The Norwegian authorities argue that the transfer of plot 152/97 should be assessed in the context of the contract of 28 November 2006, which obliges the football club in particular to build the stadium in exchange for the land. Given that the estimated construction costs of the stadium exceeded the value of the land, the transfer could not result in the granting of an economic advantage.

               (54)

               The Authority notes that plot 152/97 is zoned for business use. According to the planning rules, there is thus no obligation to build a stadium in relation to this plot of land. Nor was there any binding restriction based on its former zoning as agricultural land in existence at the time of the transfer to Sandefjord Fotball AS. Only the contract of 28 November 2006 obliges Sandefjord Fotball AS to organise and finance the construction of the stadium. It is the only legal instrument foreseeing that plot 152/97 would be sold to finance part of the construction.

               (55)

               The Authority considers that a market economy operator selling land would not have imposed such conditions in relation to the construction or financing of a stadium. The Authority therefore cannot accept the argument that the contractual link between the transfer of plot 152/97 to Sandefjord Fotball AS and the construction of the stadium should be taken into account in the assessment of whether there is an economic advantage.

               (56)

               The Authority further notes that shortly after the transfer, Sandefjord Fotball AS sold the shares in Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS, the company owning plot 152/97, to Pindsle Property AS for NOK 40 million. This sale indicates that the land at issue had an economic value.

               (57)

               Based on the foregoing, the Authority concludes that the transfer of plot 152/97 conferred an economic advantage on Sandefjord Fotball AS.

         1.4.
         Selectivity

               (58)

               The alleged State aid results from a transaction between the municipality of Sandefjord and Sandefjord Fotball AS. It represents a selective measure within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement, in the sense that it only concerns one particular undertaking.

         1.5.
         Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Contracting Parties

               (59)

               According to the case law regarding effect on trade and distortion of competition, the Authority ‘[i]s required, not to establish that such aid has a real effect on trade […] and that competition is actually being distorted, but only to examine whether that aid is liable to affect such trade and distort competition’ (14).

               (60)

               The mere fact that aid strengthens an undertaking's position compared to that of other undertakings competing in intra-EEA trade is enough to conclude that the measure is liable to distort competition and to affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement (15).

               (61)

               In 2006, Sandefjord Fotball's Elite team was playing in the highest Norwegian division, with the possibility of qualifying for European championships. Moreover, professional football clubs deploy economic activities in several markets other than participating in football competitions, such as the transfer market for professional players, publicity, sponsorship, merchandising or media rights. Aid to a professional football club thus potentially strengthens its position on each of those markets, most of which may cover several countries in the EEA. As regards the market for the transfer of players, Sandefjord Fotball AS was at the time — and still is today — active on the transfer market, potentially recruiting players from other countries in the EEA.

               (62)

               The Authority therefore concludes that the measure is liable to distort competition and to affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.

         1.6.
         Conclusion on the existence of aid

               (63)

               Based on the above findings, the Authority concludes that the measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

         1.7.
         Aid amount

               (64)

               Regarding plot 152/96, the Authority recognises that the zoning obligation including the construction of a stadium reduces the market value of the land (16). However, as explained in recital 50 above, a market price of zero cannot be justified in the present case. Based on Section 2.2(d) of the Authority's Sale of Land Guidelines, Sandefjord municipality should have sold the land at least for a price that covered its own acquisition costs. On that basis, the Authority considers the aid amount regarding this plot of land to amount to NOK 1,9 million (17).

               (65)

               Regarding plot 152/97, the Authority notes that Sandefjord Fotball AS sold the shares in Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS, the company owning plot 152/97, to Pindsle Property AS for NOK 40 million. Pindsle Property AS is a private company, and was not part of the same group as Sandefjord Fotball AS at the time of the transaction. The sale thus took place between two independent companies (18). The Authority has not received any convincing evidence that this transaction did not take place at market price. Accordingly, the Authority considers that it represents the best available indication of market value for plot 152/97.

               (66)

               Based on the above, the Authority concludes that the total market value of the land transferred to Sandefjord Fotball AS amounted to NOK 41,9 million at the time of the transaction. However, under the agreement dated 28 November 2006, Sandefjord Fotball AS also assumed several obligations to carry out works on behalf of Sandefjord municipality. As set out in recital 26 above, the estimated total cost of these obligations was NOK 9,5 million at the time of the agreement. The Norwegian authorities have explained that but for the terms of the agreement, these works would have been carried out by the municipality. Accordingly, the Authority accepts that their total cost — as foreseen at the time of the agreement — should be deducted from the aid amount.

               (67)

               The Authority therefore concludes that the total aid granted to Sandefjord Fotball AS amounted to NOK 32,4 million.

         2.   Procedural requirements

               (68)

               Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3, ‘the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid (…). The state concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision’.

               (69)

               The transfer of the land at issue has not been the object of a prior notification to the Authority. The Authority therefore concludes that the Norwegian authorities have not complied with their obligations stemming from Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3.

         3.   Compatibility

               (70)

               Pursuant to Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas may be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

               (71)

               The Authority notes that it has not yet issued any guidelines covering State aid for the construction of sports infrastructure. The measure at hand will therefore be assessed directly under Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.

               (72)

               In line with the practice at the time the aid was granted, the Authority's assessment is based on the following steps:

                           —

                           Is the aid measure aimed at a well-defined objective of common interest?

                           —

                           Is the aid well-designed to deliver the objective of common interest, i.e. does the proposed aid address the market failure or other objective? In particular:

                                       —

                                       Is State aid an appropriate instrument?

                                       —

                                       Is there an incentive effect, i.e. does the aid change the behaviour of the firms?

                                       —

                                       Is the aid measure proportionate, i.e. could the same change in behaviour be obtained with less aid?

                           —

                           Are the distortions of competition and effect on trade limited, so that the overall balance is positive?

               (73)

               The above questions will be addressed in the following paragraphs.

         3.1.
         Objective of common interest

               (74)

               The Authority notes first of all that the promotion of sport is not directly mentioned in the EEA Agreement as a common objective. However, promoting sport can be considered as part of the promotion of education, training and youth as well as social policy. Closer cooperation in these fields is considered an aim of the EEA, as set out notably in Articles 1 and 78 of the EEA Agreement. The modalities of this closer cooperation are further defined in Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms. Article 4 of this Protocol is headed ‘Education, training, youth and sport’ and foresees for example the participation of the Contracting Parties in the European Year of Education through Sport 2004. This illustrates the close link between the promotion of sport and the aims set out in the EEA Agreement.

               (75)

               This interpretation is consistent with the approach of the European Commission (‘the Commission’). In the European Union, the promotion of sport is specifically mentioned in Article 165 TFEU, which was introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. However, also prior to the Lisbon Treaty the Commission recognised the specificity of the role sport plays in European society, based on volunteer-driven structures, in terms of health, education, social integration and culture. Since the Lisbon Treaty, the promotion of sport has also been recognised as contributing to the overall goals of the Europe 2020 strategy by improving employability and mobility, notably through actions promoting social inclusion in and through sport, education and training.

               (76)

               Given the above, the Authority concludes that the promotion of education, training and youth development through sport constitutes an objective of common interest. The Authority further notes that the financing of sport infrastructure can also benefit from the General Block Exemption Regulation if certain conditions are fulfilled. This further demonstrates that the promotion of sport, including the construction of sport infrastructure, represents an objective of common interest.

         3.2.
         Appropriate instrument

               (77)

               In order to assess whether State aid is effective to achieve the identified objective of common interest, the Authority first has to diagnose and define the problem that needs to be addressed. State aid should be targeted towards situations where aid can bring a material improvement that the market alone cannot deliver. In addition, the proposed aid measure must be an appropriate instrument to address the identified objective of common interest.

               (78)

               There is a recognised market failure in the provision of football stadiums in Norway in the form of a lack of commercial investment in stadiums, which are structurally loss-making as their revenues are insufficient to cover the cost of the investment (19).

               (79)

               Furthermore, the Norwegian authorities have demonstrated a genuine need for a new football stadium in Sandefjord. This is evidenced by the capacity problems at the existing municipal stadium at the time of the measure and the fact that the old stadium did no longer fulfil the licensing requirements of the Norwegian Football Association. Finally, given the unprofitable nature of stadium infrastructure, State aid was required to trigger the investment.

               (80)

               Against this background, the Authority concludes that State aid was an appropriate instrument.

         3.3.
         Incentive effect

               (81)

               The Authority can only declare State aid compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement if it has an incentive effect. An incentive effect occurs when the aid induces the beneficiary to change its behaviour to further the identified objective of common interest, a change in behaviour which it would not undertake without the aid.

               (82)

               The Authority notes first of all that the construction of the stadium had not started before the transfer of land at issue.

               (83)

               Moreover, the information provided by the Norwegian authorities shows that Sandefjord Fotball AS could not have financed the construction of the stadium without the State aid, as it did not have the financial means nor the ability to borrow sufficient funds to cover the shortfall. Its own financial contribution to the stadium construction was already at the limit of what was possible (20).

               (84)

               Based on the above, the Authority concludes that the aid measure had an incentive effect.

         3.4.
         Proportionality

               (85)

               State aid is considered to be proportionate if the aid amount is limited to the minimum needed to achieve the identified objective of common interest. The Authority generally bases its assessment of proportionality on the concepts of eligible costs and maximum aid intensities.

               (86)

               As stated in recital 67 above, the aid amount granted to Sandefjord Fotball AS totals NOK 32,4 million. In order to assess the aid intensity, this figure has to be put in relation to the eligible investment costs. The Authority considers that the expenses incurred by Sandefjord Fotball AS on behalf of Sandefjord municipality, which have been subtracted from the aid amount — see recital 66 above — cannot form part of the eligible costs. The total investment costs of NOK 110 million therefore need to be reduced by NOK 9,5 million. The eligible investment costs therefore amount to NOK 100,5 million, and the corresponding aid intensity is 32 %. The Authority notes that this aid intensity is rather low, and that the rest of the investment was financed by the beneficiary, Sandefjord Fotball AS.

               (87)

               However, the aid intensity also has to be assessed in the light of the social benefits arising from the stadium infrastructure. As set out in Section I.5.3 above, the stadium is used for a variety of non-professional uses by a number of users including amateur sports teams and schools. Altogether, these non-economic uses represent more than 50 % of the total use of the stadium.

               (88)

               Furthermore, the Authority notes that the stadium infrastructure is to a certain degree multi-functional, combining a football stadium with an athletics track, a fitness centre and a number of other inside areas. This increases the possibilities to use the stadium for non-economic purposes. Finally, the Authority notes that the Elite team pays market rent for the use of the stadium (see also Section II.3.5 below), whereas the amateur clubs and other non-commercial users can access the stadium for free. This further underlines the social contribution the stadium is making to the community.

               (89)

               Based on the above, the Authority concludes that the aid measure is proportionate.

         3.5.
         No undue distortion of competition and trade

               (90)

               For aid to be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, the negative effects of the aid measure in terms of distortions of competition and impact on trade between Contracting Parties must be limited and outweighed by the positive effects in terms of contribution to the objective of common interest.

               (91)

               At the outset, the Authority notes that the stadium financed by the State aid at issue primarily has a local and regional focus. The infrastructure is not aimed at attracting international events, nor is it intended to be used extensively by any commercial users other than Sandefjord Fotball's Elite team.

               (92)

               The Elite team is paying rent for its use of the stadium. The current rental terms are based on negotiations with the private owners of the stadium. There is thus a presumption that the rent corresponds to market terms. This is furthermore confirmed by the comparison with typical stadium rent paid by other clubs, which the Norwegian authorities have provided (see recital 36 above).

               (93)

               The Authority also notes that the aid intensity is low, and the corresponding contribution by Sandefjord Fotball AS to the investment costs further reduces the risk of distortions.

               (94)

               Finally, the economic activities carried out by Sandefjord Fotball AS only have a very limited impact on trade and competition within the EEA due to the local character of the club. Its ticket sales, merchandising, sponsorship and advertising activities are primarily aimed at the local community and the county of Vestfold. Its activities on the market for players is also very limited and centred on Norway. Finally, Sandefjord Fotball AS does not have any direct influence on the commercialisation of TV rights, which are administered centrally by the Norwegian Football Association, and in any event only receives very limited income from them.

               (95)

               The Authority therefore concludes that any distortions of competition and trade caused by the aid measure are limited.

         3.6
         Balancing and conclusion

               (96)

               Based on the assessment set out above, the Authority has balanced the positive and negative effects of the notified measure. The Authority concludes that the distortions resulting from the aid measure do not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

         4.   Conclusion

               (97)

               Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the Authority has concluded that the transfer of land constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. The Authority has concluded that this aid is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The State aid granted in favour of Sandefjord Fotball AS is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement pursuant to Article 61(3)(c) thereof.
   Article 2
   This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway.
   Article 3
   Only the English language version of this decision is authentic.

      Done at Brussels, 23 September 2015.

            For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

         Sven Erik SVEDMAN

            President

         Helga JÓNSDÓTTIR

            College Member

      (1)  Further information on the beneficiary can be found in Decision No 444/14/COL.

      (2)  The Norwegian authorities have confirmed that the initial investment was NOK 110 million. However, the club subsequently invested another NOK 17 million in fixtures and equipment, mostly in the form of work performed by club members (‘dugnadsarbeid’).

      (3)  Authority guidelines on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities, adopted on 17 November 1999. Available at: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/state-aid-guidelines/

      (4)  The valuation report estimates the combined value of plots 152/96 and 152/97 at NOK 31 million. The NOK 15 million results from apportioning this estimate according to the respective size of the two plots.

      (5)  The final costs amounted to NOK 12 million, with the extra cost being covered by Pindsle Property AS.

      (6)  During winter, the Elite team trains on an artificial grass field, but uses the lockers and other inside space at the stadium.

      (7)  There are plans to install an artificial grass pitch to allow for an increased usage.

      (8)  Article 2 of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (OJ L 318, 17.11.2006, p. 17), incorporated at point 1a of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement.

      (9)  Judgment in Höfner and Elser v Macroton, C-41/90, EU:C:1991:161, paragraphs 21-22; judgment in Pavlov and Others, Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98 EU:C:2000:428; and judgment in Private Barnehagers Landsforbund v EFTA Surveillance Authority, E-5/07, EFTA Ct. Rep. 2008, p. 61, paragraph 78.

      (10)  Judgment in Ministero dell'Economica e delle Finanze v Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA, C-222/04, EU:C:2006:8, paragraph 108.

      (11)  Judgment in SFEI and Others, C-39/94, EU:C:1996:285, paragraphs 60-61.

      (12)  In this context, the Authority also refers to Section 2.2(c) of its Sale of Land Guidelines, which states that when carrying out a valuation, ‘…[o]bligations whose fulfilment would at least partly be in the buyer's own interest should be evaluated with that fact in mind.’

      (13)  I.e. the acquisition costs incurred by the public authority in question.

      (14)  Judgment in Italy v Commission, C-372/97, EU:C:2004:234, paragraph 44.

      (15)  Judgment in Philip Morris Holland BV v Commission, C-730/79, EU:C:1980:209, paragraphs 11-12; judgment in Fesil ASA and Finnfjord Smelteverk AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority, Joined Cases E-5/04, E-6/04, E-7/04, EFTA Ct. Rep. 2005, p. 117, paragraph 94 and judgment in Libert and others, Joined Cases C-197/11 and C-203/11, EU:C:2013:288, paragraphs 76-78.

      (16)  See also Decision No 225/15/COL of 10 June 2015 raising no objections to aid in the form of a transfer of land to Vålerenga Fotball, paragraph 31.

      (17)  The municipality of Sandefjord acquired the land that was later divided into plots 152/96 and 152/97 for NOK 3,7 million. The value of NOK 1,9 million results from apportioning this amount according to the respective size of the two plots.

      (18)  This is further shown by the absence of an independent expert valuation, which is required under Norwegian company law for transactions between companies in the same group.

      (19)  See also Decision No 225/15/COL of 10 June 2015 raising no objections to aid in the form of a transfer of land to Vålerenga Fotball, recital 65.

      (20)  See in particular the information provided in Document No 699518, page 29.


title: 2014/16/CFSP: Political and Security Committee Decision EUBAM Libya/1/2014 of 14 January 2014 on the establishment of the Committee of Contributors for the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya)

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 14/13

         POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUBAM LIBYA/1/2014
   of 14 January 2014
   on the establishment of the Committee of Contributors for the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya)
   (2014/16/CFSP)
   THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,
   Having regard to Council Decision 2013/233/CFSP of 22 May 2013 on the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya) (1), and in particular Article 10(3) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 10(3) of Decision 2013/233/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take relevant decisions on the establishment of a Committee of Contributors (CoC) for the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya).

               (2)

               The European Council Conclusions of Göteborg of 15 and 16 June 2001 established guiding principles and arrangements for third States' contributions to police missions. On 10 December 2002, the Council approved the document entitled ‘Consultations and Modalities for the Contribution of non-EU States to EU civilian crisis management operations’ which further developed the arrangements for the participation of third States in civilian crisis management operations, including the establishment of a CoC.

               (3)

               The CoC should be a forum for discussing all problems relating to EUBAM Libya management with the contributing third States. The PSC, which exercises the political control and strategic direction of EUBAM Libya, should take account of the views expressed by the CoC,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Establishment and terms of reference
   1.   A Committee of Contributors (CoC) for the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya) is hereby established.
   2.   The terms of reference of the CoC are laid down in the document entitled ‘Consultations and Modalities for the Contribution of non-EU States to EU civilian crisis management operations’.
   Article 2
   Composition
   1.   The CoC members shall be the following:

               —

               representatives of all Member States, and

               —

               representatives of third States participating in EUBAM Libya and providing contributions.

         2.   A representative of the Commission may also attend the CoC's meetings.
   Article 3
   Information from the Head of Mission
   The Head of Mission shall regularly transmit information to the CoC.
   Article 4
   Chair
   The CoC shall be chaired by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or by his or her representative.
   Article 5
   Meetings
   1.   The CoC shall be convened by the Chair on a regular basis. Where circumstances require, emergency meetings may be convened on the Chair's initiative, or at the request of a member.
   2.   The Chair shall circulate in advance a provisional agenda and documents relating to the meeting. The Chair shall be responsible for conveying the outcome of the CoC's discussions to the PSC.
   Article 6
   Confidentiality
   1.   In accordance with Council Decision 2013/488/EU of 23 September 2013 (2), the Council's security rules shall apply to the meetings and proceedings of the CoC. In particular, representatives in the CoC shall possess adequate security clearance.
   2.   The deliberations of the CoC shall be covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, except in so far as the CoC unanimously decides otherwise.
   Article 7
   Entry into force
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 14 January 2014.

            For the Political and Security Committee

            The Chairperson

         W. STEVENS

      (1)  OJ L 138, 24.5.2013, p. 15.

      (2)  Council Decision 2013/488/EU of 23 September 2013 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (OJ L 274, 15.10.2013, p. 1).


( UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION ) DECISION NO. 32 OF 27 OCTOBER 1960 CONCERNING THE ADOPTION OF FORM MODEL E44


title: Council Decision (EU) 2015/2025 of 26 October 2015 on the conclusion of the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Tunisia on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Tunisia in Union programmes

text:
               13.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 297/1

         COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2015/2025
   of 26 October 2015
   on the conclusion of the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Tunisia on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Tunisia in Union programmes
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 212, in conjunction with point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 218(6) and Article 218(7) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Having regard to the consent of the European Parliament,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               In accordance with Council Decision (EU) 2015/575 (1), the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part (2), on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Tunisia on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Tunisia in Union programmes (‘the Protocol’) was signed on behalf of the Union on 17 March 2015.

               (2)

               The objective of the Protocol is to lay down the financial and technical rules enabling the Republic of Tunisia to participate in certain Union programmes. The horizontal framework established by the Protocol constitutes an economic, financial and technical cooperation measure which allows for access to assistance, in particular financial assistance, to be provided by the Union pursuant to those Union programmes. That framework applies only to those Union programmes for which the relevant constitutive legal acts provide for the possibility of the participation of the Republic of Tunisia. The conclusion of the Protocol therefore does not entail the exercise of powers under the various sectoral policies pursued by the programmes, which are exercised when establishing the programmes.

               (3)

               The Protocol should be approved,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Tunisia on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Tunisia in Union programmes is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (3).
   Article 2
   The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 10 of the Protocol (4).
   Article 3
   The Commission is authorised to determine, on behalf of the Union, the specific terms and conditions applicable to the participation of the Republic of Tunisia in any particular Union programme, including the financial contribution to be paid. The Commission shall keep the relevant Council working party informed.
   Article 4
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 26 October 2015.

            For the Council

            The President

         F. MOGHERINI

      (1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/575 of 17 December 2014 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Tunisia on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Tunisia in Union programmes (OJ L 96, 11.4.2015, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ L 97, 30.3.1998, p. 2.

      (3)  The Protocol has been published in OJ L 96, 11.4.2015, p. 3 together with the decision on 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.


Avis juridique important

|

32003D0202

2003/202/CFSP: Council Decision 2003/202/CFSP of 18 March 2003 relating to the launch of the EU military operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Official Journal L 076 , 22/03/2003 P. 0043 - 0044

Council Decision 2003/202/CFSPof 18 March 2003relating to the launch of the EU military operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of MacedoniaTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 17(2) and Article 25 thereof,Having regard to the Joint Action of 27 January 2003/92/CFSP on the European Union force in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia(1), in particular Article 3 thereof,Whereas:(1) President Trajkovski and the Secretary-General/High Representative have exchanged letters and a further letter was received from President Trajkovski on 13 March, inviting the European Union to launch an operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.(2) The Council decided on 7 February 2003 to appoint the Operation Commander and the Force Commander and to designate the Operation Headquarters for the European Union force in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.(3) The Political and Security Committee (PSC) decided on 18 February 2003 to set up a Committee of Contributors for the operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.(4) The permanent arrangements on EU-NATO relations were completed and an Exchange of Letters took place with NATO on the release of NATO assets and capabilities for the EU military operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.(5) The Council approved on 18 March 2003 the Operation Plan, submitted by the PSC in the light of the associated military advice.(6) The North Atlantic Council decided to terminate its operation "Allied Harmony" in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia with effect from 31 March 2003.(7) The ongoing negotiations of the SOFA with the government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are expected to be completed before the NATO operation terminates.(8) In conformity 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. Denmark does not participate in the financing of the operation,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The EU military operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia shall be launched on 31 March 2003.Article 2The Operation Commander is hereby authorised with immediate effect to release the activation order (ACTORD) in order to commence the deployment of the forces, prior to transfer of authority following their arrival in theatre, and start execution of the mission.Article 3The anticipated duration of the EU operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is six months. The Political and Security Committee shall, based on EUMC advice, drawing upon the views of the Operation Commander, and taking into account the opinion of the Committee of Contributors, make this recommendation to the Council for the termination of the operation. This will follow an assessment of progress made towards the EU objectives.Article 4This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.Article 5This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.Done at Brussels, 18 March 2003.For the CouncilThe PresidentG. Papandreou(1) OJ L 34, 11.2.2003, p. 26.


title: Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1342 of 17 July 2017 amending and extending Decision 2013/233/CFSP on the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya)

text:
               18.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 185/60

         COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2017/1342
   of 17 July 2017
   amending and extending Decision 2013/233/CFSP on the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 22 May 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/233/CFSP (1) establishing the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya).

               (2)

               On 19 January 2016, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) agreed to use the extant EUBAM Libya shell to plan for a possible civilian Common Security and Defence Policy/Security Sector Reform engagement with the Libyan Government of National Accord upon its request, contributing to the efforts of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL), and on that basis agreed to prolong the mandate of EUBAM Libya for six months. Subsequently, on 15 February 2016, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/207 (2) extending EUBAM Libya until 21 August 2016.

               (3)

               On 4 August 2016, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/1339 (3) amending Decision 2013/233/CFSP and extending it until 21 August 2017.

               (4)

               The Malta Declaration by the members of the European Council on the external aspects of migration of 3 February 2017 notably emphasised that the efforts to stabilise Libya are now more important than ever and that the Union will do its utmost to contribute to that objective. In Libya, capacity building is key for the authorities to acquire control over the land and sea borders and to combat transit and smuggling activities.

               (5)

               In its conclusions on Libya of 6 February 2017, the Council notably reaffirmed its full support to UNSMIL and concluded that EUBAM Libya will continue engaging and assisting Libyan authorities in view of a possible future civilian mission, once conditions allow, in the field of police, rule of law and border management.

               (6)

               On 4 July 2017, the PSC agreed, based on the mission's strategic review, to extend the mandate of EUBAM Libya until 31 December 2018.

               (7)

               The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (the ‘HR’) should be allowed to release to Europol, Frontex, the United Nations and Interpol classified information generated for the purposes of EUBAM Libya, in accordance with Council Decision 2013/488/EU (4).

               (8)

               Decision 2013/233/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly.

               (9)

               EUBAM Libya will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Decision 2013/233/CFSP is amended as follows:

               (1)

               Article 2 is replaced by the following:
               ‘Article 2
               Objectives
               EUBAM Libya will assist in a comprehensive civilian security sector reform planning process, with a view to preparing for a possible civilian Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) mission.
               The objectives of EUBAM Libya are to engage and assist the Libyan authorities in the fields of border management, law enforcement and the broader criminal justice system.’.

               (2)

               In Article 3, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:
               ‘1.   In order to achieve the objectives set out in Article 2, EUBAM Libya shall:

                           (a)

                           inform EU planning for a possible civilian CSDP mission in the field of security sector reform, cooperating closely with, and contributing to, the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) efforts, liaising with the legitimate Libyan authorities and other relevant security interlocutors;

                           (b)

                           support the development of the broader border management framework, including providing capacity delivery to the Ministry of Interior coastal police (General Administration of Coastal Security), engaging the Libyan Coast Guard and enhancing contacts with legitimate Libyan authorities on the Southern borders;

                           (c)

                           support capacity building and strategic planning within the Ministry of Interior on law enforcement in Tripoli and development of coordination capacities among relevant Libyan authorities in fighting organised crime and terrorism;

                           (d)

                           support broader capacity building and strategic planning assistance to the Ministry of Justice, including establishing the Criminal Justice Reform Working Group and potential sub-groups.’.

               (3)

               In Article 5, paragraph 7 is replaced by the following:
               ‘7.   The Civilian Operation Commander, the Head of Union Delegation in Libya and the Head of Mission of EUBAM Libya shall consult each other as required. The European External Action Service Principal Advisor on Gender should also be consulted, where appropriate.’.

               (4)

               In Article 6, paragraph 7 is replaced by the following:
               ‘7.   The Head of Mission shall coordinate, as appropriate, with other Union actors on the ground. The Head of Mission shall, without prejudice to the chain of command, receive local political guidance from the Head of Union Delegation in Libya.’.

               (5)

               In Article 9, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:
               ‘1.   The PSC shall exercise, under the responsibility of the Council and of the HR, political control and strategic direction of EUBAM Libya. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions for that purpose in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 TEU. That authorisation shall include the powers to appoint a Head of Mission, upon a proposal from the HR, and to amend the planning documents. The powers of decision with respect to the objectives and termination of EUBAM Libya shall remain vested in the Council.’.

               (6)

               In Article 11, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:
               ‘4.   EUBAM Libya staff shall undergo mandatory security training before taking up their duties, in accordance with the planning documents. They shall also receive regular in-theatre refresher training organised by the Mission Security Officer.’.

               (7)

               In Article 13(1), the last paragraph is replaced by the following:
               ‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUBAM Libya for the period from 22 August 2016 to 30 November 2017 shall be EUR 17 000 000.’.

               (8)

               In Article 15, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:
               ‘4.   The HR shall be authorised to release to Europol and Frontex EU classified information generated for the purposes of EUBAM Libya, in accordance with Decision 2013/488/EU.’.

               (9)

               In Article 15, the following paragraphs are added:
               ‘5.   The HR shall be authorised to release to the UN EU classified information up to “RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED” level which are generated for the purposes of EUBAM Libya, in accordance with Decision 2013/488/EU.
               6.   The HR shall be authorised to release to INTERPOL EU classified information generated for the purposes of EUBAM Libya, in accordance with Decision 2013/488/EU. Pending the conclusion of an agreement between the Union and INTERPOL, EUBAM Libya may release such information to the National Central Bureaux of INTERPOL of the Member States, in accordance with arrangements to be concluded between the Civilian Operation Commander and the Head of the relevant National Central Bureau.
               7.   The HR shall be authorised to conclude the arrangements necessary to implement the provisions on information exchange in this Article.
               8.   The HR may delegate the authorisations to release information as well as the ability to conclude the arrangements referred to in this Article to persons placed under the HR's authority, to the Civilian Operation Commander and/or to the Head of Mission.’.

               (10)

               In Article 16, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:
               ‘It shall apply until 31 December 2018.’.

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

      Done at Brussels, 17 July 2017.

            For the Council

            The President

         F. MOGHERINI

      (1)  Council Decision 2013/233/CFSP of 22 May 2013 on the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya) (OJ L 138, 24.5.2013, p. 15).

      (2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/207 of 15 February 2016 amending Decision 2013/233/CFSP on the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya) (OJ L 39, 16.2.2016, p. 45).

      (3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1339 of 4 August 2016 amending and extending Decision 2013/233/CFSP on the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya) (OJ L 212, 5.8.2016, p. 111).

      (4)  Council Decision 2013/488/EU of 23 September 2013 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (OJ L 274, 15.10.2013, p. 1).


title: 2013/549/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 17 April 2013 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2011, Section VIII — European Ombudsman

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 308/133

      DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

   of 17 April 2013
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2011, Section VIII — European Ombudsman
   (2013/549/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 2011 (1),

               —

               having regard to the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2011 (COM(2012) 436 – C7-0231/2012) (2),

               —

               having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on implementation of the budget for the financial year 2011, together with the institutions’ replies (3),

               —

               having regard to the statement of assurance (4) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2011 pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

               having regard to Article 314(10) and Articles 317, 318 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), and in particular Articles 50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (6), and in particular Articles 164, 165 and 166 thereof,

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0094/2013),

               1.

               Grants the European Ombudsman discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2011;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

               3.

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

            The President

         Martin SCHULZ

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ L 68, 15.3.2011.

      (2)  OJ C 348, 14.11.2012, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ C 344, 12.11.2012, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ C 348, 14.11.2012, p. 130.

      (5)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

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

         RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

      of 17 April 2013
      with observations forming an integral part of the Decision on discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2011, Section VIII — European Ombudsman
      THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

                  —

                  having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 2011 (1),

                  —

                  having regard to the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2011 (COM(2012) 436 – C7-0231/2012) (2),

                  —

                  having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on implementation of the budget for the financial year 2011, together with the institutions’ replies (3),

                  —

                  having regard to the statement of assurance (4) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2011 pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

                  —

                  having regard to Article 314(10) and Articles 317, 318 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

                  —

                  having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5), and in particular Articles 50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,

                  —

                  having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (6), and in particular Articles 164, 165 and 166 thereof,

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0094/2013),

                  1.

                  Notes with satisfaction that in its 2011 annual report, the Court of Auditors observed that no significant weaknesses had been identified in respect to the audited topics related to the human resources and the procurement for the European Ombudsman (‘the Ombudsman’);

                  2.

                  Welcomes the fact that on the basis of its audit work, the Court of Auditors concluded that the payments as a whole for the year ended on 31 December 2011 for administrative and other expenditure of the institutions and bodies were free from material error;

                  3.

                  Stresses that the Ombudsman’s budget is purely administrative and amounted in 2011 to EUR 9 427 395, with EUR 7 318 795 being allocated to Title 1 (expenditure relating to persons working for the institution), EUR 1 469 200 attributed to Title 2 (buildings, equipment and miscellaneous operating expenditure) and EUR 639 400 for Title 3 (expenditure resulting from special functions carried out by the institution);

                  4.

                  Takes note that of the total appropriations, 92,54 % were committed (89,65 % in 2010) and 85,62 % paid (84,03 % in 2010) and welcomes the improvement of the utilisation rate; calls for further efforts to improve the utilisation rate and for the changes made to be monitored;

                  5.

                  Calls for an obligation to improve financial planning without delay so as to ensure more efficient budget implementation;

                  6.

                  Commends the Ombudsman’s Annual Management Plan for 2011 where key performance indicators are included to measure the office’s performance in achieving its objectives;

                  7.

                  Invites the Ombudsman to put the unused rate of the interpretation services requested during that year in the next annual activity report;

                  8.

                  Welcomes the internal auditor’s conclusions that the Ombudsman has implemented two of the three recommendations to help improve the Ombudsman’s office in its internal management and control procedures in the processing of payment requests; points out that an improvement as regards timely feedback on actual payments is still needed; calls for the third recommendation, covering more timely feedback on actual payments, to be implemented without delay;

                  9.

                  Calls for a sustainable increase of the percentage of decisions on admissibility taken within one month of receiving a complaint which attained a figure of 70 % in 2011; believes that the re-structuring of the Ombudsman’s office, put in place at the beginning of 2012, together with a more streamlined procedure of the Registry can contribute to a better performance of the Complaint Unit in the coming years;

                  10.

                  Notes with concern that the average length of inquiries continues to increase in 2011 with only 66 % of cases closed within 12 months and 80 % of cases closed within 18 months; calls for this rate to be substantially improved; calls on the Ombudsman to clarify what percentage of cases involve more than one round of inquiries and when there is a need for a second round of inquiries;

                  11.

                  Calls on the Ombudsman, with a view to reducing the length of procedures, to include an indication of the percentage of resources affecting the handling of complaints submitted by the public, and the measures he considers necessary in order to make services more rapid and effective, in particular through the reallocation of resources, in his annual report;

                  12.

                  Calls on the Ombudsman to set out the ways in which it addresses citizens of the Union and the amount of funding it draws from the budget to this end in its annual report;

                  13.

                  Calls on the Ombudsman’s office to include an exhaustive table of all the human resources at the Ombudsman’s disposal, broken down by category, grade, sex, participation in professional training and nationality in the next annual activity report and to provide the full set of documents required for previous years;

                  14.

                  Points out that the annual report on the activities of the Ombudsman in 2011 was adopted by the plenary in October 2012 and is satisfied with the observations made therein.

         (1)  OJ L 68, 15.3.2011.

         (2)  OJ C 348, 14.11.2012, p. 1.

         (3)  OJ C 344, 12.11.2012, p. 1.

         (4)  OJ C 348, 14.11.2012, p. 130.

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

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


title: Procedure with associated Committees — establishment of quorum (interpretation of Rules 47 and 149) European Parliament decision of 19 February 2009 on interpretation of Rules 47 and 149(4) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on the procedure with associated Committees and establishment of quorum

text:
               25.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               CE 76/93

         Thursday 19 February 2009Procedure with associated Committees — establishment of quorum (interpretation of Rules 47 and 149)
   P6_TA(2009)0080
   European Parliament decision of 19 February 2009 on interpretation of Rules 47 and 149(4) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on the procedure with associated Committees and establishment of quorum
   2010/C 76 E/18

      The European Parliament,
   having regard to the letters of 27 January and 13 February 2009 from the chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs,
   having regard to Rule 201 of its Rules of Procedure,

               1.

               Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 47:
               ‘For the purposes of examining international agreements under Rule 83, the procedure with associated committees set out in Rule 47 may not be applied in relation to the assent procedure under Rule 75.’

               2.

               Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 149(4):
               ‘Members who have asked for the quorum to be established must be present in the Chamber when the request is made.’

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission, for information.


Avis juridique important

|

41994D0282

94/282/EC, ECSC, Euratom: Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 27 April 1994 appointing a member of the Commission of the European Communities

Official Journal L 121 , 12/05/1994 P. 0040 - 0040

DECISION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES of 27 April 1994 appointing a member of the Commission of the European Communities (94/282/ECSC, EC, Euratom)THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER  STATES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and in particular Article 159 thereof,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and in particular Article 12 thereof,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community and in particular Article 128 thereof,  Having regard to the Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 21 December 1992 appointing members of the Commission of the European Communities (1),  Whereas Mr Abel Matutes Juan, who was appointed a member of the Commission by that Decision, resigned on 21 April 1994;  Whereas a new member should be appointed to replace Mr Matutes for the remainder of his term of office,  HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:   Sole Article  The following is hereby appointed a Member of the Commission of the European Communities for the period up to and including 6 January 1995: Mr Marcelino Oreja Aguirre.  Done at Brussels, 27 April 1994.  The President A. ZAPHIRIOU  (1) OJ No L 2, 6. 1. 1993, p. 5.


title: 2004/541/: 2004/541/EC:#Council Decision of 5 July 2004 on the three stakeholders’ representatives and their alternates to the Management Board of the European Network and Information Security Agency

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 240/6

      COUNCIL DECISION

   of 5 July 2004
   on the three stakeholders’ representatives and their alternates to the Management Board of the European Network and Information Security Agency
   (2004/541/EC)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 establishing a European Network and Information Security Agency (1), hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agency’, and in particular Article 6 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the Commission of 28 May 2004,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Article 6 of that Regulation states that the Management Board of the Agency, shall be composed of one representative of each Member State and three representatives of the Commission, as well as of three representatives, proposed by the Commission and appointed by the Council, without the right to vote, each of whom represents one of the following groups:

                           (a)

                           information and communication technologies industry;

                           (b)

                           consumer groups;

                           (c)

                           academic experts in network and information security.

               (2)

               The Commission has invited the Member States to proceed with the appointment of the Member State representatives on the Management Board, as well as an alternate who will represent the member in his or her absence.

               (3)

               To enable the Agency to start its work promptly, the Management Board of the Agency needs to be in a position to function as rapidly as possible,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Sole Article
   The list of members and their alternates representing the three stakeholders’ groups at the Management Board of the European Network and Information Security Agency is as follows:

               Members

               Alternates

               Information and communication technologies industry

               Mark MacGann

               Berit Svendsen

               Consumer groups

               Markus Bautsch

               Jim Murray

               Academic experts in network and information security

               Kai Rannenberg

               Niko Schlammberger

      Done at Brussels, 5 July 2004.

            For the Council

            The President

         G. ZALM

      (1)  OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 1.


title: Decision (EU) 2015/44 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2014 on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 13 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management (application EGF/2013/014 FR/Air France, from France)

text:
               14.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 8/18

         DECISION (EU) 2015/44 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
   of 17 December 2014
   on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 13 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management
   (application EGF/2013/014 FR/Air France, from France)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (1), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014-2020) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 (2),
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (3), and in particular Article 12 thereof,
   Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 2 December 2013 on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management (4), and in particular point 13 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.

               (2)

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

               (3)

               On 20 December 2013 France submitted an application to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Air France, and supplemented it by additional information up to 24 July 2014. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 25 937 813.

               (4)

               The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by France,

         HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 25 937 813 in commitment and payment appropriations.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Strasbourg, 17 December 2014.

            For the European Parliament

            The President

         M. SCHULZ

            For the Council

            The President

         B. DELLA VEDOVA

      (1)  OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

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

      (3)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884.

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


title: Decision (EU, Euratom) 2016/1460 of the European Parliament of 28 April 2016 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, Section III — Commission

text:
               14.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 246/25

         DECISION (EU, EURATOM) 2016/1460 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 28 April 2016
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, Section III — Commission
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014 (1),

               —

               having regard to the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2014 (COM(2015) 377 — C8-0199/2015) (2),

               —

               having regard to the Commission’s report on the follow-up to the discharge for the 2013 financial year (COM(2015) 505), and to the accompanying Commission staff working documents (SWD(2015) 194, SWD(2015) 195),

               —

               having regard to the Commission communication of 3 June 2015 entitled ‘Synthesis of the Commission’s management achievements in 2014’ (COM(2015) 279), and to the accompanying Annexes,

               —

               having regard to the Commission’s annual evaluation report on the Union’s finances based on the results achieved (COM(2015) 313) and to the accompanying Commission staff working documents (SWD(2015) 124, SWD(2015) 125),

               —

               having regard to the Commission’s annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2014 (COM(2015) 441), and to the accompanying Commission staff working document (SWD(2015) 170),

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ annual report on the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2014, together with the institutions’ replies (3), and to the Court of Auditors’ special reports,

               —

               having regard to the statement of assurance (4) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2014, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 12 February 2016 on discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2014 (05583/2016 — C8-0042/2016),

               —

               having regard to the communication from the Commission of 8 October 2015 to the European Parliament, the Council and the Court of Auditors on Protection of the EU budget to end-2014 (COM(2015) 503),

               —

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

               —

               having regard to Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,

               —

               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 (5) and in particular Articles 62, 164, 165 and 166 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Rule 93 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinions of the other committees concerned (A8-0140/2016),

               A.

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

               1.

               Grants the Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the resolution forming an integral part of the decisions on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, Section III — Commission and executive agencies, and in its resolution of 28 April 2016 on the Court of Auditors’ special reports in the context of the Commission discharge for the financial year 2014 (6);

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this decision, and the resolution forming an integral part of it, to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the European Investment Bank, and to the national parliaments and the national and regional audit institutions of the Member States, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

            The President

         Martin SCHULZ

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ L 51, 20.2.2014.

      (2)  OJ C 377, 13.11.2015, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ C 373, 10.11.2015, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ C 377, 13.11.2015, p. 146.

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

      (6)  Texts adopted of that date, P8_TA(2016)0148 (see page 91 of this Official Journal).