Avis juridique important

|

31978D0843

78/843/Euratom: Council Decision of 10 October 1978 amending Decision 74/642/Euratom adopting a research and training programme for the European Atomic Energy Community on plutonium recycling in light-water reactors (indirect nuclear projects)

Official Journal L 291 , 17/10/1978 P. 0017 - 0017

****( 1 ) OJ NO C 182 , 31 . 7 . 1978 , P . 46 .  ( 2 ) OPINION DELIVERED ON 12 AND 13 JULY 1978 ( NOT YET PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL ).  ( 3 ) OJ NO L 349 , 28 . 12 . 1974 , P . 61 .    COUNCIL DECISION   OF 10 OCTOBER 1978   AMENDING DECISION 74/642/EURATOM ADOPTING A RESEARCH AND TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY ON PLUTONIUM RECYCLING IN LIGHT-WATER REACTORS ( INDIRECT NUCLEAR PROJECTS )  ( 78/843/EURATOM )   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN   COMMUNITIES ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY , AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 7 THEREOF ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMISSION SUBMITTED AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  ( 1 ),   HAVING REGARD TO THE OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE ( 2 ),   WHEREAS THE COUNCIL , BY DECISION 74/642/EURATOM ( 3 ), ADOPTED A RESEARCH AND TRAINING PROGRAMME FOR THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY ON PLUTONIUM RECYCLING IN LIGHT-WATER REACTORS ( INDIRECT NUCLEAR PROJECTS );   WHEREAS , IN VIEW OF THE CURRENT STAGE REACHED IN THE WORK PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE PROGRAMME , AN EXTENSION OF THE PROGRAMME BY ONE YEAR WOULD ENABLE THE BEST ADVANTAGE TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE EFFORTS BEING MADE ;   WHEREAS THE ABOVEMENTIONED DECISION SHOULD THEREFORE BE AMENDED ,   HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :   ARTICLE 1   ARTICLE 1 OF DECISION 74/642/EURATOM SHALL BE REPLACED BY THE FOLLOWING :   ' ARTICLE 1   A RESEARCH AND TRAINING PROGRAMME ON PLUTONIUM RECYCLING IN LIGHT-WATER REACTORS , AS SET OUT IN THE ANNEX HERETO , SHALL BE ADOPTED FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS FROM 1 JANUARY 1975 . '   ARTICLE 2   ARTICLE 2 OF DECISION 74/642/EURATOM SHALL BE REPLACED BY THE FOLLOWING :   ' ARTICLE 2   THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF THE EXPENDITURE COMMITMENTS AND THE STAFF REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTING THIS PROGRAMME SHALL BE FIXED AT 4.75 MILLION EUROPEAN UNITS OF ACCOUNT AND THREE PERSONS RESPECTIVELY , THE EUROPEAN UNIT OF ACCOUNT BEING AS DEFINED IN THE FINANCIAL REGULATION APPLICABLE TO THE GENERAL BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES . '   DONE AT LUXEMBOURG , 10 OCTOBER 1978 .   FOR THE COUNCIL   THE PRESIDENT   R . OFFERGELD


Avis juridique important

|

32001D0248

2001/248/EC: Council Decision of 19 March 2001 concerning the conclusion of the framework Agreement for Trade and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and the Republic of Korea, on the other hand of the Framework Agreement for Trade and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and the Republic of Korea, on the other hand

Official Journal L 090 , 30/03/2001 P. 0045 - 0045

Council Decisionof 19 March 2001concerning the conclusion of the framework Agreement for Trade and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and the Republic of Korea, on the other hand(2001/248/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 57(2), Article 71, Article 80(2), and Articles 133 and 308 thereof, in conjunction with the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),Having consulted the Economic and Social Committee,Whereas:The Agreement referred to in this Decision should be approved,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The framework Agreement for Trade and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one hand, and the Republic of Korea, of the other hand, is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.Article 21. A representative of the Commission, assisted by representatives of the Member States, shall represent the Community in the Joint Committee provided for in Article 19(3) of the framework Agreement.2. The position to be taken by the Community within the Joint Committee when it makes recommendations shall be laid down by the Council, on a proposal by the Commission, in accordance with the corresponding provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community.Article 3The President of the Council shall, on behalf the Community, give the notification provided for in Article 21 of the framework Agreement.Article 4This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.Done at Brussels, 19 March 2001.For the CouncilThe PresidentA. Lindh(1) OJ C 188, 28.6.1996, p. 11.(2) OJ C 104, 14.4.1999, p. 59.


title: 2005/223/EC: Commission Decision of 25 February 2005 amending Decision 94/140/EC setting up an advisory committee for the coordination of fraud prevention

text:
               17.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 71/67

      COMMISSION DECISION

   of 25 February 2005
   amending Decision 94/140/EC setting up an advisory committee for the coordination of fraud prevention
   (2005/223/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               By Commission Decision 94/140/EC (1), the Commission set up an advisory committee for the coordination of fraud prevention (the committee) attached to it and responsible for advising it on any matter relating to the prevention and prosecution of fraud and irregularities and to cooperation between Member States or between Member States and the Commission to counter fraud.

               (2)

               Since the committee was set up, the Community provisions for the protection of the financial interests of the Community have been substantially developed and strengthened, in particular by new legislative measures and organisational changes in the Commission.

               (3)

               General rules defining irregularities and laying down related measures and penalties in the field of the protection of the financial interests of the Community were adopted in Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (2), and specific rules applicable to all areas of Community activity concerning on-the-spot administrative checks and inspections carried out by the Commission were adopted in Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 (3).

               (4)

               Article 280, inserted in the EC Treaty by the Treaty of Amsterdam, provided a new institutional framework for the fight against fraud; it provides in particular for powers to be shared between the Community and the Member States and for close and regular cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States and the Commission for the protection of the financial interests of the Community.

               (5)

               Commission Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom (4), established the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) as the service responsible for administrative anti-fraud investigations, extending to all the activities linked with the protection of Community interests from irregular acts likely to lead to administrative or criminal proceedings.

               (6)

               Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (6) determined the legal framework for OLAF’s activities, making it responsible in particular for ensuring cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States and the Commission for the coordination of action to protect the financial interests of the Community against fraud.

               (7)

               In the field of protecting the euro against counterfeiting, the Commission has been given specific responsibility for ensuring the overall protection of the single currency by means of consultations within an advisory committee under Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 (7) in the context of close and regular cooperation between the national authorities and the Commission itself. Council Decision 2001/923/EC (8) gave the Commission responsibility for managing and implementing a Community exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the Pericles programme) in cooperation with the Member States.

               (8)

               Given these new dimensions in Community legislation and the committee’s horizontal function, the committee’s advisory powers should be adapted, as should the representation on it of the Member States, whose representatives must be able to be assisted by the competent national authorities. In the interests of flexibility there should also be provision for the possibility of setting up sectoral working parties.

               (9)

               Decision 94/140/EC must be amended accordingly,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   Decision 94/140/EC is amended as follows:

               1.

               Article 2(1) is replaced by the following:
               ‘1.   The Commission may consult the committee on any matter relating to the prevention and prosecution of fraud and all other illegal activities adversely affecting the financial interests of the Community, and on any matter relating to cooperation between Member States or between Member States and the Commission to protect the financial interests of the Community, in order to organise more effectively close and regular cooperation between the competent authorities to counter fraud.
               The Commission may consult the committee on any matter relating to the protection of the financial interests of the Community and the protection of euro notes and coins against counterfeiting.
               The Commission may also consult the committee on any matter relating to the legal protection of the financial interests of the Community, in particular with regard to the police and judicial aspects of developing, and cooperating on, the fight against fraud.’

               2.

               Article 3 is amended as follows:

                           (a)

                           Article 3(1) is replaced by the following:
                           ‘1.   The committee shall consist of two representatives for each Member State; they may be assisted by two representatives of the competent national authorities.’

                           (b)

                           Article 3(3) is replaced by the following:
                           ‘3.   In agreement with the Commission, working parties may be set up by the committee to facilitate its work on sectoral matters within its remit.
                           The Commission shall provide secretarial services for the committee.’

               3.

               In Article 6 the reference to Article 214 of the Treaty is replaced by a reference to Article 287 of the Treaty.

         Article 2
   This Decision shall take effect from the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 25 February 2005.

            For the Commission

         Siim KALLAS

            Vice-President

      (1)  OJ L 61, 4.3.1994, p. 27.

      (2)  OJ L 312, 23.12.1995, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p. 2.

      (4)  OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 20.

      (5)  OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 1.

      (6)  OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 8.

      (7)  OJ L 181, 4.7.2001, p. 6.

      (8)  OJ L 339, 21.12.2001, p. 50.


Avis juridique important

|

32002D1009(01)

Council Decision of 30 September 2002 appointing members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Vocational Training

Official Journal C 243 , 09/10/2002 P. 0001 - 0003

Council Decisionof 30 September 2002appointing members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Vocational Training(2002/C 243/01)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to Council Decision of 18 December 1963 laying down the Rules of the Advisory Committee on Vocational Training(1),Having regard to the lists of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,Whereas:(1) It is necessary to take account in particular of the fourth principle set out in the Decision laying down general principles for implementing a common vocational training policy, adopted by the Council on 2 April 1963.(2) By its Decision of 5 June 2000(2), the Council appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Vocational Training for the period from 5 June 2000 to 4 June 2002.(3) The members and alternate members of that Committee should be appointed for a two-year period,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The following are hereby appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Vocational Training for the period from 30 September 2002 to 29 September 2004:I. GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES>TABLE>II. PREPRESENTATIVES OF WORKERS' ORGANISATIONS>TABLE>III. REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYERS' ORGANISATIONS>TABLE>Article 2The Council will appoint the members who have not yet been nominated by Sweden at at later date.Article 3This Decision shall be published, for information, in the Official Journal of the European Communities.Done at Brussels on 30 September 2002.For the CouncilThe PresidentB. Bendtsen(1) OJ 90, 30.12.1963, p. 3090/63, as amended by the Decision of 9 April 1968 (OJ L 91, 12.4.1968, p. 26).(2) OJ C 165, 15.6.2000, p. 1.


title: 2005/356/EC: Council Decision of 22 December 2004 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Principality of Andorra providing for measures equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 2003/48/EC on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments

text:
               4.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 114/9

      COUNCIL DECISION

   of 22 December 2004
   on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Principality of Andorra providing for measures equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 2003/48/EC on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments
   (2005/356/EC)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 94 in conjunction with the first subparagraph of paragraph 2, the first subparagraph of paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of Article 300 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal of the Commission,
   Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament (1),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 16 October 2001 the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate with the Principality of Andorra an appropriate agreement for securing the adoption by the Principality of measures equivalent to those to be applied within the Community to ensure effective taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments.

               (2)

               The text of the Agreement which is the result of the negotiations duly reflects the negotiating directives issued by the Council. It is accompanied by a Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Principality of Andorra of the other part, the text of which is attached to Council Decision 2004/828/EC (2).

               (3)

               The application of the provisions of Directive 2003/48/EC (3) depends on the application by the Principality of Andorra of measures equivalent to those contained in that Directive, in accordance with an agreement concluded by the Principality of Andorra with the European Community.

               (4)

               In accordance with Decision 2004/828/EC, and subject to the adoption at a later date of a Decision on the conclusion of the Agreement, the Agreement was signed on behalf of the European Community on 15 November 2004.

               (5)

               The Agreement should be approved.

               (6)

               It is necessary to provide for a simple and rapid procedure for possible adaptations of Annexes I and II to the Agreement,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The Agreement between the European Community and the Principality of Andorra providing for measures equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 2003/48/EC on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments is hereby approved on behalf of the European Community.
   The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision (4).
   Article 2
   The Commission is hereby authorised to approve, on behalf of the Community, the amendments to the Annexes to the Agreement which are required to ensure that they correspond to the information relating to the competent authorities notified under Article 5(a) of Directive 2003/48/EC and to the information in the Annex thereto.
   Article 3
   The President of the Council shall give the notification provided for in the first paragraph of Article 15 of the Agreement on behalf of the Community (5).
   Article 4
   This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 22 December 2004.

            For the Council

            The President

         C. VEERMAN

      (1)  Opinion of 17 November 2004 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

      (2)  OJ L 359, 4.12.2004, p. 32.

      (3)  OJ L 157, 26.6.2003, p. 38. Directive as last amended by Directive 2004/66/EC (OJ L 168, 1.5.2004, p. 35).

      (4)  OJ L 359, 4.12.2004, p. 33.

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


64/105/EEC: Decision of 3 February 1964 of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on import duties on unroasted coffee, not freed of caffeine, falling within heading 09.01 A I A


title: Council Decision of  9 March 2006  appointing members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture

text:
               21.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/6

      COUNCIL DECISION

   of 9 March 2006
   appointing members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture
   (2006/C 68/03)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Council Decision 85/385/EEC of 10 June 1985 setting up an Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture (1), and in particular Articles 3 and 4 thereof,
   Having regard to the Act of Accession of 2003, and in particular Article 52(1) thereof,
   Whereas, according to Article 3 of the above Decision, the Committee consists of three experts from each Member State and one alternate for each of those experts; whereas, according to Article 4 of the same Decision, the term of office of these experts and alternates is three years;
   Whereas by its Decisions of 23 October 2001 (2) and 1 March 2002 (3) the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture for the period until 22 October 2004;
   Whereas the Governments of 22 Member States have each submitted a list of candidates with a view to the appointment, replacement or renewal of the term of office of members and alternate members,
   HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Sole Article
   The following are hereby appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture for a period of three years as from the date of this Decision:
   A.   Experts from the practising profession

               Country

               Members

               Alternates

               Belgium

               Mr Jos LEYSSENS

               Mr Michel DE KEYSER

               Czech Republic

               Mr Petr BÍLEK

               Mr Michal KOHOUT

               Germany

               Prof. Ralf NIEBERGALL

               Mr Wolfgang SCHNEIDER

               Estonia

               Mr Tõnu LAIGU

               Mr Veljo KAASIK

               Greece

               Mr Dionyssios DIGENIS

               Mr Sotiris PAPADOPOULOS

               Spain

               Don Jordi QUEROL i PIERA

               Ireland

               Mr John E. O'REILLY

               Mr Eoin O'COFAIGH

               Italy

               Mr Leopoldo FREYRIE

               Mr Pierluigi MISSIO

               Cyprus

               Mr Vasos CHRISTOU

               Mr Sokratis STRATIS

               Latvia

               Mr Sergejs ŅIKIFOROVS

               mgr. arch. Ms Dace KALVĀNE

               Lithuania

               Mr Kęstutis PEMPĖ

               Mr Linas TULEIKIS

               Hungary

               Dr. Ferenc MAKOVÉNYI

               Mr Sandor PÁLFI

               Malta

               Mr David PACE

               Mr David FELICE

               Netherlands

               Ms S.D. NIEUWENDIJK

               Mr R. van der SLUYS

               Austria

               Mr Alexander RUNSER

               Mr Johannes Simon STEINER

               Poland

               Mr Tomasz TACZEWSKI

               Mr Stanislaw DEŃKO

               Slovenia

               Dr. Viktor PUST

               Mr Vladimir KRAJCAR

               Slovakia

               Mr Branislav SOMORA

               Ms Mária LICHVÁROVÁ

               Finland

               Mr Veikko VASKO

               Mr Pekka SALMINEN

               Sweden

               Mr Anders BODIN

               Ms Katarina NILSSON

               United Kingdom

               Mr R. C. SHRIMPLIN

               Mr Ken TAYLOR

         B.   Experts from universities or equivalent teaching institutions in the field of architecture

               Country

               Members

               Alternates

               Belgium

               Mr Yvon CLOSSEN

               Mr Johan RUTGEERTS

               Czech Republic

               Mr Ladislav LÁBUS

               Mr Alois NOVÝ

               Germany

               Prof. H. BÜHLER

               Prof. Rudolf SCHÄFER

               Estonia

               Dr. Jüri SOOLEP

               Mr Andres ALVER

               Greece

               Mr Constantin-Victor SPYRIDONIDIS

               Ireland

               Mr James HORAN

               Prof. Loughlin KEALY

               Italy

               Prof. Mario DOCCI

               Prof. Piero ALBISINNI

               Cyprus

               Mr Christos CHATZICHRISTOS

               Mr Mario FOKAS

               Latvia

               Dr. habil., prof. Mr Jānis KRASTIŅŠ

               Dr. arh., prof. Mr Jānis BRIŅĶIS

               Lithuania

               Mr Gintaras ČAIKAUSKAS

               Prof. Juozas PALAIMA

               Hungary

               Prof. Balázs BALOGH

               Prof. Bálint BACHMANN

               Malta

               Mr Joseph FALZON

               Mr Dennis DE LUCCA

               Netherlands

               Prof. L. VAN DUIN

               Mr Aart OXENAAR

               Austria

               Mr Christian KÜHN

               Prof. Wolf D. PRIX

               Poland

               Prof. Stefan WRONA

               Prof. Andrzej KADŁUCZKA

               Slovenia

               Mr Peter GABRIJELČIČ

               Dr. Tadeja ZUPANČIČ STROJAN

               Slovakia

               Prof. Julián KEPPL

               L'ubica VITKOVÁ

               Finland

               Prof. Juhani KATAINEN

               Prof. Simo PAAVILAINEN

               Sweden

               Mr Finn WERNE

               Mr Hasse ERNEFELDT

               United Kingdom

               Prof. James A. LOW

               Mr Lawrence JOHNSTON

         C.   Experts from the competent authorities of the Member States

               Country

               Members

               Alternates

               Belgium

               Mr Olivier REMACLE

               Mr Benjamin HOUET

               Czech Republic

               Ms Zuzana BĚHOUNKOVÁ

               Ms Lenka RUDÁ

               Germany

               Ms Vera STAHL

               Mr Michael ELZER

               Estonia

               Mr Priit ENOK

               Mr Martin LEPP

               Greece

               Mr Nikolaos KATSIMBINIS

               Ms Margarita KARAVASSILI

               Ireland

               Mr Michael McCARTHY

               Ms Nancy CALLAGHAN

               Italy

               Dott.ssa Teresa CUOMO

               Cyprus

               Ms Lilia PAPADOURY

               Ms Antroula FLORIDOU

               Latvia

               Mr Dainis OZOLIŅŠ

               Ms Gunta ARĀJA

               Lithuania

               Mr Gintautas TIŠKUS

               Mr Gediminas BUDREIKA

               Hungary

               Ms Mária BÁNÓNÉ NYÉKHELYI

               Ms Zsuzsanna SZABÓ

               Malta

               Mr Raymond FARRUGIA

               Mr Carmel MIFSUD BORG

               Netherlands

               Mr M. VAN HECK

               Portugal

               Mr António Vasco MASSAPINA

               Mr Fernando Rocha PINTO

               Austria

               Mr Wolfgang LENTSCH

               Ms Evelyn NOWOTNY

               Poland

               Mr Kazimierz Andrzej KOBYLECKI

               Ms Monika MAJEWSKA

               Slovenia

               Ms Pavli KOC

               Mr Saša GALONJA

               Slovakia

               Mrs Milan MARHAVÝ

               Ms Viktória KOSÁROVÁ

               Finland

               Ms Anita LEHIKOINEN

               Sweden

               Ms Nina KOWALEWSKA

               Ms Karin DAHL BERGENDORFF

               United Kingdom

               Dr Jon LEVETT

               Mr David PETHERICK

      Done at Brussels, 9 March 2006.

            For the Council

            The President

         J. PRÖLL

      (1)  OJ L 223, 21.8.1985, p. 26.

      (2)  OJ C 320, 15.11.2001, p. 2.

      (3)  OJ C 72, 21.3.2002, p. 1.


Avis juridique important

|

31999D0735

1999/735/EC: Council Decision of 8 November 1999 appointing a member of the Committee of the Regions

Official Journal L 296 , 17/11/1999 P. 0022 - 0022

COUNCIL DECISIONof 8 November 1999appointing a member of the Committee of the Regions(1999/735/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,Having regard to the Council Decision of 26 January 1998(1) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions,Whereas a seat as a member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Antonio La Forgia, notified to the Council on 25 May 1999;Having regard to the proposal from the Italian Government,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Sole ArticleMr Vasco Errani is hereby appointed a member of the Committee of the Regions in place of Mr Antonio La Forgia for the remainder of his term of office, which runs until 25 January 2002.Done at Brussels, 8 November 1999.For the CouncilThe PresidentS. NIINISTÖ(1) OJ L 28, 4.2.1998, p. 19.


title: 2002/262/: EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 262/02/COL of  18 December 2002  amending for the thirty-fifth time the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid by introducing new guidelines relating to the methodology for analysing state aid linked to stranded costs

text:
               10.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 123/1

      EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

   No 262/02/COL
   of 18 December 2002
   amending for the thirty-fifth time the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid by introducing new guidelines relating to the methodology for analysing state aid linked to stranded costs
   THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,
   HAVING REGARD TO the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), in particular to Articles 61 to 63 thereof,
   HAVING REGARD TO the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (2), in particular to Article 24 and Article 1 of Protocol 3 thereof,
   WHEREAS under Article 24 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall give effect to the provisions of the EEA Agreement concerning State aid,
   WHEREAS under Article 5(2)(b) of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall issue notices or guidelines on matters dealt with in the EEA Agreement, if that Agreement or the Surveillance and Court Agreement expressly so provides or if the EFTA Surveillance Authority considers it necessary,
   RECALLING the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid (3) adopted on 19 January 1994 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (4),
   WHEREAS, on 26 July 2001, the European Commission adopted a Communication setting out the principles on which it will analyse State aid linked to stranded costs in the electricity sector (5),
   WHEREAS this Communication is also of relevance for the European Economic Area,
   WHEREAS a uniform application of the EEA State aid rules is to be ensured throughout the European Economic Area,
   WHEREAS, according to point II under the heading ‘GENERAL’ at the end of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement, the EFTA Surveillance Authority is to adopt, after consultation with the Commission, acts corresponding to those adopted by the EC Commission, in order to maintain equal conditions of competition,
   HAVING consulted the European Commission,
   RECALLING that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has consulted the EFTA States in a multilateral meeting on 19 October 2001 on the subject,
   HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

               1.

               The State Aid Guidelines shall be amended by adding a new Chapter 21; Methodology for analysing State aid linked to stranded costs. The new chapter is contained in Annex I to this Decision.

               2.

               The EFTA States shall be informed by means of a letter, including a copy of the Decision and Annex I. The EFTA States shall be requested to signify their agreement to the proposed appropriate measure (reporting obligation in point 21.4.(5)(c)) as set out in Annex I within 20 working days from the date on which the letter is notified to them.

               3.

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

               4.

               The Decision, including Annex I, shall be published in the EEA Section of and the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities after the EFTA States have signified their agreement to the appropriate measures.

               5.

               The Decision shall be authentic in the English language.

      Done at Brussels, 18 December 2002.

            For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

         Einar M. BULL

            President

         Hannes HAFSTEIN

            College Member

      (1)  Hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement.

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

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

      (4)  Initially published in OJ L 231, 3.9.1994, EEA Supplement No 32.

      (5)  The Communication is available on the Commission’s website:
   http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/legislation/stranded_costs/en.pdf

      ANNEX

         ‘21.   METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSING STATE AID LINKED TO STRANDED COSTS
         21.1.   INTRODUCTION

                     (1)

                     European Parliament and Council Directive 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (1) (hereinafter referred to as “the Directive” or “Directive 96/92/EC”) laid down the principles for opening up the European electricity industry to competition.

                     (2)

                     The abovementioned Directive was incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 168/1999 (2).

                     (3)

                     The gradual transition from a situation of largely restricted competition to one of genuine competition at EEA level must take place under acceptable economic conditions that take account of the specific characteristics of the electricity industry. This concern is already reflected to a very large extent in the text of the Directive itself.

                     (4)

                     In order to enable them to cope with a number of very specific situations, Article 24 of the Directive allows EFTA States to defer application of some of the provisions of the Directive for a transitional period. State aid mechanisms designed to allow electricity undertakings to adapt to the introduction of competition under favourable conditions do not fall within the scope of the derogations provided for in Article 24.

                     (5)

                     The purpose of these Guidelines is to clarify how the Authority intends, in the light of Directive 96/92/EC, to apply the rules of the EEA Agreement to State aid of this kind. These Guidelines does not prejudice the rules on State aid that result from other relevant frameworks, guidelines and notices. In particular, the Authority will continue to authorize regional aid and environmental aid in accordance with the respective guidelines. Similarly, aid that could not be authorized under Article 61 of the EEA Agreement will, where appropriate, be open to examination in the light of Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement.

               21.2.   TRANSITIONAL MEASURES AND STATE AID

                     (1)

                     Article 24 of the Directive 96/92/EC, as adapted by Article 1(i) of Decision No 168/1999 of the EEA Joint Committee of 26 November 1999, stipulates that transitional measures derogating temporarily from the Directive may be authorized by the Authority (3):
                     “Those EFTA States in which commitments or guarantees of operation given before the entry into force of Decision No 168/1999 of the EEA Joint Committee of 26 November 1999 may not be honoured on account of the provisions of that Decision, may apply for a transitional regime pursuant to Article 24(1) and (2). Applications for a transitional period must be notified to the EFTA Surveillance Authority no later than six months after the entry into force of Decision No 168/1999 of the EEA Joint Committee of 26 November 1999”.

                     (2)

                     Given the present state of play, the Authority considers that decisions taken by it pursuant to Article 24 can create a transitional regime only where it has previously found that the measures notified by the EFTA Member States pursuant to that Article are incompatible with the Directive’s provisions set out in Chapters IV, V, VI and VII. Under Article 24 of the Directive, the Authority alone may authorize derogations from those provisions.

                     (3)

                     Accordingly, a system of levies introduced by an EFTA State via a fund to offset the costs of commitments or guarantees that might not be honoured on account of the application of Decision No 168/1999 does not constitute a measure that could benefit from a Authority decision granting a transitional regime under Article 24 of Directive 96/92/EC; such a measure does not require a derogation from the relevant chapters of the Directive. It may, on the other hand, constitute State aid, which is covered by Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice.

                     (4)

                     The purpose of these Guidelines is to show how the Authority intends to apply the EEA Agreement rules on State aid in the case of aid measures designed to compensate for the cost of commitments or guarantees that it might no longer be possible to honour on account of Decision 168/1999. In particular, the Guidelines do not apply to measures that could not be classified as State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

               21.3.   DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE STRANDED COSTS

                     (1)

                     Such commitments or guarantees of operation are normally referred to as “stranded costs”. They may, in practice, take a variety of forms: long-term purchase contracts, investments undertaken with an implicit or explicit guarantee of sale, investments undertaken outside the scope of normal activity, etc. In order to rank as eligible stranded costs that could be recognized by the Authority, such commitments or guarantees must satisfy the following criteria:

                                 (a)

                                 The “commitments or guarantees of operation” that could give rise to stranded costs must predate 27 November 1999, the date of entry into force of Decision No 168/1999.

                                 (b)

                                 The existence and validity of such commitments or guarantees will be substantiated in the light of the underlying legal and contractual provisions and of the legislative context in which they were made.

                                 (c)

                                 Such commitments or guarantees of operation must run the risk of not being honoured on account of the provisions of Directive 96/92/EC. In order to qualify as stranded costs, commitments or guarantees must consequently become non-economical on account of the effects of the Directive and must significantly affect the competitiveness of the undertaking concerned. Among other things, this must result in that undertaking’s making accounting entries (e.g. provisions) designed to reflect the foreseeable impact of the commitment or guarantee.
                                 Especially where, as a result of the commitments or guarantees in question, the viability of the undertakings might be jeopardised in the absence of aid or any transitional measures, the commitments or guarantees are deemed to meet the requirements laid down in the preceding paragraph.
                                 The effect of such commitments or guarantees on the competitiveness or viability of the undertakings concerned will be assessed at the consolidated level. For commitments or guarantees to constitute stranded costs, it must be possible to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the entry into force of Decision 168/1999 and the difficulty that the undertakings concerned have in honouring or securing compliance with such commitments or guarantees. In order to establish such cause-and-effect relationship, the Authority will take into account any fall in electricity prices or market share losses suffered by the undertakings concerned. Commitments or guarantees that could not have been honoured irrespective of the entry into force of Decision 168/1999 do not constitute stranded costs.

                                 (d)

                                 Such commitments or guarantees must be irrevocable. Should an undertaking have the possibility of revoking against payment, or modifying, such commitments or guarantees, account will have to be taken of this fact in calculating the eligible stranded costs.

                                 (e)

                                 Commitments or guarantees linking enterprises belonging to one and the same group cannot, as a rule, qualify as stranded costs.

                                 (f)

                                 Stranded costs are economic costs that must correspond to the actual sums invested, paid or payable by virtue of the commitments or guarantees from which they result: flat-rate calculations cannot, therefore, be accepted unless it can be shown that they reflect economic realities.

                                 (g)

                                 Stranded costs must be net of the income, profits or added value associated with the commitments or guarantees from which they arise.

                                 (h)

                                 Stranded costs must be valued net of any aid paid or payable in respect of the assets to which they relate. In particular, where a commitment or a guarantee of operation corresponds to an investment, which is the subject of State aid, the value of the aid must be deducted from any stranded costs resulting from the commitment or guarantee.

                                 (i)

                                 Wherever stranded costs arise from commitments or guarantees that are difficult to honour on account of Decision 168/1999, calculation of the eligible stranded costs will take account of the actual change over time in the economic and competitive conditions prevailing on the national and common electricity markets. In particular, where commitments or guarantees could constitute stranded costs because of the foreseeable fall in electricity prices, calculation of the stranded costs must take account of actual movements in electricity prices.

                                 (j)

                                 Costs depreciated before the transposition of Decision 168/1999 into national law cannot give rise to stranded costs. However, provisions or depreciation of assets entered in the balance sheet of the undertakings concerned with the explicit aim of taking account of the foreseeable effects of the Decision may correspond to stranded costs.

                                 (k)

                                 Eligible stranded costs may not exceed the minimum level necessary to allow the undertakings concerned to continue to honour or secure compliance with the commitments or guarantees called into question by Decision 168/1999 (4). Consequently, they will have to be calculated by taking into account the most economic solution (in the absence of any aid) from the point of view of the undertakings concerned. This may involve, among other things, the termination of commitments or guarantees giving rise to stranded costs or the disposal of all or some of the assets giving rise to stranded costs (where this does not run counter to the very principles of the commitments or guarantees themselves).

                                 (l)

                                 Costs which some undertakings may have to bear after the time horizon indicated in Article 26 of the Directive (26 November 2006) cannot, as a rule, constitute eligible stranded costs within the meaning of this methodology (5). However, if it appears necessary, the Authority may in due course take into account such commitments or guarantees and, if appropriate, consider them as eligible stranded costs during the next stage of opening up the common electricity market.

                                 (m)

                                 For EFTA States which open up their markets more quickly than is required by the EEA Joint Committee Decision No 168/1999, the Authority may agree to regard as eligible stranded costs under this methodology costs which some undertakings may have to bear after the time horizon indicated in Article 26 of the Directive if such costs result from commitments or guarantees which meet the criteria under points (a) to (l) in section 21.3 above and provided that they are limited to a period not extending beyond 31 December 2010.

               21.4.   STRANDED COSTS AND STATE AID

                     (1)

                     The general principle laid down in Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement is that State aid is prohibited. However, paragraphs 2 and 3 of that Article provide for a number of derogations from this general rule. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement, “undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-enhancing monopoly” are subject to the rules contained in the EEA Agreement, in particular the rules on competition, in so far as the application of those rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. In any event, trade must not be affected to an extent contrary to the interests of the Contracting Parties.

                     (2)

                     The State aid corresponding to the eligible stranded costs defined in these Guidelines is designed to facilitate the transition for electricity undertakings to a competitive electricity market. The Authority may take a favourable view of such aid to the extent that the distortion of competition is counterbalanced by the contribution made by the aid to the attainment of a common objective that market forces could not achieve. Indeed, the distortion of competition that results from aid paid to facilitate the transition for electricity undertakings from a largely closed market to one that has been partially liberalized cannot be contrary to the common interest where it is limited in time and in its effects, since liberalization of the electricity market is in the general interest of the EEA market and supplements moves to establish the internal market. The Authority also takes the view that aid granted for stranded costs enables electricity undertakings to reduce the risks relating to their historic commitments or investments and may thus encourage them to maintain their investments in the long term. Finally, if there were no compensation for stranded costs, there would be a greater risk that the undertakings concerned might pass on the entire cost of their non-economical commitments or guarantees to their captive customers.

                     (3)

                     Aid to compensate for stranded costs in the electricity industry can be further justified in relation to other liberalized sectors by the fact that liberalization of the electricity market has not been accompanied by either faster technological progress or increased demand and by the fact that it is hardly conceivable, in the interests of environmental protection, security of supply and the smooth operation of the EEA countries’ economies, to wait until electricity undertakings encounter difficulties before considering whether to grant them state support.

                     (4)

                     In this context, the Authority takes the view that aid designed to offset stranded costs normally qualifies for the derogation under Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement if it facilitates the development of certain economic activities without adversely affecting trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

                     (5)

                     Without prejudice to the specific provisions resulting from the Authority’s guidelines on the application of the EEA State aid provisions, including the guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (6), the Authority may, in principle, accept as being compatible with Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement aid designed to offset eligible stranded costs which satisfied the following criteria:

                                 (a)

                                 The aid must serve to offset eligible stranded costs that have been clearly determined and isolated. It may under no circumstances exceed the amount of the eligible stranded costs.

                                 (b)

                                 The arrangements for paying the aid must allow account to be taken of future developments in competition. Such developments may be gauged in particular by way of quantifiable factors (prices, market shares, other relevant factors indicated by the EFTA State). Since changes in the conditions of competition have a direct effect on the amount of eligible stranded costs, the amount of the aid paid will necessarily be conditional on the development of genuine competition, and the calculation of aid paid over time will have to take account of changes in the relevant factors in order to gauge the degree of competition achieved.

                                 (c)

                                 The EFTA State must undertake to send to the Authority an annual report that, in particular, describes developments in the competitive situation on its electricity market by indicating among other things the changes observed in the relevant quantifiable factors. The annual report will give details of how the stranded costs taken into account for the relevant year have been calculated and will specify the amounts of aid paid.

                                 (d)

                                 The degressive nature of aid intended to offset stranded costs will be viewed favourably by the Authority when making its assessment; it will, in fact, help the undertaking concerned to speed up its preparations for a liberalized electricity market.

                                 (e)

                                 The maximum amount of aid that can be paid to an undertaking to offset stranded costs must be specified in advance. It must take account of productivity gains that may be achieved by the undertaking.
                                 Similarly, the detailed arrangements for calculating and financing aid designed to offset stranded costs and the maximum period for which such aid can be granted must be clearly spelt out in advance. Notification of the aid will specify in particular how calculation of the stranded costs will take account of changes in the various factors mentioned in point (b).

                                 (f)

                                 In order to avoid any cumulation of aid, the EFTA State will undertake in advance not to pay any rescue or restructuring aid to undertakings that are to benefit from aid in respect of stranded costs. The Authority takes the view that the payment of compensation for stranded costs linked to investments in assets that offer no prospects of long-term viability does not facilitate the transition of the electricity industry to a liberalized market and cannot therefore qualify for the derogation under Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.

                     (6)

                     However, the Authority entertains the most serious misgivings regarding aid intended to offset stranded costs which do not satisfy the above criteria or which are likely to give rise to distortions of competition contrary to the common interest for the following reasons:

                                 (a)

                                 The aid is not linked to eligible stranded costs that meet the above definition or to clearly defined and individualized stranded costs or exceeds the amount of eligible stranded costs.

                                 (b)

                                 The aid is intended to safeguard all or some of the income pre-dating the entry into force of Decision 168/1999, without taking strictly into account the eligible stranded costs that might result from the introduction of competition.

                                 (c)

                                 The amount of aid is not likely to be adjusted to take due account of the differences between the economic and market assumptions initially made when estimating stranded costs and real changes in them over time.

               21.5.   METHOD OF FINANCING AID INTENDED TO OFFSET STRANDED COSTS

                     (1)

                     EFTA States are free to choose the methods of financing aid intended to offset stranded costs which they consider to be the most appropriate. However, in order to authorize such aid, the Authority will make sure that the financing arrangements do not give rise to effects that conflict with the objectives of Directive 96/92/EC or with the interests of the Contracting Parties. The interests of the Contracting Parties take into account, among other things, consumer protection, free movement of goods and services, and competition.

                     (2)

                     The financing arrangements must not have the effect of deterring outside undertakings or new players from entering certain national or regional markets. In particular, aid intended to offset stranded costs cannot be financed out of levies on electricity in transit between EEA States or from levies linked to the distance between the producer and the consumer.

                     (3)

                     The Authority will also ensure that the arrangements for financing aid intended to offset stranded costs result in fair treatment for eligible and non-eligible consumers. To this end, the annual report referred to in point (c) in section 21.4. will give the breakdown by eligible and non-eligible consumers of the sources of finance intended to offset the stranded costs. Where non-eligible consumers participate in the financing of stranded costs directly through the tariff for the purchase of electricity, this must be clearly stated. The contribution imposed on either group (eligible or non-eligible) must not exceed the proportion of stranded costs to be offset that corresponds to the market share accounted for by those consumers.

                     (4)

                     Where funds are raised by private undertakings with a view to financing aid mechanisms designed to offset stranded costs, the management of those funds will have to be clearly separate from that of the normal resources of those undertakings. Such investments must not benefit the undertakings managing them.

               21.6.   OTHER ASSESSMENT FACTORS

                     (1)

                     In examining State aid intended to offset stranded costs, the Authority takes particular account of the size and level of interconnection of the network concerned and of the structure of the electricity industry. Aid for a small network with a low degree of interconnection with the rest of the EEA will be less likely to give rise to substantial distortions of competition.

                     (2)

                     This methodology for stranded costs is without prejudice to the application, in the regions covered by Article 61(3)(a) of the EEA Agreement, of the guidelines on national regional aid (7). Pursuant to Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement, where application of the rules on State aid to stranded costs obstructs the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly, those rules may be derogated from provided that trade is not affected to an extent contrary to the interests of the Contracting Parties.

                     (3)

                     The rules laid down in this methodology for State aid intended to offset stranded costs arising from Decision 168/1999 apply independently of the public or private ownership of the undertakings concerned.’

         (1)  OJ L 27, 30.1.1997, p. 20.

         (2)  OJ L 61, 1.3.2001, p. 23, and EEA Supplement No 11, 1.3.2001, p. 221.

         (3)  Article 3 of Decision No 168/1999 states: “This Decision shall enter into force on 27 November 1999, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee.”

         (4)  In the case of a long-term contract of sale or purchase, the stranded costs will, therefore, be calculated by comparison with the conditions on which, in a liberalised market, the undertaking would normally have been able to sell or purchase the product under consideration, all things being equal.

         (5)  It must be understood that investments which cannot be recouped or are not economically viable as a result of the liberalisation of the internal market in electricity may constitute stranded costs within the meaning of this methodology, including in cases where they are, in principle, to extend beyond 2006. Furthermore, commitments or guarantees which must absolutely continue to be honoured after 26 November 2006 because failure to do so might give rise to major risks concerning protection of the environment, public safety, social protection of workers or the security of the electricity network may, if duly justified, constitute eligible stranded costs according to this methodology.

         (6)  OJ L 237, 6.9.2001, p. 16.

         (7)  OJ L 111, 29.4.1999 and EEA Supplement No 18. See in this context chapter 25 of the State aid Guidelines.


Avis juridique important

|

31987D0255

87/255/EEC: Council Decision of 28 April 1987 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters concerning the provisional application of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Seychelles on fishing off Seychelles

Official Journal L 119 , 07/05/1987 P. 0024 - 0024

*****COUNCIL  DECISION  of 28 April 1987  concerning the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters concerning the provisional application of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Seychelles on fishing off Seychelles  (87/255/EEC)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, and in particular Article 167 (3) thereof,  Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),  Whereas the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Seychelles and the European Economic Community on fishing off Seychelles, signed at Brussels on 23 May 1985 (2), has been denounced by the Republic of Seychelles, at the end of its first three-year period of application;  Whereas, pursuant to Article 13 of the Agreement, the Community and the Republic of Seychelles have conducted negotiations in order to determine the necessary amendments to the Agreement;  Whereas, as a result of those negotiations, a new Agreement was initialled on 3 December 1986 under which the fishermen of the enlarged Community retain the fishing opportunities open to them in the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Seychelles;  Whereas, in order to maintain without interruption the fishing activities of the vessels of the enlarged Community, the two parties also initialled an Exchange of Letters providing for the provisional application of the new Agreement from 18 January 1987; whereas it is therefore imperative to approve this Exchange of Letters as soon as possible pending the conclusion of the Agreement on the basis of Article 43 of the Treaty,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters concerning the provisional application of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Seychelles on fishing off Seychelles is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.  The texts of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters and Agreement are attached to this Decision.  Article 2  The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the persons empowered to sign the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters in order to bind the Community.  Done at Luxembourg, 28 April 1987.  For the Council  The President  P. DE KEERSMAEKER  (1) OJ No C 81, 28. 3. 1987, p. 7.  (2) OJ No L 149, 8. 6. 1985, p. 1.