Avis juridique important

|

31985D0233

85/233/EEC: Commission Decision of 16 April 1985 terminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of soya meal originating in Brazil

Official Journal L 106 , 18/04/1985 P. 0019 - 0027

*****COMMISSION  DECISION  of 16 April 1985  terminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of soya meal originating in Brazil  (85/233/EEC)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 of 23 July 1984 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), and in particular Article 9 thereof,  After consultations within the Advisory Committee provided for by the said Regulation,  Whereas:  A. Procedure  1. In January 1984 the EEC Seed Crushers' and Oil Producers' Federation (Fediol) lodged a complaint with the Commission on behalf of soya meal manufacturers representing virtually the entire Community industry. The complaint contained sufficient evidence of subsidization and of material injury resulting therefrom to justify the initiation of a proceeding.  The Commission accordingly gave notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities (2) that it was extending the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of soya meal originating in Argentina to imports of such products originating in Brazil, and commenced investigations. The product concerned falls within Common Customs Tariff subheading ex 23.04 B, corresponding to NIMEXE code ex 23.04-40.  2. The Commission officially so advised the importers known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting country, the complainants and the following eight companies, which were accepted by both the Brazilian authorities and Fediol as representing the exporters:  - Ceval Agro Industrial SA,  - Industrial e Comercial Brasileira SA,  - Cargill Agricola SA,  - Refinadora de Oleos Brasil SA,  - Anderson Clayton SA,  - Companhia Brasileira de Oleos e Derivados,  - Granol Industria, Comercio e Exportaçao SA,  - Industrias de Oleos Pacaembu SA.  It gave the Brazilian Government and the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views both orally and in writing. The Brazilian Government, the eight exporters listed above, all Community producers and a number of importers submitted their views and detailed comments.  3. The Commission gathered and checked all the information it deemed necessary to determine the existence of subsidization and injury, and carried out inspections at the premises of Community producers. It also carried out an inspection in Brazil, checking the information supplied by four exporters: Ceval Agro Industrial SA, Industrial e Comercial Brasileira SA, Cargill Agricola SA and Refinadora de Oleos Brasil SA. The subsidy investigation covered the period 1 January to 31 December 1983.  B. Subsidies  4. In its complaint Fediol alleged that the following nine types of subsidy were being given:  - concessionary financing for exports of soya meal,  - tax benefits in respect of hedging transactions on foreign markets,  - concessionary financing for storage of soya beans,  - concessionary financing for imports of soya beans,  - concessionary export financing (the Proex programme),  - concessionary financing for exports of soya oil,  - differential taxation of exports of soya-based products,  - obstacles in the way of exports of soya beans.  5. Concessionary financing for exports of soya meal  5.1. Fediol alleges that Brazilian exports of soya meal are financed at concessionary rates under the Central Bank of Brazil's Resolution No 674, dated 21 January 1981, which governs export financing.  5.2. From the Commission's examination of the terms of the resolution it emerged that government loans were made available to Brazilian soya meal exporters in 1983, the year under investigation, to provide working capital. The loans, to a maximum of 7 % of the fob value of a firm's exports, were granted for up to a year at an interest rate fixed at 40 % up to and including 9 June 1983, and 60 % thereafter. They were channelled through the banking system, which obtained refinancing from the Central Bank at corresponding interest rates, for the year in question, of 36 and 56 % respectively.  5.3. To determine whether a subsidy is being granted, it is necessary to find out whether any government intervention takes place involving a charge on the public account. In this case, the finance provided under Resolution No 674 represents a charge on Brazil's public account, since the banks administering the programme on behalf of the government obtain refinancing from the Central Bank at rates lower than the rate of increase in the value of variable treasury bonds (Obrigações Reajustaveis do Tesouro Nacional - ORTN), which represents the cost of money to the Brazilian Government. In 1983 this was 156,6 %. Accordingly, the financing facility provided by the government under Resolution No 674 constitutes a subsidy on exports of soya meal.  5.4. Two factors have to be considered in assessing the amount of the subsidy: the cost to the exchequer, and the benefit to the recipient. Clearly, where the benefit to the recipient is less than the cost to the exchequer, a countervailing duty could reflect only the lesser amount. The cost of a subsidy to the exchequer is equal to the difference between the cost of money to the government and the concessionary interest rate available under the subsidy programme - in this case, the rate at which the banks obtain refinancing from the Central Bank.  5.5. Using the ORTN as a yardstick, the cost of money to the Brazilian Government in 1983 was 156,6 %. The Brazilian Government, however, has pointed out that exporters could obtain cheaper financing elsewhere. In particular, it stressed that the Banco do Brasil's discount rate, which varied from 78,9 to 101,22 % during the period in question, is well below the ORTN rate, so assuming that exporters can obtain financing from the Banco do Brasil, the benefit to them should be assessed on the basis of the discount rate.  The Commission has considered whether this line of reasoning was appropriate. It found that the Banco do Brasil has close links with government, which makes key management appointments and holds a majority of its capital. Moreover, the IMF regards the Banco do Brasil as part of the country's monetary authority, and not as a body operating in the free market for credit. The Commission therefore sees no reason to regard the Banco do Brasil's discount rate as representative of market conditions, its reluctance to do so being reinforced by the fact that the rate is well below the market rate generally obtainable to finance working capital; the market rate for 1983 was 261,1 %.  It has accordingly calculated the amount of subsidy available under the programme over the investigation period by multiplying the difference between the ORTN rate and the weighted average concessionary rate at which banks obtain refinancing from the Central Bank by the percentage of soya meal exports eligible for the concessionary financing, which is 7 %. This produces a figure for the subsidy of 7,66 % of the fob value of the exports.  5.6. However, the Commission notes that the Banco do Brasil's foreign trade department (Carteira de Comércio Extérior - Cacex) issued a communiqué (No 60) on 14 September 1983 making soya meal exports ineligible for concessionary financing from that date onwards.  In addition, Resolution No 882 of 21 December 1983, which specifically excludes soya meal, repealed Resolution No 674 and replaced it with effect from 2 January 1984. The new resolution provides that the interest rate on concessionary loans is to be the ORTN rate plus 3 %.  The Commission therefore accepts that since 14 September 1983 soya meal producers have not had access to financing under the successive resolutions and have had to obtain ordinary commercial loans.  5.7. To sum up, soya meal exports were given a subsidy in 1983 equivalent to 7,66 % of their fob value by means of concessionary financing obtained under Resolution No 674, though exporters received no fresh loans of this type after 14 September 1983.  6. Tax benefits in respect of hedging transactions on foreign markets  6.1. In its complaint the Community industry alleges that under decree law No 1418 of 3 September 1975, the Brazilian Government exempts from income tax the profits made by soya crushers from forward exchange (hedging) transactions on foreign markets.  6.2. The Commission found that exporting firms can obtain authorization from the Central Bank to undertake hedging transactions on foreign markets. Decree law No 1418 of 3 September 1975 allows them to claim relief from income tax (which was 30 % in 1983) on the profits of such transactions.  The Brazilian Finance Ministry's Portaria (Directive) No 18 of 12 January 1979 specifies that only the balance of the year's profits repatriated to Brazil are to be exempted from tax.  The checks carried out by the Commission showed that crushers working solely for the domestic market were not allowed to undertake hedging transactions on foreign markets, nor to claim tax relief in the manner described. The deduction from exporters' taxable income of repatriated profits from hedging transactions therefore constitutes an export subsidy.  6.3. The Commission bases its calculations on profits (as defined by Portaria No 18) for the 1982 tax year, that being the basis on which tax was assessed in 1983, the year under investigation. To calculate the level of subsidy, profits were multiplied by the tax rate (30 %), and the product divided by the value of exports during the 1983 tax year. According to this calculation, the weighted average subsidy for the eight exporters covered by the investigation was equivalent to 0,09 % of the fob value of exports.  7. Concessionary financing for storage of soya beans  7.1. The Community industry alleges that the Brazilian Government grants soya crushers concessionary loans to finance the storage of soya beans.  7.2. The Commission found that such loans had been granted, and that as far as the facts went Fediol's allegation was correct. Federal government loans (Empréstimo do Governo Federal - EGF) are available to farmers, cooperatives and industry to finance the preparation and in particular the storage of 27 agricultural commodities, the aim being to promote the steady availability of supplies throughout the year. In 1983 interest was charged on these 180-day loans at 45 %, which was less than the cost of money to the Brazilian Government and lower than ordinary market rates, and thus constitutes a concessionary rate.  7.3. Since such a practice does not amount to an export subsidy, it is necessary to consider whether a subsidy other than an export subsidy (domestic subsidy) is involved. A number of factors are to be taken into consideration here.  The complainants assert that these loans are a subsidy on production of soya meal. However, the Commission would point out that it is not the crushing process which is being financed, but the preparation and storage of the beans. It could therefore be held that the aid was directed to a stage prior to the manufacture of the meal.  In any case, even if the EGF loans could be regarded as production aids, this would not automatically mean that they constitute countervailable subsidies since, in the case of domestic subsidies, it is indispensable that these are not generally available.  Governments have always used financial intervention as an essential tool of economic and social policy. So long as the impact of such interventions is general, they do not distort competition at the national level. Thus measures normally regarded as being in the public interest, for instance to improve a country's infrastructure or its education, health or transport services, do not have a distorting effect. For there to be distortion of competition, the advantages must be conferred selectively; in the case of export subsidies, on goods for export but not goods for the domestic market or, in the case of domestic subsidies, with the aim of helping specific firms.  The effects of measures of a general nature on international trade are difficult or even impossible to determine since they tend to be mitigated or counterbalanced by other macro-economic factors, such as, for example, the variation in exchange rates or the level of taxation influenced by the measures in question. In any case, any attempt to call a measure of a general nature a subsidy would be absurd because, by ignoring the fact that the policies of all modern States imply, to varying degrees, some financial intervenion of the government, it would make countervailable large sections of social and economic policy.  7.4. The Community industry claims that the 27 commodities covered by the programme under consideration constitute a specific sector of the economy.  7.5. The Brazilian Government argues that the EGF loan programme is not directed specifically at the soya sector, but applies without discrimination to 27 separate agricultural commodities.  7.6. The Commission found that the programme did not cover all agricultural commodities, but that products not amongst the 27 products were those agricultural commodities for which preparation or storage aids were inappropriate, either because of the nature of the product or because they were covered by specific economic or commercial policy measures, or because the quantities produced or exported were very small.  The EGF programme must therefore be regarded as general in scope, as all agricultural commodities suitable for storage aids are eligible.  Accordingly, the Commission does not consider that the provision of flat-rate finance for the preparation and storage of these 27 commodities constitutes a domestic subsidy such as to warrant the imposition of a countervailing duty, since the loans are generally available.  8. Concessionary financing for imports of soya beans  8.1. Fediol alleges that the Brazilian Government provides the soya crushing industry with cheap loans to finance soya bean imports. According to Fediol, the availability of this concessionary finance lowers the crushers' production costs and makes Brazilian soya meal exports more competitive.  8.2. The Commission found that the Banco do Brasil did introduce a programme of loans to finance imports involving drawback operations, at an annual interest rate of 54 %.  However, the Brazilian Government produced evidence that loans for imports of soya beans were last granted in August 1982, before the period covered by the investigation. Moreover, the Commission established that the Banco do Brasil's Camio Circular No 2436 of 23 November 1982 ended the programme with immediate effect.  Thus the practice complained of by Fediol had been halted even before start of the period under investigation.  9. Concessionary export financing (the Proex programme)  9.1. Fediol alleges that the Brazilian Government provides the soya crushing industry with financing at a concessionary rate under an export promotion programme (Programa de Apoio ao Incremento das Exportações - Proex) run by the Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Económico e Social.  9.2. The Commission found that contrary to Fediol's allegation, soya is not one of the products eligible for financing under Proex.  10. Concessionary financing for exports of soya oil  10.1. Fediol alleges that, under the Central Bank's Resolution No 643 of 22 October 1980, Brazilian exporters can obtain concessionary financing for exports of soya oil. This indirectly assists soya meal exports, since oil and meal are related products derived simultaneously from the processing of a single raw material, the soya bean.  10.2. The Commission's investigations showed that Resolution No 643 did indeed provide for loans to enable exporting companies to finance the purchase of products for export, one such product being soya oil. Interest rates on these loans ranged from 40 to 60 % in 1983, and were thus concessionary, being lower than both the cost of money to the Brazilian exchequer and the rates normally available on the market. All loans were granted in connection with specific export contracts. The Commission also noted that Resolution No 643 was replaced with effect from 2 January 1984 by Resolution No 883 of 21 December 1983, which aligns the interest rate on the ORTN rate, plus 3 %, and removes any advantage to oil exporters.  10.3. But while soya oil and soya meal are obviously closely related at the production stage, the Commission found that the purpose of the facility under consideration is to promote exports of the oil, and the financing is linked specifically to the quantity of oil exported. This is clearly a subsidy directed at oil exports, and while it could indirectly influence the price of soya meal exports, the same would be true of any producer exporting a range of products, if just one of those products was subsidized. It is not normally possible, however, to prove that such an influence exists, or to measure it. In any case, the Commission's investigation produced no evidence of such influence.  10.4. In these circumstances, concessionary loans granted in 1983 under Resolution No 643 to finance soya oil exports cannot be held to constitute a subsidy on soya meal exports.  11. Income-tax relief on profits from soya oil exports  11.1. Fediol alleges that Decree law No 1598 of 26 December 1977 exempts from income tax, profits from exports of soya oil, and further claims that this tax relief represents on aid to soya crushers and hence a subsidy on exports of soya meal.  11.2. The Brazilian Government confirmed that such tax relief was available, for soya oil alone.  11.3. It may constitute a subsidy on exports of the oil. But for the reasons indicated at 10.3, the Commission does not consider that this facility, clearly confined to exports of soya oil, constitutes a subsidy on exports of soya meal. 12. Differential taxation of exports of soya-based products  12.1. Fediol says that a transaction tax is levied on exports of soya-based products at differential rates: 13 % on beans, 11,1 % on meal and 8 % on oil. The Community industry claims that this constitutes a subsidy on soya meal exports, in that the effect of the tax is to curb exports of beans and thus ensure that Brazilian crushers can obtain raw material supplies at low costs. This, according to Fediol, gives the Brazilian industry a cost advantage which helps it export soya meal to the Community, while taxing meal at a lower rate than beans gives Brazilian exporters yet a further advantage.  12.2. The Commission found that taxes were levied in this way during the investigation period, and that the facts cited by Fediol were correct.  12.3. The Commission realizes that official action to impose or remove disincentives to external trade, particularly in the form of export taxes or restrictions, can affect competition or trade in the product immediately concerned, as well as upstream or downstream products.  However, not all official measures can be classed as subsidies within the meaning of the international rules governing this matter simply because they have an actual or potential effect on competition or trade; this would be to blur the distinction made in GATT between subsidies and other measures which may have an impact on competition or trade. The importance of this distinction is that Article VI of the General Agreement allows the Contracting Parties to take unilateral action against certain specific practices but allows no such action against other practices, such as quantitative restrictions and import or export charges, even though they may produce distortions of competition or trade.  As far as international trade is concerned, the crucial characteristic of a subsidy is that it involves a financial contribution by government. This results inter alia from item (l) of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies appended to the Code on subsidies. The list, which is also annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84, makes it clear that any subsidy must involve a charge on the public account. To extend the concept of subsidies to include practices other than those involving such a charge would be excessive, and taken to its extreme could lead to any government intervention whatsover in the economy being regarded as a subsidy, including tax measures or even regulatory action such as the introduction of price controls or pollution standards.  12.4. It is clear from both GATT rules and the relevant Community legislation (the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84) that the concept of a charge on the public account includes the waiving by the authorities of taxes or other dues owed. The Commission notes that the case in point, however, involves not the waiving of a tax but the non-creation of an additional tax burden. To regard such a non-creation generally as a subsidy would be to hold the very fact that a government levies tax on some people or products but not others as equivalent to a financial contribution to the latter.  12.5. Thus differential taxation of the various soya-based products does not constitute a charge on the public account of the country involved and cannot be regarded as a subsidy.  The distortion complained of by the Community industry results not from subsidization of exports of the processed product, soya meal, but from the levying of a tax at a higher rate on exports of the raw product, soya beans. This does not, by its very nature, constitute a financial contribution by government.  13. Obstacles in the way of exports of soya beans  13.1. The Community industry alleges that Brazil maintains restrictions on exports of soya beans. In Fediol's view, the export restriction holds the domestic price of soya beans well below world market levels, giving Brazilian crushers a cost advantage which helps their exports of soya meal to the Community.  13.2. The Brazilian Government pointed out that until 6 September 1983, i.e. for a considerable part of the period under investigation, the exporters of soya-based products were not required to register their sales at the Banco do Brasil's foreign trade department. That requirement, which came into force on the date mentioned, applies to soya oil and soya meal as well as the beans. The registraion procedure, according to the government, was intended to allow export prices to be monitored and prevent speculation damaging to the country's interests; it was in no sense an export restriction.  13.3. The Commission offers no comment on the points made at 13.2, but, for the reasons already set out at 12, considers that such a restriction would not in any case constitute a countervailable subsidy. It is, furthermore, impossible to determine to what extent the export restrictions on beans leads to a reduction in their prices which would benefit the crushers. In actual fact, the level of these prices depends upon a complicated interaction of national and internaitonal supply and demand elasticities.  14. Neutralization of subsidies by the Imposto sobre Circulaçao de Mercadorias (ICM) and export taxes  14.1. The Brazilian Government has stated that in 1983, soya meal exports were subject to a transaction tax, the Imposto sobre Circulação de Mercadorias (ICM), at a rate of 11,1 % and to export taxes at a rate of 30 %. The export taxes have since been phased out; they were finally abolished on 1 April 1984. The Brazilian Government called on the Commission to take account of these factors in calculating the amount of subsidy, and to allow for the fact that in 1983 ICMs and export taxes on soya meal neutralized any subsidies on exports of the product.  14.2. The Commission notes that the ICM on soya meal exports was raised by the Brazilian Government from 5 to 11,1 % during the anti-subsidy proceeding initiated by the Commission in 1977 (1), in order to offset the existing discrimination in favour of meal as against the raw product, beans. There is no link between the raising of the ICM on soya meal in 1977 and the subsidization on practices considered in the present proceeding, which covers the year 1983.  There is likewise no link between export taxes and any subsidies granted in 1983. The export taxes were introduced following the 'maxi-devaluation' of the cruzeiro in February 1983. The Brazilian authorities recognized that without such a measure, devaluation would have enabled exporters to make windfall profits, leading in all likelihood to domestic supply constraints and a rise in domestic prices.  14.3. In view of the foregoing, the Commission considers that neither the ICM nor the export taxes on soya meal were specifically intended to neutralize the subsidies under consideration, and that consequently, in accordance with Article 3 (4) (b) (ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84, these factors should not be taken into account in calculating the subsidy.  15. Total subsidy  To sum up, the Commission has found that during the period covered by the investigation, Brazil's exports of soya meal were subsidized by means of concessionary financing and tax benefits in respect of hedging opperations on foreign markets; the total subsidy in respect of which a countervailing duty may be imposed is equal to 7,75 % of the fob value of the exports, or 7,27 % of their cif value at a European port.  C. Injury  16. As regards the injury caused by imports of the subsidized products, the evidence available to the Commission shows that imports of soya meal originating in Brazil rose steeply from 3 225 000 tonnes in 1980 to 4 242 000 tonnes in 1983.  Their share of the Community market likewise increased, from 20,9 % in 1980 to 26,9 % in 1983.  In addition, Community imports of Brazilian soya meal follow a seasonal pattern, rising from March to September and then tailing off until the start of the following year.  17. The Commission obtained no significant information from the importers it contacted regarding prices, and the Brazilian Government likewise said that the Brazilian exporters who had received the Commission's questionnaire were unable to give the prices of their exports to the Community, which were quoted fob Brazil. However, the Commission has received detailed information from other authoritative sources concerning prices of Brazilian and European soya meal on the Rotterdam market, from which it emerges that the Brazilian product is significantly cheaper. The price gap is particularly wide from March to September, when Brazilian supplies are most abundant and competitive.  It should be borne in mind that Brazilian and European soya meal also differ with regard to physical characteristics, payment terms and level of trade. European soya meal generally has a lower protein and cellulose content than the Brazilian product; Brazilian exports have to be paid for an average 15 days before delivery while for sales of European meal payment is due on delivery; lastly, Brazilian meal is quoted cif Rotterdam while the equivalent European product is quoted on a fob ex-works basis.  According to the Commission's calculations, the above factors necessitate the following adjustments per tonne: physical characteristics: deduct $ 8,98; payment terms: add $ 1; level of trade: add $ 2,44. This gives a net positive adjustment of $ 5,54 per tonne; in other words, prices for Brazilian soya meal should be higher than prices for European meal by at least $ 5,54 per tonne irrespective of delivery date, whereas the Commission found that prices of Brazilian meal have been substantially undercutting European producers' prices, sometimes by as much as $ 20 per tonne between March and September.  18. For the purpose of assessing the impact of the subsidized imports, 'the Community industry' means Community soya bean crushers.  19. The subsidized imports have affected the Community industry in a number of ways.  20. A number of Community crushers were operating below capacity in 1983, with the rate of utilization often less than 70 %, and the Commission notes also that capacity utilization showed a marked fall from March to September/October, with some producers running at below 25 % of capacity.  21. The Community industry suffered a decline in its crushing margins on crushing operations over the investigation period. The fall was most marked from March to September/October, when margins were often less than $ 10 per tonne of beans crushed; on occasion, those margins were even negative.  The Commission finds that margins were insufficient to enable Community crushers to cover their costs on the crushing operation, which were affected by the poor capacity utilization. Most firms have seen their financial results deteriorate and some crushers have gone over from soya beans to other oilseeds.  22. The Community crushing industry is not labour-intensive; nevertheless, jobs were lost between 1980 and 1983.  23. The Commission considered whether injury had been caused by other factors such as the trend of demand or the volume and price of other imports.  24. Consumption of soya meal has remained stable (15 405 000 tonnes in 1980 and 15 762 000 tonnes in 1983).  25. Over the same period Community imports of soya meal from third countries other than Brazil increased by 41,6 %, from 3 950 000 to 5 591 000 tonnes. Since that is a substantial increase, the Commission scrutinized closely the price of these imports, most of which came from the United States. For the purpose of comparing US, Brazilian and European prices, it took into account the differences in cellulose content of meal from those sources, the US product being of lover quality in that respect. The Commission also took account of the fact that imports of meal from the United States are payable on average 15 days before delivery, and that prices are quoted cif Rotterdam. To achieve price comparability between the US and European products, the necessary adjustments were made for these factors (additions of $ 5,54, $ 1 and $ 2,44 per tonne respectively). On that basis, the price of US soya meal should in theory be $ 8,98 below the price of the Community product and, in the light of the calculation in point 17, $ 14,52 below the price of Brazilian meal. Yet the Commission's investigators found that the Brazilian product undercut both US and European meal for virtually the whole of the period under consideration.  26. Accordingly, the Commission's definitive finding is that imports of subsidized soya meal originating in Brazil have caused material injury to the Community industry.  D. Commission interest  27. The Commission, in considering the Community interest, took account of the degree of subsidization during the period covered by the investigation and the resultant injury to the Community crushing industry.  The Commission has noted that although the concessionary finance for exports of soya meal was provided throughout most of the period covered by the investigation, the Brazilian Government, however, does not grant, at the present time, the finances in question, which accounts for virtually the whole subsidy found to have been given, thus removing the source of the injury caused to the Community crushing industry.  In these circumstances the Commission considers that the interests of the Community no longer require the collection of a countervailing duty, from the importers concerned, destined to offset the effects of a subsidy already formally discontinued by a foreign government.  In this respect the position with regard to subsidies can be distinguished from that faced in the case of dumping where it is essential that account is only taken of the facts and elements which have occurred during the period covered by the investigation.  A subsidy is granted, not by an exporter, but by a government and its introduction or removal normally follows considerations which are different from those which an exporter would take into account.  The risk of having a subsidy which has been removed in the course of an investigation subsequently re-introduced is not the same as the subsequent reappearance of dumping which had been stopped during an investigation. The difference is, after all, reflected in the relevant international rules which distinguish, in this respect, between anti-dumping action and countervailing action.  E. Closure of the proceeding  28. In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of soya, originating in Brazil, should be closed. It is evident that if the subsidies referred to in paragraph 27 are re-introduced, the Commission will take all the necessary measures, in conformity with the provisions of the legislation in force, in order to take appropriate action on a possible complaint from the Community producers. After consultations within the Advisory Committee no objections were raised in this respect,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Sole Article  The anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of soya meal originating in Brazil is hereby terminated.  Done at Brussels, 16 April 1985.  For the Commission  Willy DE CLERCQ  Member of the Commission  (1) OJ No L 201, 30. 7. 1984, p. 1.  (2) OJ No C 76, 17. 3. 1984, p. 13.


title: Council Decision 2014/775/CFSP of 7 November 2014 extending Decision 2014/73/CFSP on a European Union military operation in the Central African Republic (EUFOR RCA)

text:
               8.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 325/17

         COUNCIL DECISION 2014/775/CFSP
   of 7 November 2014
   extending Decision 2014/73/CFSP on a European Union military operation in the Central African Republic (EUFOR RCA)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular 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 28 January 2014, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 2134 (2014) authorising the European Union to deploy an operation in the Central African Republic (CAR).

               (2)

               On 10 February 2014 the Council adopted Decision 2014/73/CFSP (1) stating that a European Union military operation in the Central African Republic (EUFOR RCA) should end no later than six months after having reached Full Operational Capability.

               (3)

               On 10 September 2014, the Interim President of the CAR sent a letter to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) asking to extend EUFOR RCA.

               (4)

               It is necessary to provide for a smooth transition from EUFOR RCA to the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA), as established by UNSC Resolution 2149 (2014), until MINUSCA can assume full responsibility for security in the Bangui area.

               (5)

               On 21 October 2014 the UNSC adopted Resolution 2181 (2014) authorising the extension of EUFOR RCA until 15 March 2015.

               (6)

               Decision 2014/73/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Decision 2014/73/CFSP is amended as follows:

               (1)

               in Article 1(1) the words ‘within four to six months’ are replaced by the words ‘within nine months’.

               (2)

               Article 10(2) is replaced by the following:
               ‘2.   The financial reference amount for the common costs of EUFOR RCA for the period until 15 December 2014 shall be EUR 25,9 million. The financial reference amount for the common costs of EUFOR RCA for the period from 16 December 2014 until 15 March 2015 shall be EUR 5,7 million.
               The percentage of the reference amount referred to in Article 25(1) of Decision 2011/871/CFSP for the period until 15 December 2014 shall be 50 %. The percentage of the reference amount referred to in Article 25(1) of Decision 2011/871/CFSP for the period from 16 December 2014 until 15 March 2015 shall be 0 %.’.

               (3)

               Article 12(2) is replaced by the following:
               ‘2.   EUFOR RCA shall end on 15 March 2015.’.
         Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 7 November 2014.

            For the Council

            The President

         P. C. PADOAN

      (1)  Council Decision 2014/73/CFSP of 10 February 2014 on a European Union military operation in the Central African Republic (EUFOR RCA) (OJ L 40, 11.2.2014, p. 59).


title: Council Decision 2012/389/CFSP of 16 July 2012 on the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR)

text:
               17.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 187/40

         COUNCIL DECISION 2012/389/CFSP
   of 16 July 2012
   on the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR)
   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 14 November 2011, the Council adopted a Strategic Framework for the Horn of Africa to guide the EU’s engagement in the region.

               (2)

               On 8 December 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/819/CFSP (1) appointing a European Union Special Representative for the Horn of Africa.

               (3)

               On 16 December 2011, the Council agreed on the Crisis Management Concept for the Regional Maritime Capacity Building Mission.

               (4)

               On 23 March 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/173/CFSP (2) activating the EU Operations Centre for the Common Security and Defence Policy missions and operation in the Horn of Africa.

               (5)

               The Governments of Djibouti, Kenya and the Seychelles, and the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia have welcomed the deployment of the Mission in their countries.

               (6)

               On 18 June 2007, the Council approved the Guidelines for Command and Control Structure for the EU Civilian Operations in Crisis Management.

               (7)

               The Watch-Keeping Capability should be activated for the Mission established by this Decision.

               (8)

               The Mission 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 on European Union (TEU),

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Mission
   The Union hereby establishes a Regional Maritime Capacity Building Mission in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR).
   Article 2
   Mission Statement
   The objective of EUCAP NESTOR is to assist the development in the Horn of Africa and the Western Indian Ocean States of a self-sustainable capacity for continued enhancement of their maritime security including counter-piracy, and maritime governance. EUCAP NESTOR shall have initial geographic focus on Djibouti, Kenya, the Seychelles and Somalia. EUCAP NESTOR shall also be deployed in Tanzania, following receipt by the Union of an invitation from the Tanzanian authorities.
   Article 3
   Tasks
   1.   In order to achieve the objective set out in Article 2, the tasks of EUCAP NESTOR shall be to:

               (a)

               assist authorities in the region in achieving the efficient organisation of the maritime security agencies carrying out the coast guard function;

               (b)

               deliver training courses and training expertise to strengthen the maritime capacities of the States in the region, initially Djibouti, Kenya and the Seychelles, with a view to achieving self-sustainability in training;

               (c)

               assist Somalia in developing its own land-based coastal police capability supported by a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework;

               (d)

               identify priority equipment capability gaps and provide assistance in addressing them, as appropriate, to meet the objective of EUCAP NESTOR;

               (e)

               provide assistance in strengthening national legislation and the rule of law through a regional legal advisory programme, and legal expertise to support the drafting of maritime security and related national legislation;

               (f)

               promote regional cooperation between national authorities responsible for maritime security;

               (g)

               strengthen regional coordination in the field of maritime capacity building;

               (h)

               provide strategic advice through the assignment of experts to key administrations;

               (i)

               implement mission projects and coordinate donations;

               (j)

               develop and conduct a regional information and communication strategy.

         2.   EUCAP NESTOR shall not carry out any executive function.
   Article 4
   Chain of command and structure
   1.   EUCAP NESTOR shall have a unified chain of command as a crisis management operation.
   2.   EUCAP NESTOR shall be structured as follows:

               (a)

               Mission Headquarters in Djibouti;

               (b)

               country offices, as appropriate.

         3.   EUCAP NESTOR shall have a Project Cell for identifying and implementing projects. EUCAP NESTOR may, as appropriate, coordinate, facilitate and provide advice on projects implemented by Member States and third States under their responsibility, in areas related to EUCAP NESTOR and in support of its objective.
   Article 5
   Civilian Operation Commander
   1.   The Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) Director shall be the Civilian Operation Commander for EUCAP NESTOR.
   2.   The Civilian Operation Commander, under the political control and strategic direction of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and overall authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), shall exercise command and control of EUCAP NESTOR at the strategic level.
   3.   The Civilian Operation Commander shall ensure, with regard to the conduct of operations, proper and effective implementation of the Council’s decisions as well as the PSC’s decisions, including by issuing instructions at the strategic level as required to the Head of Mission and providing him with advice and technical support.
   4.   The EU Operations Centre activated by Decision 2012/173/CFSP shall provide direct support to the Civilian Operation Commander for the operational planning and conduct of EUCAP NESTOR.
   5.   The Civilian Operation Commander shall report to the Council through the HR.
   6.   All seconded staff shall remain under the full command of the national authorities of the seconding State in accordance with national rules, of the Union institution concerned or of the European External Action Service (EEAS). National authorities shall transfer Operational Control (OPCON) of their personnel, teams and units to the Civilian Operation Commander.
   7.   The Civilian Operation Commander shall have overall responsibility for ensuring that the Union’s duty of care is properly discharged.
   8.   The Civilian Operation Commander, the European Union Special Representative for the Horn of Africa (EUSR) and the Heads of Union delegations in the region shall consult each other as required.
   Article 6
   Head of Mission
   1.   The Head of Mission shall assume responsibility for, and exercise command and control of, EUCAP NESTOR at theatre level and shall be directly responsible to the Civilian Operation Commander.
   2.   The Head of Mission shall exercise command and control over personnel, teams and units from contributing States as assigned by the Civilian Operation Commander together with administrative and logistic responsibility including over assets, resources and information placed at the disposal of EUCAP NESTOR.
   3.   The Head of Mission shall issue instructions to all EUCAP NESTOR staff for the effective conduct of EUCAP NESTOR in theatre, assuming its coordination and day-to-day management, and following the instructions at the strategic level of the Civilian Operation Commander.
   4.   The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the implementation of the budget of EUCAP NESTOR. For this purpose, the Head of Mission shall sign a contract with the Commission.
   5.   The Head of Mission shall be responsible for disciplinary control over the staff. For seconded staff, disciplinary action shall be exercised by the national authority in accordance with national rules, by the Union institution concerned or by EEAS.
   6.   The Head of Mission shall represent EUCAP NESTOR in the operations area and shall ensure appropriate visibility of EUCAP NESTOR.
   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 EUSR, in close coordination with the relevant Heads of Union delegations in the region.
   8.   In the context of the Project Cell, the Head of Mission shall be authorised to seek recourse to financial contributions from the Member States or third States to implement projects identified as supplementing in a consistent manner the other actions of EUCAP NESTOR, if the project is:

               (a)

               provided for in the Budgetary Impact Statement relating to this Decision; or

               (b)

               included in the course of EUCAP NESTOR in the Budgetary Impact Statement at the request of the Head of Mission.

         In such cases the Head of Mission shall conclude an arrangement with the States concerned, covering in particular the specific procedures for dealing with any complaint from third parties concerning damage caused as a result of acts or omissions by the Head of Mission in the use of the funds provided by the contributing States.
   Under no circumstances may the Union or the HR be held liable by contributing States as a result of acts or omissions by the Head of Mission in the use of funds provided by the contributing States.
   Article 7
   Staff
   1.   EUCAP NESTOR shall consist primarily of staff seconded by Member States, Union institutions or EEAS. Each Member State or Union institution, or EEAS shall bear the costs related to any of the staff seconded by it, including travel expenses to and from the place of deployment, salaries, medical coverage and allowances other than applicable daily allowances.
   2.   The State or Union institution, or EEAS having seconded a member of staff shall be responsible for answering any claims linked to the secondment, either from or concerning the member of staff, and for bringing any action against the seconded person.
   3.   International and local staff may also be recruited by EUCAP NESTOR on a contractual basis if the functions required are not provided by personnel seconded by Member States. Exceptionally, in duly justified cases, where no qualified applications from Member States are available, nationals from participating third States may be recruited on a contractual basis, as appropriate.
   4.   The conditions of employment and the rights and obligations of international and local staff shall be laid down in the contracts between the Head of Mission and the members of staff concerned.
   Article 8
   Status of EUCAP NESTOR and of its staff
   The status of EUCAP NESTOR and its staff, including, where appropriate, the privileges, immunities and further guarantees necessary for the completion and smooth functioning of EUCAP NESTOR, shall be the subject of an agreement concluded pursuant to Article 37 TEU and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
   Article 9
   Political control and strategic direction
   1.   The PSC shall exercise, under the responsibility of the Council and of the HR, political control and strategic direction of EUCAP NESTOR. The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions for this purpose in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 TEU. This authorisation shall include the powers to appoint a Head of Mission, upon a proposal from the HR, and to amend the Concept of Operations (CONOPS) and the Operation Plan (OPLAN). The powers of decision with respect to the objectives and termination of EUCAP NESTOR shall remain vested in the Council.
   2.   The PSC shall report to the Council at regular intervals.
   3.   The PSC shall receive, on a regular basis and as required, reports by the Civilian Operation Commander and the Head of Mission on issues within their areas of responsibility.
   Article 10
   Participation of third States
   1.   Without prejudice to the decision-making autonomy of the Union and its single institutional framework, third States may be invited to contribute to EUCAP NESTOR, provided that they bear the cost of the staff seconded by them, including salaries, all risk insurance cover, daily subsistence allowances and travel expenses to and from the place of deployment, and that they contribute to the running costs of EUCAP NESTOR, as appropriate.
   2.   Third States contributing to EUCAP NESTOR shall have the same rights and obligations in terms of the day-to-day management of EUCAP NESTOR as Member States.
   3.   The Council hereby authorises the PSC to take the relevant decisions on acceptance of the proposed contributions and to establish a Committee of Contributors.
   4.   Detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third States shall be covered by agreements concluded in accordance with Article 37 TEU and additional technical arrangements as necessary. Where the Union and a third State conclude an agreement establishing a framework for the participation of that third State in Union crisis-management operations, the provisions of that agreement shall apply in the context of EUCAP NESTOR.
   Article 11
   Security
   1.   The Civilian Operation Commander shall direct the Head of Mission’s planning of security measures and ensure their proper and effective implementation by EUCAP NESTOR in accordance with Article 5.
   2.   The Head of Mission shall be responsible for the security of EUCAP NESTOR and for ensuring compliance with minimum security requirements applicable to EUCAP NESTOR, in line with the policy of the Union on the security of personnel deployed outside the Union in an operational capacity under Title V TEU, and its supporting instruments.
   3.   The Head of Mission shall be assisted by a Senior Mission Security Officer (SMSO), who shall report to the Head of Mission and also maintain a close functional relationship with the EEAS.
   4.   EUCAP NESTOR staff shall undergo mandatory security training before taking up their duties, in accordance with the OPLAN. They shall also receive regular in-theatre refresher training organised by the SMSO.
   5.   The Head of Mission shall ensure the protection of EU classified information in accordance with Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information (3).
   Article 12
   Watch-Keeping Capability
   The Watch-Keeping Capability shall be activated for EUCAP NESTOR.
   Article 13
   Financial arrangements
   1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUCAP NESTOR for the first 12 months following the entry into force of this Decision shall be EUR 22 880 000. The financial reference amount for the subsequent periods shall be decided by the Council.
   2.   All expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable to the general budget of the Union.
   3.   Subject to the Commission’s approval, the Head of Mission may conclude technical arrangements with Member States, participating third States and other international actors regarding the provision of equipment, services and premises to EUCAP NESTOR.
   4.   The financial arrangements shall respect the operational requirements of EUCAP NESTOR including compatibility of equipment and interoperability of its teams.
   5.   The Head of Mission shall report fully to, and be supervised by, the Commission regarding the activities undertaken in the framework of his/her contract.
   6.   The expenditure incurred shall be eligible as of the date of entry into force of this Decision.
   Article 14
   Consistency of the Union’s response and coordination
   1.   The HR shall ensure the consistency of the implementation of this Decision with the Union’s external action as a whole, including the Union’s development programmes.
   2.   Without prejudice to the chain of command, the Head of Mission shall act in close coordination with the Union delegations in the region to ensure the consistency of Union action in the Horn of Africa region.
   3.   The Head of Mission shall coordinate closely with Union and Member States’ Heads of Mission in the region.
   4.   The Head of Mission shall cooperate with the other international actors in the region, in particular the United Nations (UN) Political Office for Somalia, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the UN Development Programme and the International Maritime Organisation.
   5.   The Head of Mission shall coordinate closely with EUNAVFOR Atalanta, the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (EUTM Somalia), the Maritime Security Project and the Critical Maritime Routes Programme.
   Article 15
   Release of information and documents
   1.   The HR shall be authorised to release to the third States associated with this Decision, as appropriate and in accordance with the needs of EUCAP NESTOR, EU classified information up to ‘CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL’ level generated for the purposes of EUCAP NESTOR, in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU.
   2.   The HR shall also be authorised to release to the UN and the African Union (AU) in accordance with the operational needs of EUCAP NESTOR, EU classified information up to ‘RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED’ level generated for the purposes of EUCAP NESTOR, in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU. Arrangements between the HR and the competent authorities of UN and AU shall be drawn up for this purpose.
   3.   In the event of a specific and immediate operational need, the HR shall also be authorised to release to the host State any EU classified information up to ‘RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED’ level generated for the purposes of EUCAP NESTOR, in accordance with Decision 2011/292/EU. Arrangements between the HR and the competent authorities of the host State shall be drawn up for this purpose.
   4.   The HR shall be authorised to release to the third States associated with this Decision any EU non-classified documents connected with the deliberations of the Council relating to EUCAP NESTOR and covered by the obligation of professional secrecy pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure (4).
   5.   The HR may delegate the powers referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4, as well as the ability to conclude the arrangements referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 to persons placed under his/her authority, to the Civilian Operations Commander and/or to the Head of Mission.
   Article 16
   Entry into force and duration
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.
   It shall apply for a period of 24 months.

      Done at Brussels, 16 July 2012.

            For the Council

            The President

         S. ALETRARIS

      (1)  OJ L 327, 9.12.2011, p. 62.

      (2)  OJ L 89, 27.3.2012, p. 66.

      (3)  OJ L 141, 27.5.2011, p. 17.

      (4)  Council Decision 2009/937/EU of 1 December 2009 adopting the Council’s Rules of Procedure (OJ L 325, 11.12.2009, p. 35).


Avis juridique important

|

32003D0339

2003/339/EC: Council Decision of 6 May 2003 appointing an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

Official Journal L 120 , 15/05/2003 P. 0058 - 0058

Council Decisionof 6 May 2003appointing an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions(2003/339/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 proposal from the German Government,Whereas:(1) On 22 January 2002 the Council adopted Decision 2002/60/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions(1).(2) The seat of an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Ms Ulrike RODUST, of which the Council was notified on 2 April 2003,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Sole ArticleMs Heide SIMONIS is hereby appointed an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions in place of Ms Ulrike RODUST for the remainder of her term of office, which ends on 25 January 2006.Done at Brussels, 6 May 2003.For the CouncilThe PresidentP. Efthymiou(1) OJ L 24, 26.1.2002, p. 38.


title: Council Decision 2013/367/CFSP of 9 July 2013 amending Decision 2012/389/CFSP on the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR)

text:
               10.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 189/12

         COUNCIL DECISION 2013/367/CFSP
   of 9 July 2013
   amending Decision 2012/389/CFSP on the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28, 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 16 July 2012 the Council adopted Decision 2012/389/CFSP (1). That Decision expires on 15 July 2014.

               (2)

               The current financial reference amount covers the period from 16 July 2012 until 15 July 2013.

               (3)

               Decision 2012/389/CFSP should be amended to extend the period covered by the current financial reference amount until 15 November 2013.

               (4)

               The Mission 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
   Article 13(1) of Decision 2012/389/CFSP is replaced by the following:

      "1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUCAP NESTOR for the first 16 months following the entry into force of this Decision shall be EUR 22 880 000. The financial reference amount for the subsequent period shall be decided by the Council.".

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

      Done at Brussels, 9 July 2013.

            For the Council

            The President

         R. ŠADŽIUS

      (1)  OJ L 187, 17.7.2012, p. 40.


title: 2009/508/EC: Decision of the European Central Bank of 25 June 2009 amending Decision ECB/2008/20 as regards the volume of euro coins that Austria may issue in 2009 (ECB/2009/15)

text:
               2.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 172/35

      DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

   of 25 June 2009
   amending Decision ECB/2008/20 as regards the volume of euro coins that Austria may issue in 2009
   (ECB/2009/15)
   (2009/508/EC)
   THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 106(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The European Central Bank (ECB) has the exclusive right from 1 January 1999 to approve the volume of coins issued by the Member States that have adopted the euro (hereinafter the ‘participating Member States’).

               (2)

               On 26 May 2009 the Oesterreichische Nationalbank asked the ECB to approve an increase of EUR 160 million in the volume of euro coins that Austria may issue in 2009,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Increase in volume of euro coins
   The ECB approves the increase in the volume of euro coins that Austria may issue in 2009.
   As a result, the table in Article 1 of Decision ECB/2008/20 of the European Central Bank (1) is replaced by the following:

                  (million EUR)

                  ‘Issuance of coins intended for circulation and issuance of collector coins (not intended for circulation) in 2009

                  Belgium

                  105,4

                  Germany

                  632,0

                  Ireland

                  65,5

                  Greece

                  85,7

                  Spain

                  390,0

                  France

                  252,5

                  Italy

                  234,3

                  Cyprus

                  22,5

                  Luxembourg

                  42,0

                  Malta

                  15,4

                  Netherlands

                  68,5

                  Austria

                  376,0

                  Portugal

                  50,0

                  Slovenia

                  27,0

                  Slovakia

                  131,0

                  Finland

                  60,0’

   Article 2
   Final provision
   This Decision is addressed to the participating Member States.

      Done at Frankfurt am Main, 25 June 2009.

            The President of the ECB

         Jean-Claude TRICHET

      (1)  OJ L 352, 31.12.2008, p. 58.


title: 2009/214/EC: Decision of the European Parliament of 22 April 2008 on the closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2006

text:
               31.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 88/166

      DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

   of 22 April 2008
   on the closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2006
   (2009/214/EC)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
   having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2006 (1),
   having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2006, together with the Agency's replies (2),
   having regard to the Council's recommendation of 12 February 2008 (5843/2008 — C6-0084/2008),
   having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 276 thereof,
   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 (3), and in particular Article 185 thereof,
   having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 of 7 May 1990 on the establishment of the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network (4), and in particular Article 13 thereof,
   having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,
   having regard to Rule 71 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,
   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0122/2008),

               1.

               Notes that the final annual accounts of the European Environment Agency are as annexed to the Court of Auditors' report;

               2.

               Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2006;

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this Decision to the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

            The President

         Hans-Gert PÖTTERING

            The Secretary-General

         Harald RØMER

      (1)  OJ C 261, 31.10.2007, p. 4.

      (2)  OJ C 309, 19.12.2007, p. 24.

      (3)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 120, 11.5.1990, p. 1.

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


Avis juridique important

|

32003D0709

2003/709/EC: Commission Decision of 9 October 2003 setting up a European Consumer Consultative Group

Official Journal L 258 , 10/10/2003 P. 0035 - 0036

Commission Decisionof 9 October 2003setting up a European Consumer Consultative Group(2003/709/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Whereas:(1) Within the framework of consumer protection as provided for in Article 153 of the Treaty it is appropriate for the Commission to consult consumers on problems concerning the protection of their interests at Community level.(2) Since 1973 the Commission has been assisted by a forum created for this purpose by consecutive Decisions, the latest one being Commission Decision 2000/323/EC of 4 May 2000 setting up a Consumer Committee(1).(3) That Decision should be adapted to the evolution of the political and legal framework to take into account the accession of new Member States and the need for harmonising the definitions of consumer organisations with those used in other Community legislation. At the same time the possibility to associate representatives of other organisations should be provided for. Moreover, in accordance with the rules on the creation of Committees(2), the current Consumer Committee should be renamed "European Consumer Consultative Group".(4) It is further appropriate to increase the transparency and the efficiency of the operation of the Group, in particular by amending the procedure for the nomination of the candidates, making the term of office of members representing national consumer organisations renewable only once, putting in place effective reporting mechanisms and providing for the adoption of the rules of procedure of the Group.(5) Given the rather extensive nature of the amendments, Decision 2000/323/EC should be replaced for the sake of clarity,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 11. The Commission hereby sets up a European Consumer Consultative Group, hereinafter referred to as "the Group".2. The Group may be consulted by the Commission on all problems relating to the protection of consumer interests at Community level.Article 21. The Group shall be composed of:(a) one member representing national consumer organisations from each Member State;(b) one member from each European consumer organisation.2. For the purposes of this Decision "national consumer organisations" means consumer organisations representative, in accordance with national rules or practice, of consumers and active at national level.3. For the purposes of this Decision "European consumer organisations" means consumer organisations fulfilling one of the two following sets of criteria: they must:(a) 1. be non-governmental, non-profit-making, independent of industry, commercial and business or other conflicting interests and have as their primary objectives and activities the promotion and protection of the health, safety and economic interests of consumers in the Community, and2. have been mandated to represent the interests of consumers at Community level by national consumer organisations in at least half of the Member States that are representative, in accordance with national rules or practice, of consumers and are active at regional or national level, and3. have provided to the Commission satisfactory accounts of their membership, internal rules and sources of funding, or(b) 1. be non-governmental, non-profit-making, independent of industry, commercial and business or other conflicting interests, and have as their primary objectives and activities to represent consumer interests in the standardisation process at Community level, and2. have been mandated in at least two-thirds of the Member States to represent the interests of consumers at Community level by- bodies representative, in accordance with national rules or practice, of national consumer organisations in the Member States, or- in the absence of such bodies, by national consumer organisations in the Member States that are representative, in accordance with national rules and practice, of consumers and are active at national level.Article 31. The members of the Group representing national consumer organisations shall be appointed by the Commission on a proposal from the national bodies representing consumer organisations set up by Member States, where they exist, or from the competent national authorities.2. Members representing European consumer organisations shall be appointed by the Commission on a proposal from the European consumer organisations.3. A number of alternates equal to the number of the members of the Group shall be appointed under the same conditions as the members. The alternate shall automatically replace a member who is absent or indisposed.4. The Commission shall publish the list of members and alternates in the C Series of the Official Journal of the European Union, for information purposes.Article 4The term of office of the members shall be three years and shall be renewable, only once for members representing national consumer organisations, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 3.At the end of the three-year period, the members shall remain in office until a replacement is found or until their term of office is renewed.The term of office of the members shall lapse before the end of the three-year period in the event of their resignation, retirement or death. It may also be terminated should the organisation, body or authorities which put them forward as candidates request their replacement. They shall be replaced for the remainder of the three-year period in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 3.Article 5Membership shall not confer entitlement to remuneration.Article 61. On the proposal of the Commission, the Group may invite representatives of other organisations which have the promotion of consumer interests as one of their principal objectives and actively work at European level to this end, to be associated to its work.2. The Group may invite any person having special expertise on a point on the agenda to participate in its work as an expert.Article 71. The Group shall meet in the form and according to the timetable determined by the Commission. The Commission shall chair the meetings of the Group. The Commission shall provide secretarial services for the Group and organise its work.2. The discussions in the Group shall be based on the requests for opinion made by the Commission. When requesting an opinion, the Commission may fix the deadline within which the opinion is to be delivered.3. The group shall adopt its own rules of procedure on the basis of proposals made by the Commission.4. The members of the Group representing national consumer organisations shall inform and consult the associations they are representing on the Group. Each member shall put in place effective reporting mechanisms to inform systematically all consumer organisations at national level on the work of the Group and shall convey their views in return.5. The Group shall present a report on its activities to the assembly of consumer organisations convened annually by the Commission.Article 8Without prejudice to Article 287 of the Treaty, the members and alternates of the Group shall not divulge any information obtained from their work in the Group or its working groups when the Commission informs them that the opinion requested or question raised is of a confidential nature.Article 9Decision 2000/323/EC is repealed.Done at Brussels, 9 October 2003.For the CommissionDavid ByrneMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 111, 9.5.2000, p. 30.(2) Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 (OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23); Commission Decision of 24 July 2000, SEC(2000) 1230.


Avis juridique important

|

31979D0345

79/345/Euratom: Council Decision of 27 March 1979 adopting a programme of research on the safety of thermal water reactors (indirect nuclear action)

Official Journal L 083 , 03/04/1979 P. 0021 - 0022 Greek special edition: Chapter 12 Volume 1 P. 0263

****( 1 ) OJ NO C 146 , 21 . 6 . 1978 , P . 2 AND OJ NO C 299 , 31 . 12 . 1978 , P . 5 .  ( 2 ) OJ NO C 296 , 11 . 12 . 1978 , P . 23 .  ( 3 ) OPINION DELIVERED ON 29 AND 30 NOVEMBER 1978 ( NOT YET PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL ).  ( 4 ) OJ NO C 185 , 14 . 8 . 1975 , P . 1 .  ( 5 ) OJ NO L 200 , 8 . 8 . 1977 , P . 4 .  ( 6 ) OJ NO C 192 , 11 . 8 . 1977 , P . 1 .    COUNCIL DECISION   OF 27 MARCH 1979   ADOPTING A PROGRAMME OF RESEARCH ON THE SAFETY OF THERMAL WATER REACTORS ( INDIRECT NUCLEAR ACTION )  ( 79/345/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 PRESENTED BY THE COMMISSION  ( 1 ) AFTER CONSULTATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  ( 2 ),   HAVING REGARD TO THE OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE ( 3 ),   WHEREAS ON 22 JULY 1975 ( 4 ) THE COUNCIL ADOPTED A RESOLUTION ON THE TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF NUCLEAR SAFETY ;   WHEREAS ON 18 JULY 1977 ( 5 ) THE COUNCIL ADOPTED A RESOLUTION ON A DIRECT ACTION PROGRAMME ON REACTOR SAFETY ;   WHEREAS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMMES OF NUCLEAR SAFETY RESEARCH IS ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL WAYS IN WHICH THE COMMISSION CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE SAFE PRODUCTION OF NUCLEAR POWER AND TO THE PROTECTION OF MANKIND AND THE ENVIRONMENT ;   WHEREAS IT IS ADVISABLE TO SUPPLEMENT THE DIRECT ACTION PROGRAMME BY AN INDIRECT ACTION PROGRAMME OF RESEARCH ,   HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS :   ARTICLE 1   A PROGRAMME OF RESEARCH ON THE SAFETY OF THERMAL WATER REACTORS SHALL BE ADOPTED FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS AS FROM 1 JANUARY 1979 .   THE TEXT OF THIS PROGRAMME IS ANNEXED HERETO .   ARTICLE 2   THE CEILING FOR THE EXPENDITURE COMMITMENTS AND THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STAFF NECESSARY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME SHALL BE FIXED AT 6.3 MILLION EUROPEAN UNITS ACCOUNT AND THREE STAFF RESPECTIVELY , THE EUROPEAN UNIT OF ACCOUNT BEING DEFINED BY THE FINANCIAL REGULATION APPLICABLE TO THE GENERAL BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .   ARTICLE 3   IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE OPTIMUM COHESION BETWEEN DIRECT AND INDIRECT ACTION IN THE FIELD REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1 , THE PROGRAMME SET OUT IN THE ANNEX SHALL BE REVIEWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FOLLOWING THE ADOPTION OF THE NEXT MULTIANNUAL PROGRAMME OF THE JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE , IN ORDER TO TAKE DUE ACCOUNT OF THE CONTENT THEREOF .   ARTICLE 4   THE COMMISSION SHALL ENSURE THAT THE PROGRAMME IS CARRIED OUT IN CLOSE CONJUNCTION WITH THE DIRECT ACTION PROGRAMME CONCERNING REACTOR SAFETY .   THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT OF THE DIRECT ACTION PROGRAMME SET UP BY THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF 18 JULY 1977  ( 6 ) SHALL ALSO BE COMPETENT FOR THE INDIRECT ACTION PROGRAMME WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS DECISION .   DONE AT BRUSSELS , 27 MARCH 1979 .   FOR THE COUNCIL   THE PRESIDENT   A . GIRAUD ****    ANNEX   PROGRAMME OF RESEARCH ON THE SAFETY OF THERMAL WATER REACTORS  ( INDIRECT NUCLEAR ACTION )   THE PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAMME WILL BE THE COLLABORATIVE INVESTIGATION OF PHENOMENA IN ORDER TO ADVANCE FURTHER THE SAFE OPERATION OF THERMAL WATER NUCLEAR REACTORS .   THE PROGRAMME CONSISTS OF THREE PARTS , EACH BEING A THEORETICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON ONE OF THE FOLLOWING PARTICULAR TOPICS :  ( A ) THE LOSS OF COOLANT ACCIDENT ( LOCA ) AND THE FUNCTIONING AND PERFORMANCE OF THE EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEM ( ECCS );  ( B ) THE PROTECTION OF NUCLEAR PLANT AGAINST GAS CLOUD EXPLOSIONS ;  ( C ) THE RELEASE AND DISTRIBUTION OF RADIOACTIVE FISSION PRODUCTS IN THE ATMOSPHERE FOLLOWING A REACTOR ACCIDENT .   THE PROGRAMME WILL BE IMPLEMENTED UNDER CONTRACT .


title: 2013/568/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 17 April 2013 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2011

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 308/203

      DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

   of 17 April 2013
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2011
   (2013/568/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2011,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2011, together with the Centre’s replies (1),

               —

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

               —

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

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               having regard to Regulation (EC) No 851/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 establishing a European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (4), and in particular Article 23 thereof,

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0082/2013),

               1.

               Grants the Director of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control discharge in respect of the implementation of the Centre’s budget for the financial year 2011;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

               3.

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

            The President

         Martin SCHULZ

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ C 388, 15.12.2012, p. 66.

      (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

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

      (4)  OJ L 142, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

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

         RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

      of 17 April 2013
      with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget for the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2011
      THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

                  —

                  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2011,

                  —

                  having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2011, together with the Centre’s replies (1),

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 851/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 establishing a European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (4), and in particular Article 23 thereof,

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0082/2013),

                  A.

                  whereas the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (‘the Centre’), which is located in Stockholm, was established by Regulation (EC) No 851/2004,

                  B.

                  whereas on 10 May 2012, Parliament granted the Director of the Centre discharge for implementation of the Centre’s budget for the financial year 2010 (6), and in its resolution accompanying the discharge, inter alia:

                              —

                              urged the Centre to put in place sufficient measures to guarantee the transparency of its recruitment procedures,

                              —

                              was concerned that the high level of carryforward, matched by a low level of accrued expenditure, was excessive and at odds with the principle of annuality,

                              —

                              considered the Centre as an important Union body to strengthen and develop European disease surveillance, to assess and communicate current and emerging threats to human health posed by infectious diseases and to pool Europe’s health knowledge,

                  C.

                  whereas the Court of Auditors, in its report on the Centre’s annual accounts for the financial year 2011, qualified its opinion with regard to irregularities in the management of one framework contract concluded in 2009 due to the fact that the Centre subsequently amended the contract, which led to payments above the set ceiling which were considered irregular and their amount exceeded the materiality threshold,

                  D.

                  whereas the Centre’s budget for the year 2011 was EUR 56 656 000, compared to EUR 57 800 000 in 2010, which represents a decrease of 2 %,

                  E.

                  whereas the contribution of the Union to the Centre’s budget for 2011 was EUR 55 400 000,

         Budgetary and financial management

                  1.

                  Notes that 2011 was the first year that the Centre received a qualified opinion from the Court of Auditors;

                  2.

                  Notes with concern the Court of Auditors’ remarks, in particular ‘the Centre concluded a framework contract (FWC) in 2009 for a maximum amount of EUR 9 million, allowing it to sign specific contracts with selected suppliers up to this amount. [..] Subsequent amendments increased these contracts’ values to EUR 14,9 million. By the end of 2011 payments made totalled EUR 12,2 million, of which EUR 3,2 million in 2011. Commitments and payments above the EUR 9 million ceiling set in the framework contract are irregular’;

                  3.

                  Takes into account that, according to the Centre:

                              —

                              the published FWC notice stated a ‘minimum of EUR 3 000 000 a year’, while the FWCs signed did not state a value of contracts to be awarded, and Article I.1, titled ‘Subject’ in each signed contract, specified that ‘signature of the contract imposes no obligation on the Centre to purchase’;

                              —

                              delivery of contracted services has been verified and accounts paid in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Financial Regulation, all payments have been legally made for services provided and no funds have been lost;

                              —

                              FWCs were awarded following a public procurement procedure compliant with the ‘open call’ procedure defined in the Financial Regulation and in accordance with the Centre’s internal procedure to ensure best value for money, genuine competition and transparency; also takes into account that no parties who may have been disadvantaged by either the procurement procedure or subsequent contracts awarded may be identified;

                  4.

                  Notes that the Centre consulted the Court of Auditors on further action once it discovered the irregularity and took steps to rectify the situation by centralising all ICT services, as well as taking further steps to prevent possible irregularities in the future;

                  5.

                  Recalls that the overall budget of the Centre for 2011 was EUR 56 656 000, of which EUR 1 256 000 represented a contribution from the European Free Trade Association countries;

                  6.

                  Acknowledges, from the 2011 annual accounts that the budget execution at the end of 2011 increased slightly and reached 96 %, compared to 95 % in 2010, in terms of commitment appropriations, equivalent to EUR 54,5 million;

         Performance

                  7.

                  Takes note that the budget execution, in terms of payments, increased by 8 % compared to 2010 and reached 76 % of the total budget compared to 68 % in 2010; acknowledges, nevertheless, that this is already an improvement, compared to 68 % in 2010 but considers that further efforts need to be done by the Centre in this respect;

         Accounting system

                  8.

                  Notes from the annual accounts that 2010 was the first full year that the Centre implemented its budget for the entire year through accrual-based accounting WF (the Commission integrated budgetary and accounting system);

         Carry-over appropriations

                  9.

                  Expresses serious concern that the Court of Auditors’ report showed that, as in the previous year, a high level of carry-over was reported for 2011; notes that out of the total budget for 2011, EUR 11 million (20 %) was carried over to 2012, including 38 % of Title III ‘operational expenditure’ appropriations; calls on the Centre to inform the discharge authority of the actions taken to address this deficiency as this high level of carry-over, coupled with a low level of accrued expenditure (EUR 5,4 million), is at odds with the budgetary principle of annuality;

         Grants

                  10.

                  Takes note from the Court of Auditors’ report that one agreement for an amount of EUR 0,2 million was signed in 2011, more than four months after the start of activities; welcomes the Centre’s improved contract management procedures;

         Procurement

                  11.

                  Observes from the annual accounts that in 2011, the procurement office supported 60 open procedures, 59 calls for tenders and one call for proposal, as well as 46 reopening procedures (IT Framework Contracts); observes, moreover, that 14 negotiated procedures with a value above EUR 25 000 were concluded, among which one was above EUR 60 000;

                  12.

                  Acknowledges from the report of the Director to the discharge authority on the measures taken in the light of the discharge authority’s observations for the financial year 2010 that of the open procurement procedures, all but 10 were successfully concluded with the award of one or multiple contracts and that of the negotiated procedures, all but five resulted in successful contract awards; calls on the Centre to provide the discharge authority with further results concerning the procurement procedures;

         Recruitment procedures

                  13.

                  Notes from the annual accounts that the total number of temporary agents in place at the Centre as of 31 December 2011 was 177, out of 200 posts provided for in the Establishment Table 2011; considers that some of the provisions of the Staff Regulations may present a considerable administrative burden; encourages, therefore, the Commission to allow for a certain degree of simplification under Article 110 of the Staff Regulation in regard to the agencies;

                  14.

                  Welcomes the Centre’s introduction of the revised internal procedure on recruitment in January 2012;

                  15.

                  Considers it important that the Centre has revised its internal procedures on recruitment and staff selection procedures which had been noticed by the Court of Auditors as improvable; encourages the strict application of the new set of rules and will further monitor the implementation;

                  16.

                  Asks the Centre for additional information on the vacancy rate;

         Internal audit

                  17.

                  Observes that a review of the implementation of the Internal Control System was performed as part of the work for the Annual Report 2011; acknowledges, in particular, that one of the standards regarding evaluation of activities has not been implemented, and three others have only been partly implemented, while the rest are mainly or fully implemented; calls on the Centre to take prompt action in this respect and inform the discharge authority on the progresses made;

                  18.

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

         (1)  OJ C 388, 15.12.2012, p. 66.

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

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

         (4)  OJ L 142, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

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

         (6)  OJ L 286, 17.10.2012, p. 184.

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


title: 2014/952/EU: Political and Security Committee Decision EUMM Georgia/1/2014 of 19 December 2014 on the appointment of the Head of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia)

text:
               24.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 369/78

         POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUMM GEORGIA/1/2014
   of 19 December 2014
   on the appointment of the Head of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia)

      (2014/952/EU)

   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 2010/452/CFSP of 12 August 2010 on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Decision 2010/452/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

               (2)

               On 13 September 2013, the PSC adopted Decision EUMM GEORGIA/1/2013 (2) appointing Mr Toivo KLAAR as Head of EUMM Georgia until 14 December 2014.

               (3)

               On 16 December 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/915/CFSP (3) extending the mandate of EUMM Georgia from 15 December 2014 until 14 December 2016.

               (4)

               On 16 December 2014, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed the appointment of Mr Kęstutis JANKAUSKAS as Head of EUMM Georgia from 15 December 2014 to 14 December 2015,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Mr Kęstutis JANKAUSKAS is hereby appointed as Head of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia) from 15 December 2014 to 14 December 2015.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
   It shall apply from 15 December 2014.

      Done at Brussels, 19 December 2014.

            For the Political and Security Committee

            The Chairperson

         W. STEVENS

      (1)  OJ L 213, 13.8.2010, p. 43.

      (2)  OJ L 251, 21.9.2013, p.12.

      (3)  Council Decision 2014/915/CFSP of 16 December 2014 amending Decision 2010/452/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (OJ L 360, 17.12.2014, p. 56).


title: 2006/510/EC: Council Decision of  11 July 2006  appointing a Spanish full member of the Committee of the Regions

text:
               22.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 200/6

      COUNCIL DECISION

   of 11 July 2006
   appointing a Spanish full member of the Committee of the Regions
   (2006/510/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 proposal from the Spanish Government,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 24 January 2006 the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1).

               (2)

               A seat as a full member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Francisco José VÁZQUEZ VÁZQUEZ,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   Mr Heliodoro GALLEGO CUESTA, Mayor of Palencia, is hereby appointed a full member of the Committee of the Regions in place of Mr Francisco José VÁZQUEZ VÁZQUEZ for the remainder of his term of office, which runs until 25 January 2010.
   Article 2
   This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 11 July 2006.

            For the Council

            The President

         E. HEINÄLUOMA

      (1)  OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.