Avis juridique important

|

31996D0665

96/665/ECSC, Euratom: Commission Decision of 15 November 1996 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community of the Interim Agreement between the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Kazakhstan, of the other part, on trade and trade-related matters

Official Journal L 306 , 28/11/1996 P. 0049 - 0049

COMMISSION DECISION of 15 November 1996 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community of the Interim Agreement between the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Kazakhstan, of the other part, on trade and trade-related matters (96/665/Euratom, ECSC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular the first paragraph of Article 95 thereof,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 101 thereof,Whereas, pending the entry into force of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement signed in Brussels on 23 January 1995, it is necessary to approve the Interim Agreement signed in Brussels on 5 December 1995 between the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Kazakhstan, of the other part, on trade and trade-related matters;Whereas the conclusion of the Interim Agreement is necessary to attain the objectives of the Community set out in Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and whereas the Treaty did not make provision for all the cases covered by this Decision,Having consulted the Consultative Committee and with the assent of the Council, given on 13 May 1996,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1 The Interim Agreement between the European Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Kazakhstan, of the other part, on trade and trade-related matters, together with the Protocol and the declarations, is hereby approved on behalf of the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community.These texts are attached to this Decision (1).Article 2 The President of the Commission shall give the notification provided for in Article 33 of the Interim Agreement on behalf of the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community.Done at Brussels, 15 November 1996.For the CommissionThe PresidentJacques SANTER(1) OJ No L 147, 20. 6. 1996, p. 2.


title: Council Decision 2014/98/CFSP of 17 February 2014 amending Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe

text:
               20.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 50/20

      COUNCIL DECISION 2014/98/CFSP
   of 17 February 2014
   amending Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 29 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 15 February 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (1).

               (2)

               The Council has carried out a review of Decision 2011/101/CFSP, taking into account political developments in Zimbabwe.

               (3)

               The restrictive measures should be renewed until 20 February 2015.

               (4)

               The suspension of the travel ban and asset freeze for the majority of the individuals and entities set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/101/CFSP should also be renewed. These measures should also be suspended for certain other additional persons listed in that Annex. The application of the travel ban and asset freeze should be maintained for two persons and one entity set out in that Annex.

               (5)

               Decision 2011/101/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Decision 2011/101/CFSP is amended as follows:

               (1)

               in Article 4, paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:
               ‘5.   Member States may grant exemptions from the measures imposed in paragraph 1 where travel is justified on the grounds of urgent humanitarian need, or in exceptional cases on grounds of attending intergovernmental meetings and those promoted or hosted by the European Union, where a political dialogue is conducted that directly promotes the policy objectives of restrictive measures, including democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe.’;

               (2)

               Article 10 is replaced by the following:
               ‘Article 10
               1.   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
               2.   This Decision shall apply until 20 February 2015.
               3.   The measures referred to in Article 4(1) and Article 5(1) and (2), in so far as they apply to persons and entities listed in Annex II, shall be suspended until 20 February 2015.
               The suspension shall be reviewed every three months.
               4.   This Decision shall be kept under constant review and shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’.

         Article 2
   The persons set out in Annex I to Decision 2011/101/CFSP listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to Annex II to Decision 2011/101/CFSP.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 17 February 2014.

            For the Council

            The President

         A. TSAFTARIS

      (1)  OJ L 42, 16.2.2011, p. 6.

      ANNEX

                  Name (and any aliases)

                  1.

                  Bonyongwe, Happyton

                  2.

                  Chihuri, Augustine

                  3.

                  Chiwenga, Constantine

                  4.

                  Mutasa, Didymus Noel Edwin

                  5.

                  Nyikayaramba, Douglas

                  6.

                  Shiri, Perence (a.k.a. Bigboy) Samson Chikerema

                  7.

                  Sibanda, Jabulani

                  8.

                  Sibanda, Phillip Valerio (a.k.a. Valentine)


title: Council Decision 2014/157/CFSP of 20 March 2014 amending Decision 2011/173/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 87/95

      COUNCIL DECISION 2014/157/CFSP
   of 20 March 2014
   amending Decision 2011/173/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 21 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/173/CFSP (1).

               (2)

               On the basis of a review of Decision 2011/173/CFSP, the restrictive measures contained in that Decision should be renewed until 22 March 2015.

               (3)

               Decision 2011/173/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   In Article 6 of Decision 2011/173/CFSP, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:

      ‘This Decision shall apply until 22 March 2015.’

   Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 20 March 2014.

            For the Council

            The President

         D. KOURKOULAS

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/173/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 68).


title: 2012/597/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2012 on the closure of the accounts of the European Police Office for the financial year 2010

text:
               17.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 286/280

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 10 May 2012
   on the closure of the accounts of the European Police Office for the financial year 2010
   (2012/597/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police Office for the financial year 2010,

               —

               having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Police Office for the financial year 2010, together with the Office’s replies (1),

               —

               having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 21 February 2012 (06083/2012 – C7-0051/2012),

               —

               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 Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (Europol) (3), and in particular Article 43 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 (4), 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 Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0111/2012),

               1.

               Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Police Office for the financial year 2010;

               2.

               Instructs its President to forward this Decision to the Director of the European Police Office, 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

         Martin SCHULZ

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ C 366, 15.12.2011, p. 179.

      (2)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 121, 15.5.2009, p. 37.

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


title: Council Decision (EU) 2017/865 of 11 May 2017 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence with regard to matters related to judicial cooperation in criminal matters

text:
               20.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 131/11

         COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2017/865
   of 11 May 2017
   on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence with regard to matters related to judicial cooperation in criminal matters
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 82(2) and 83(1), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Union participated alongside the Member States as an observer in the negotiation of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (‘the Convention’), which was adopted by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers on 7 April 2011. The Convention was opened for signature on 11 May 2011.

               (2)

               In accordance with Article 75 of the Convention, the Convention is open for signature by the Union.

               (3)

               The Convention creates a comprehensive and multifaceted legal framework to protect women against all forms of violence. It seeks to prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against women and girls and domestic violence. It covers a broad range of measures, from data collection and awareness-raising to legal measures on criminalising different forms of violence against women. It includes measures for the protection of victims and the provision of support services, and addresses the gender-based violence dimension in matters of asylum and migration. The Convention establishes a specific monitoring mechanism in order to ensure effective implementation of its provisions by the Parties.

               (4)

               The signing of the Convention on behalf of the Union will contribute to the realisation of equality between women and men in all areas, which is a core objective and value of the Union to be realised in all its activities in accordance with Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Violence against women is a violation of their human rights and an extreme form of discrimination, entrenched in gender inequalities and contributing to maintaining and reinforcing them. By committing to the implementation of the Convention, the Union confirms its engagement in combating violence against women within its territory and globally, and reinforces its current political action and existing substantial legal framework in the area of criminal procedural law, which is of particular relevance for women and girls.

               (5)

               Both the Union and its Member States have competence in the fields covered by the Convention.

               (6)

               The Convention should be signed on behalf of the Union as regards matters falling within the competence of the Union insofar as the Convention may affect common rules or alter their scope. This applies, in particular, to certain provisions of the Convention relating to judicial cooperation in criminal matters and to the provisions of the Convention relating to asylum and non-refoulement. The Member States retain their competence insofar as the Convention does not affect common rules or alter the scope thereof.

               (7)

               The Union also has exclusive competence to accept the obligations set out in the Convention with respect to its own institutions and public administration.

               (8)

               Since the competence of the Union and the competences of the Member States are interlinked, the Union should become a Party to the Convention alongside its Member States, so that together they can fulfil the obligations laid down by the Convention and exercise the rights vested in them in a coherent manner.

               (9)

               This Decision concerns the provisions of the Convention on judicial cooperation in criminal matters insofar as those provisions may affect common rules or alter their scope. It does not concern Articles 60 and 61 of the Convention, which are addressed by a separate Council decision on signing to be adopted in parallel with this Decision.

               (10)

               Ireland and the United Kingdom are bound by Directives 2011/36/EU (1) and 2011/93/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council and are therefore taking part in the adoption of this Decision.

               (11)

               In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

               (12)

               The Convention should be signed,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence with regard to matters related to judicial cooperation in criminal matters is hereby authorised, subject to the conclusion of the said Convention (3).
   Article 2
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Convention on behalf of the Union.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 11 May 2017.

            For the Council

            The President

         R. GALDES

      (1)  Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA (OJ L 101, 15.4.2011, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA (OJ L 335, 17.12.2011, p. 1).

      (3)  The text of the Convention will be published together with the decision on its conclusion.


Avis juridique important

|

31999D0723

1999/723/CFSP: Council Decision of 8 November 1999 implementing Council Common Position 1999/722/CFSP concerning EU support for the implementation of the Lusaka ceasefire agreement and the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo

Official Journal L 286 , 09/11/1999 P. 0003 - 0003

COUNCIL DECISIONof 8 November 1999implementing Council Common Position 1999/722/CFSP concerning EU support for the implementation of the Lusaka ceasefire agreement and the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo(1999/723/CFSP)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to Common Position 1999/722/CFSP concerning EU support for the implementation of the Lusaka ceasefire agreement and the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and in particular Article 3, in conjunction with Article 23(2) of the Treaty on European Union.Whereas:(1) in accordance with Article 3 of Common Position 1999/722/CFSP the Union intends to support the Joint Military Commission (JMC) set up in the Lusaka ceasefire agreement to allow it to fulfil its tasks as specified in its Rules of Procedure;(2) The European Union intends therefore to offer financial support and technical assistance to non-military aspects of the JMC activities,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 11. The European Union shall contribute towards operational, non-military expenditure to enable the Joint Military Commission to deploy its observers in the Democratic Republic of Congo during a six month period and fulfil its tasks as specified in its Rules of Procedure.2. The funds shall be channelled through the organisation for African Unity (OAU) and be covered by a separate agreement with the OAU with appropriate provisions for disbursement, accounting and auditing.Article 21. The financial reference amount for the purposes referred to in Article 1 shall be EUR 1200000.2. The expenditure financed by the amount stipulated in paragraph 1 shall be managed in accordance with the procedures and rules applicable to the general budget of the European Union.Article 3This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.It shall expire on 8 May 2000.Article 4This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal.Done at Brussels, 8 November 1999.For the CouncilThe PresidentS. NIINISTÖ


title: Council Decision 2013/725/CFSP of 9 December 2013 amending and extending Decision 2012/173/CFSP on the activation of the EU Operations Centre for the Common Security and Defence Policy missions and operation in the Horn of Africa

text:
               10.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 329/39

         COUNCIL DECISION 2013/725/CFSP
   of 9 December 2013
   amending and extending Decision 2012/173/CFSP on the activation of the EU Operations Centre for the Common Security and Defence Policy missions and operation in the Horn of Africa
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 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) establishing the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP Nestor).

               (2)

               On 8 October 2013 the Political and Security Committee (PSC) agreed that the mandate of the EU Operations Centre for the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions and operation in the Horn of Africa should be extended for a period of 12 months.

               (3)

               Council Decision 2012/173/CFSP (2) should therefore be amended and extended accordingly,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   Decision 2012/173/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:

               (1)

               In Article 1, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:
               ‘1.   The EU Operations Centre shall be activated in support of the CSDP missions and operation in the Horn of Africa, namely Operation Atalanta, EUTM Somalia and EUCAP Nestor.’.

               (2)

               Article 2 is amended as follows:

                           (a)

                           paragraph 2 (a) is replaced by the following:

                                       ‘(a)

                                       to provide, using its military expertise and specialized planning expertise, direct support to the Civilian Operations Commander for the operational planning and conduct of EUCAP Nestor;’;

                           (b)

                           paragraph 2 (f) is replaced by the following:

                                       ‘(f)

                                       to facilitate coordination and improve synergies amongst Operation Atalanta, EUTM Somalia and EUCAP Nestor, in the context of the Horn of Africa Strategy and in liaison with the European Union Special Representative for the Horn of Africa.’.

               (3)

               Article 3 is amended as follows:

                           (a)

                           paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:
                           ‘1.   Captain (Navy) Ad VAN DER LINDE is hereby appointed Head of the EU Operations Centre for a period of two years.’;

                           (b)

                           the following paragraph is added:
                           ‘1a.   The Council hereby authorises the PSC, in accordance with Article 38 TEU, to take decisions on the appointment of the subsequent Heads of the EU Operations Centre.’.

               (4)

               In Article 9, the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:
               ‘It shall apply from 23 March 2012 until 22 March 2015.’.

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

      Done at Brussels, 9 December 2013.

            For the Council

            The President

         A. PABEDINSKIENĖ

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

      (2)  Council Decision 2012/173/CFSP of 23 March 2012 on the activation of the EU Operations Centre for the Common Security and Defence Policy missions and operation in the Horn of Africa (OJ L 89, 27.3.2012, p. 66).


Avis juridique important

|

32003D0001(01)

Political and Security Committee Decision FYROM/1/2003 of 18 February 2003 on the setting-up of the Committee of Contributors for the European Union Military Operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Official Journal C 062 , 15/03/2003 P. 0001 - 0002

Political and Security Committee Decision FYROM/1/2003of 18 February 2003on the setting-up of the Committee of Contributors for the European Union Military Operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia(2003/C 62/01)THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 25, last paragraph, thereof,Having regard to the Council Joint Action 2003/92/CFSP on the European Union Military Operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia(1), and in particular Article 8 thereof on the participation of third States,Whereas:(1) Under Article 8 of the Joint Action, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take relevant decisions on the setting up of a Committee of Contributors for the European Union Military Operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.(2) The European Council Conclusions of Nice and Brussels have laid down the arrangements for the participation of third States in crisis management operations and the setting-up of a Committee of Contributors.(3) The Committee of Contributors will play a key role in the day-to-day management of the operation; the Committee will be the main forum where contributing States collectively address questions relating to the employment of their forces in the operation; the Political and Security Committee, which exercises the political control and strategic direction of the operation, will take account of the views expressed by the Committee of Contributors.(4) In conformity with Article 6 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the European Union which have defence implications, Denmark does not participate in the financing of the operation,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Article 1EstablishmentA Committee of Contributors for the European Union Military Operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (hereafter called "the CoC") is hereby established.Article 2FunctionsThe terms of reference of the CoC are laid down in the European Council Conclusions of Nice (7, 8 and 9 December 2000) and Brussels (24 and 25 October 2002).Article 3Composition1. The CoC members shall be as follows:- representatives of all EU Member States, and- representatives of the third States contributing to the operation.2. The DGEUMS and the Operation Commander are also entitled to attend or to be represented at the CoC meetings.Article 4ChairIn conformity with the Nice conclusions and without prejudice to the prerogatives of the Presidency, the CoC for this operation will be chaired by the Secretary General/High Representative or his representative in close consultation with the Presidency, assisted by the Chairman of the European Union Military Committee (CEUMC) or representative.Article 5Meetings1. The CoC shall be convened by the Chair on a regular basis. Where circumstances require, emergency meetings may be convened on the Chair's initiative, or at the request of a member.2. The Chair shall circulate in advance a provisional agenda and documents relating to the meeting. The proceedings shall be circulated after each meeting.3. Representatives of the Commission and other persons may be invited for relevant parts of the discussion, as appropriate.Article 6Procedure1. Except as provided in paragraph 3 and without prejudice to the competencies of the Political and Security Committee and the responsibilities of the Operation Commander,- unanimity of the representatives of States contributing to the operation shall apply when the CoC takes decisions on day-to-day management of the operation,- unanimity of the CoC members shall apply when the CoC makes recommendations on possible adjustments to operational planning, including possible adjustment to objectives.The abstention of a member shall not preclude unanimity.2. The Chair shall establish that the majority of the representatives of States entitled to take part in the deliberations is present.3. All procedural questions shall be settled by the simple majority of the members present at the meeting.4. Denmark shall not take part in any decision of the Committee.Article 7Confidentiality1. The Council Security Regulations shall apply to the meetings and proceedings of the CoC. In particular, representatives in the CoC shall possess adequate security clearances.2. The deliberations of the CoC shall be covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, except insofar the CoC unanimously decides otherwise.Article 8Entry into forceThis Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.Done at Brussels, 18 February 2003.For the Political and Security CommitteeThe ChairpersonT. Paraskevopoulos(1) OJ L 34, 11.2.2003, p. 26.


title: Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1592 of 15 May 2017 on the measure SA.35429 — 2017/C (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Portugal for the extension of use of public water resources for hydro-electricity generation (notified under document C(2017) 3110) (Text with EEA relevance. )

text:
               21.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 243/5

         COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2017/1592
   of 15 May 2017
   on the measure SA.35429 — 2017/C (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Portugal for the extension of use of public water resources for hydro-electricity generation

         (notified under document C(2017) 3110)

   (Only the Portuguese text is authentic)
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,
   Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and having regard to their comments,
   Whereas:
   1.   PROCEDURE

               (1)

               On 18 September 2012, the Commission received a complaint filed by private citizens against alleged illegal State aid granted by Portugal to EDP — Energias de Portugal, S.A. (1) (‘EDP’) regarding both stranded costs in Portugal and the extension of use of public water resources for hydro electricity generation.

               (2)

               On 30 October 2012, the Commission forwarded the complaint to Portugal and also requested additional information, which Portugal supplied by letter dated 8 January 2013. A meeting with the Portuguese authorities took place on 25 January 2013. Portugal supplied further information on 7 March 2013.

               (3)

               On 18 September 2013, the European Commission sent a letter to Portugal to notify its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, following the procedure of Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) regarding only the extension of use of public water resources for hydro electricity generation.

               (4)

               The Commission received comments from Portugal on 21 October 2013 and a corrigendum was adopted accordingly on 29 January 2014.

               (5)

               The Commission's decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure (2) (‘the opening decision’) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 April 2014.

               (6)

               In May 2014, the Commission received observations from third parties.

               (7)

               Portugal sent its reply to the observations sent by third parties on 3 July 2014.

               (8)

               The Commission requested additional information by letter of 15 April 2016. Portugal sent its reply on 19 August 2016.

               (9)

               The present decision closes the formal investigation procedure, which was opened under Article 108 TFEU. It does not address compliance of the measure with other provisions of EU law, such as EU public procurement rules and antitrust rules based on Articles 106 and 102 TFEU.

         2.   DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE

   2.1.   The energy market in Portugal

               (10)

               Before the liberalisation of the Portuguese electricity market in 2007, the electricity produced in Portugal was not sold directly on the market but acquired by the public operator of the electricity network, Rede Elétrica Nacional, S.A. (‘REN’), based on long-term Power Purchase Agreements (‘PPAs’). According to those PPAs, REN was obliged to buy a guaranteed amount of electricity from authorised producers, at a guaranteed price covering precisely identified cost items, and for a guaranteed period of time, namely until 2027.

         2.2.   The decision on stranded costs

               (11)

               Following the implementation of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), Portugal decided to proceed with the early termination of the PPAs and their replacement by the payment of a compensation relating to stranded costs (the costs of maintenance of contractual equilibrium (‘CMEC’) mechanism). Decree-Law No 240/2004, of 27 December 2004, sets the parameters and the methodology for calculating the CMEC.

               (12)

               Portugal notified the measure for compensation for stranded costs on 1 April 2004, on the basis of the Communication from the Commission relating to the methodology for analysing State aid linked to stranded costs (4). These stranded costs were to be paid for early termination of the PPAs between EDP and REN for 34 power plants, of which 27 were hydro power plants, in consideration of the expected burden of past investments in a liberalised market. The decision on stranded costs also refers to Tejo Energia and Turbogas. Portugal notified its intention to also grant stranded costs to Tejo Energia and Turbogas. The measure was planned to be financed through revenue resulting from a levy imposed on final electricity consumers, based on subscribed power.

               (13)

               The Commission approved the measure in 2004 to cover the potential losses made by three undertakings including the incumbent (5) in the Decision concerning State aid N161/2004 — Stranded costs in Portugal (6).

               (14)

               As laid down in that Commission Decision, the CMEC compensation paid to EDP each year since July 2007 consists of two elements, namely a fixed component which is a share of the ex ante computed maximum annual amount and an adjustment component that takes into account the real value of the difference between the actual revenues and the costs of the plants concerned, computed at the level of the consolidated company group, EDP in this case. A final adjustment of the CMEC amount will be calculated at the beginning of 2018, which will be the 11th year following the early termination of the PPA. This final adjustment will be calculated on the basis of the forecasted income up to the end of 2027, which is the end of the implementation of the CMEC mechanism, following the Commission Decision.

         2.3.   Extension of the concession period

               (15)

               The termination agreement for EDP's PPAs in relation to hydro power plants were concluded in February 2005 after the adoption of Decree-Law No 240/2004. The PPAs termination agreement contains a clause with suspensive effect on the agreed termination. That clause makes PPA termination conditional upon the right to use public water resources for a period not less than the end life of the equipment and civil engineering works. In any case, the right to use public water resources were to be granted to the energy producer, namely EDP, for the same period.

               (16)

               Pursuant to the Portuguese Water Act No 58/2005, of 29 December 2005, and Decree-Law No 226-A/2007, of 31 May 2007, concerning the regime of use of water resources, the use of public water resources for energy production is subject to a concession. The choice of the entity receiving the concession had to be made through one of the specific procedures determined by law. Pursuant to Decree-Law No 240/2004 and Decree-Law No 226-A/2007, at the end of the concession, the assets pertaining to the activity subject to the concession revert free of charge to the State. If, however, the entity receiving the concession made investments authorised by the grantor that were not and could not be amortised, the State could either repay the residual value or extend the terms of the concession for the remaining time for the assets to be depreciated, but in no event exceeding 75 years (7).

         2.4.   Value of the extension of hydro concessions

               (17)

               Portugal carried out three studies which detail the calculation of the possible economic value resulting from the extension in 2007. The main results of the studies were as follows:

                           (a)

                           REN estimates the value of the extension of the concession to EUR 1 672 million, based on a single discount rate of 6,6 % corresponding to EDP's self-reported value of weighted average cost of capital (‘WACC’).

                           (b)

                           Caixa Banco de Investimento estimates a value between EUR 650 million and EUR 750 million, based on the use of two discount rates: the residual value of the PPAs discounted at 4,57 %, resulting from a spread of 50 basis points over the 4,05 % yield of 15-year Government bonds; and the free cash flows discounted with a WACC of 7,72 % based on a capital asset pricing model supplied with data indirectly derived from similar European utilities' equity and risk cost estimates.

                           (c)

                           Credit Suisse First Boston (‘CSFB’) estimates a value of EUR 704 million depending on an assumed electricity price of 50 EUR/MWh, based on a set of discount rates of 7,89 % for WACC and 4,55 % for the residual value, respectively. The WACC rate is, like for Caixa Banco de Investimento, based on a capital asset pricing model fed with data indirectly derived from similar European utilities' equity and risk cost estimates.

               (18)

               Decree-Law No 226-A/2007 gave legal support to the suspensive clauses of PPAs by extending the term of the rights to use the public water resources held by hydro power plants operated by EDP whose PPA had been terminated by Decree Law No 240/2004.

               (19)

               Pursuant to Article 91(6) of Decree-Law No 226-A/2007, the transmission of rights to electricity producers (de facto EDP) was subject to payment of an amount reflecting an economic and financial balance. As defined in Article 92(1) of Decree Law No 226-A/2007, this amount corresponded, for each power plant, to the difference between the market value of operation until the end of the extended term expressed in cash flows and the residual value of the investment, as set out in the PPA and discounted at appropriate discount rates for each of those two components of the price. That provision allowed the transaction not to be treated as one single investment in financial terms, since different interest rates are used to discount the following:

                           (a)

                           the residual value (to be paid to EDP);

                           (b)

                           the financial free cash flows accruing to EDP from subsequent sales of electricity generated by those hydro plants (to be paid to Portugal by EDP and eventually the consumers).

               (20)

               In accordance with the provisions of Decree-Law No 226-A/2007, EDP paid to the Portuguese State the sum of EUR 759 million in consideration for the economic and financial balance of the extension of all 27 hydro power plants concessions. This figure includes the amount of EUR 55 million corresponding to the water resource tax rate. It follows that the net amount of that consideration paid by EDP was EUR 704 million.

         2.5.   The complaint

               (21)

               In the complaint received in September 2012, it was alleged that Portugal had granted unlawful State aid, incompatible with the internal market, to EDP, which resulted from two distinct measures as follows:

                           (a)

                           the compensation for stranded costs to EDP pre-dating the liberalisation of electricity markets, which the Commission approved in its Decision concerning State aid N 161/2004 — Stranded costs in Portugal (as referred to in recital 12 (8)): the complainant argues that, due to changes in circumstances since the adoption of the Commission Decision, and the inconsistency with the terms of the Communication from the Commission relating to the methodology for analysing State aid linked to stranded costs (9), the aid approved in 2004 would no longer be compatible with Union State aid rules;

                           (b)

                           the low price that EDP paid to Portugal in 2007 for the extension without public tender of the duration of concessions for the right of using public water resources for hydropower generation, thereby foregoing State income to the advantage of EDP.

         2.6.   The opening decision

               (22)

               In the opening decision, the Commission rebutted the part of the complaint related to stranded cost compensation and concluded that there were no reasons to declare that the aid was no longer compatible with the internal market.

               (23)

               However, the Commission raised doubts on the possible State aid to EDP in the implementation of the regime of use of water resources. The Commission preliminarily concluded in its opening decision that the possibly low amount paid by EDP for the extension of the right to use public water resources in implementation of Decree-Law No 226-A/2007, if confirmed, would appear as having entailed a selective economic advantage to EDP.

               (24)

               On compatibility, the Commission did not discern, at that stage, any appropriate legal basis for the compatibility with the internal market of the possible State aid to EDP.

         2.6.1.   Absence of tender

               (25)

               Firstly, the Commission noted that the award of use of public water resources under concession for the purpose of operation of a service supplied on a market may not involve an economic advantage to the beneficiary where the concession is awarded as a result of an open and non-discriminatory tender procedure gathering a sufficient number of interested operators. However, in the case at hand, the PPA termination agreements de facto prolonged by around 25 years on average the exclusive right of EDP to operate the power plants concerned without any tender procedure. Indeed, the organisation of a tender had been pre-empted by the suspensive clauses of the 27 PPA termination agreements between REN and EDP.

               (26)

               Considering the significant share of the Portuguese market accounted for by the power plants (27 %), the position of EDP on the Portuguese electricity generation and wholesale supply market (55 %) and the specific interest of hydro plants in an electricity generation portfolio, the Commission considered that such suspension clauses may have triggered a foreclosure effect on a lasting basis for market entry of prospective competitors which could have bid in an open tender. Therefore, an economic advantage unduly benefitting EDP could be established in case the tender had resulted in a higher price than the price paid by EDP, net of the residual value owed to this undertaking.

         2.6.2.   Supporting economic studies used to estimate the transaction price

               (27)

               Secondly, in its opening decision, the Commission considered that a second best solution in the absence of tender could have been an arm's length negotiation between the Portuguese authorities and EDP. Portugal acting as market operator would have aimed at obtaining a highest return on the public goods put to concession. With this approach, the negotiation with EDP would have been backed by the valuation carried out in 2007 (10) proving to be the most beneficial to Portugal, i.e. the valuation proposed by REN.

               (28)

               As referred to in recital 44 of the opening decision, Portugal had consented to a final price amounting to nearly half of the price evaluated by REN. Should the valuation proposed by REN proved the most accurate, it seems implausible that the State would have acted as a market operator in negotiating with EDP.

         2.6.3.   Financial methodology used to determine the transaction price

               (29)

               Thirdly, additional doubts were raised regarding the methodology used to determine the transaction price. The method determined in Decree Law No 226-A/2007 closely follows the approach presented by Caixa Banco da Investimento which uses two discount rates (11).

               (30)

               The Commission expressed its doubts that an absence of use of the same discount rate, based solely on the cost of capital of EDP, as proposed by REN, could entail an economic advantage to EDP. The Commission noted that if the rate used to discount the residual value and the free cash flows had been a single WACC rate based on the typical cost of capital of a European electricity generator (7,55 %), EDP should have paid EUR 1 340 million, that is, EUR 581 million more than the amount actually paid by EDP.

               (31)

               The Commission considered therefore in its opening decision that, taking into account the choice made by the Portuguese authorities of extending the concessions to the exclusive benefit of EDP rather than via a tender procedure opened to other competitors, it could have been more appropriate to use a discount rate based on EDP's actual WACC to reflect its own and true cost of capital. REN reported that EDP's actual WACC in 2007 was 6,6 % and therefore it could be appropriate to use this value rather than 7,55 %. Thus, the Commission concluded that an economic advantage unduly benefiting EDP could be established.

         3.   COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES

               (32)

               During the formal investigation, the Commission received observations from the complainants and EDP.

               (33)

               The complainants considered that through the extension of the concessions, EDP received State aid. According to them, the measure constitutes a compensation for lost revenue.

               (34)

               In its answer dated 19 May 2014, EDP considered conversely that the measure does not constitute State aid. Firstly, EDP argues that it did not gain any economic advantage from the recognition in 2007 of the right to use public water resources until the end of the useful life of the equipment in the 27 hydroelectric power plants with PPAs, considering that that right was granted under normal market conditions.

               (35)

               According to EDP, the presence of an economic advantage can be excluded if the State acts as a private vendor in an arm's length transaction on the open market and seeks to obtain the best price for the asset.

               (36)

               EDP claims that it is entitled to receive the residual value of the hydroelectric power plants if the PPAs terminate prior to the end of the useful life of the plants. Therefore, it was not economically viable for the State to open a public tender in 2007 to award new water resource concessions.

               (37)

               EDP considers that if the State had sought to obtain a higher value than the one arising from the independent studies, EDP would have opted not to extend the right to use the water resources and to receive the residual value of the power plants immediately, as it was entitled to do.

               (38)

               Moreover, EDP considers that the REN study on the economic value of the extension of the concessions contains inappropriate economic and financial assumptions which significantly reduce the value of the rights, which means that EDP would never have accepted the findings of that study for the purpose of a ‘bilateral negotiation’.

               (39)

               Therefore, EDP argues that the unilateral setting of the value of the extension of the concessions, on the basis of an objective valuation methodology, is sufficient to avoid the existence of an economic advantage.

               (40)

               Secondly, EDP argues that the methodology established in Decree-Law No 226-A/2007 is objective and is based on generally accepted principles of economic calculation. Its application enables coherent, justifiable and non-arbitrary compensation calculation.

               (41)

               Regarding the appropriate discount rates that must be used for the financial flows of each plant, both Caixa Banco de Investimento and CSFB concludes that the discount rate of the residual value of the plants should reflect the contractual risk inherent in that value. EDP points out that, since they came into force in 1995, all the PPAs already entitled EDP to receive from REN the residual value of the plant if the contracts were to cease prior to their expiry date. If EDP was not interested in extending its right to use public water resources, it would therefore have received the residual value from REN on the expiry date of each PPA.

               (42)

               Moreover, EDP explains that the residual value of the hydro power plants it is entitled to recoup is in fact a credit held by EDP over the State, through REN, from the entry into force of the PPAs in 1995. REN is an undertaking controlled by the Portuguese State. The risk of failure to meet its obligations is therefore to be associated to the State's debt risk. EDP concludes that the relevant discount rate for updating that value should thus only take into account the risk associated to REN's failure to comply with that obligation.

         4.   COMMENTS AND ANSWERS FROM PORTUGAL

               (43)

               Portugal sent a reply to the comments of the interested parties, but focused on the issue of stranded costs on which the Commission did not raise any doubts.

               (44)

               In April 2016, the Commission requested additional information from Portugal. Portugal replied on 16 April 2016 and provided legal clarifications on the provisions of Decree-Law No 240/2004 and annexes to the concession contracts.

         5.   ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE

   5.1.   Existence of aid

               (45)

               Article 107(1) TFEU provides that any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.

               (46)

               In order to conclude whether State aid is present, the Commission must assess whether the cumulative criteria of Article 107(1) TFEU (i.e. transfer of State resources and imputability to the State, selective advantage, potential distortion of competition and affectation of intra-Union trade) are met for the measure under assessment.

         5.1.1.   Imputability

               (47)

               Regarding imputability, in cases where a public authority grants an advantage to a beneficiary, the measure is by definition imputable to the State.

               (48)

               The extension of the right to use public water resources for the purpose of hydropower generation to the benefit of EDP acting as a subentity receiving the concession of REN results from the implementation of Decree-Law No 226-A/2007 concerning the regime of use of water resources. The provisions of this Decree-Law also set out the rules to be followed by the State for the determination of the payment made by EDP in consideration of the economic benefits of the extension. Decree-Law No 226-A/2007 is a public act adopted and enacted by the Portuguese authorities. It follows that aid measures possibly contained therein would be imputable to the Portuguese Republic.

         5.1.2.   State resources

               (49)

               Regarding the qualification of State resources, granting access to a public domain or natural resources, or granting special or exclusive rights without adequate remuneration in line with market rates, can constitute a foregoing of State revenues (12).

               (50)

               Pursuant to the Portuguese Water Act No 58/2005 and Decree-Law No 226-A/2007, water resources within the Portuguese territory belong to the Portuguese State and cannot be privately appropriated and owned by natural or legal persons. It follows that, in principle, economic benefits derived from the utilisation of public water resources are provided through State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               (51)

               Natural resources with intangible values such as water or air may be necessary and sometimes essential for citizens. However, if their exploitation is non-marketable and/or no economic value is attributed to their use, such resources may not necessarily constitute a vehicle for the attribution of economic benefits of the kind that Article 107(1) TFEU captures, and escape the qualification of State resource. In this case the measure consists of the granting of an entitlement to use water resources which are part of the public domain. The existence of a transaction price shows that this entitlement is ascribed an economic value. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the measure entails State resources.

               (52)

               Article 9 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (13) lays down the principle of cost recovery for water services, adequate incentives in water pricing policies for the efficient use of water resources and adequate contribution from, inter alia, industry. These provisions of Union law recognise an economic value to different water uses. Moreover, in any event, in the case of Portugal, the provisions of Article 91 of Decree-Law No 226-A/2007 further determines that the use of public water resources for the purposes of electricity generation entails an economic, quantifiable and marketable value under Portuguese law.

               (53)

               It follows that the extension of the right to use water resources for the purpose of hydropower generation to the benefit of EDP, acting as a subentity receiving the concession of REN as set out in Decree-Law No 226-A/2007, appears to involve State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

         5.1.3.   Absence of advantage

               (54)

               Whether a transaction is in line with market conditions can be established on the basis of a generally-accepted, standard assessment methodology (14). Such a methodology must be based on the available objective, verifiable and reliable data (15), which should be sufficiently detailed and should reflect the economic situation at the time at which the transaction was decided, taking into account the level of risk and future expectations (16).

               (55)

               In its opening decision, the Commission raised doubts whether the economic valuation of the extension of the concessions, valued in 2007, was underestimated due to the use of different discount rates applied to its two components, the residual value of unamortised assets and the free cash flows generated from the operation of the hydro plants.

               (56)

               The prolongation price estimated in 2007 is EUR 704 million (net of a tax withdrawal amounting to EUR 55 million) and has two components. Firstly, it is composed of the discounted free cash flows incurred by the operation of the hydro plants over the period 2020-2044 (17) (EUR 2 115 million discounted at 2007). Secondly, it is composed of the net present value, at 2007, of the residual value (EUR 1 356 million discounted at 2007). It should be noted that EDP would have been entitled to recover the value of these assets, had Portugal decided not to grant the extension of the concession to EDP.

               (57)

               The Commission questioned to what extent the application of a lower discount factor to the residual value of the unamortised assets was acceptable from a methodological point of view (18).

               (58)

               In order to reflect the fact that the value of these unamortised assets used to operate the plant will be known in 2020 and therefore less uncertain, as they are contracted with entities controlled by the Portuguese State, the banks used a lower discount rate than the WACC applied to the cash flows, in other words, the risk free rate plus a 50-80 bpp spread (ca. 4,6 % v 7,8 % for the WACC). The application of a lower discount rate increases the net present value of the residual value and decreases the prolongation price. Considering that the residual value is not affected by the same economic uncertainties than the free cash flows, it can be concluded that the application of the risk free rate is justified.

               (59)

               On the other hand, the use of the WACC to estimate the net present value of the free cash flows (generated from 2020 to 2044 on average) corresponds to market practice. It is justified by the higher operational risk in a context of a liberalised market, the realisation of the Iberian electricity market (19), the development of a more integrated energy market at European level, which entails overall more uncertainties on the cash generation. Therefore, the application of the WACC to the discounted cash flows is justified.

               (60)

               The evaluation of the WACC was made by Caixa Banco de Investimento and CSFB using a combination of a benchmarking approach (WACC of similar players in similar sectors) with a bottom up approach (recalculation of the WACC using public data obtained from Bloomberg). The WACC was estimated at 7,72 % and 7,88 % for Caixa Banco de Investimento and CSFB, respectively. This approach reflects market practice and is compliant with similar approaches already validated by the Commission in other cases (20).

               (61)

               The Commission also raised doubts on whether the methodology used by REN, the transmission system operator, to assess the prolongation price, resulting in a higher price (EUR 1 672 million) could not be seen as a more satisfactory approach than the valuations performed by the two financial institutions (21).

               (62)

               However, the methodology proposed by REN does not represent market practice. The proposed prolongation price cannot be retained for the following reasons:

                           (a)

                           REN applied one single discount rate to both the residual value and the free cash flows. This discount rate assumes the WACC is given by EDP's WACC (6,6 %). The WACC must however reflect the profitability required by a panel of investors of a given sector in a given country, for a certain type of project. WACCs are generally calculated based on both a benchmarking approach (WACC of comparable market players) and a bottom-up approach, involving a specific estimate of each component of the WACC (beta, market risk premium), which was not performed in the study. Therefore REN's method does not seem to apply the standard methodology generally applied by the market.

                           (b)

                           In addition, REN's evaluation could not be used by the Portuguese authorities due to its lack of independence. According to the Portuguese legal framework, the value of the concession was to be determined based on the evaluations performed by two independent institutions, CSFB and Caixa Banco de Investimento in the case at hand, and their valuations were used to establish the value of the prolongation price. As shown above, the evaluations provided by CSFB and Caixa Banco de Investimento used an appropriate methodology. The Commission finds no ground to consider these evaluations inappropriate to establish the market value of the extension period of the concessions.

               (63)

               As a conclusion, after due analysis, the methodology used by Portugal to assess the prolongation price can be considered to be satisfactory.

               (64)

               In the event of a tender, Portugal would have had to pay EDP for the amount of the unamortised assets at the end of the PPA concession period (2020). Secondly, the prolongation price is based on an assumption of electricity prices of 50 EUR/MWh. It should be pointed out that the compensation for stranded costs assessed at the same period was based on an estimate of 36 EUR/MWh. Should this assumption be retained for the calculation of the prolongation price, Portugal would have supported a negative price (EUR – 15,4 million of Net Present Value). Therefore, the price assumptions compared with assumptions used in the stranded cost decision are certainly more favourable to the Portuguese State, and reflect a conservative approach retained by both financial institutions in their valuation of the prolongation price.

         6.   CONCLUSION

               (65)

               The Commission therefore concludes that the measure entitling EDP to operate hydro power plants for an extended period against the payment of a price of EUR 704 million does not meet all the cumulative conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU, and therefore it does not constitute State aid,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The measure which Portugal has implemented for EDP — Energias de Portugal, S.A. regarding the extension of use of public water resources for hydro electricity generation, does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
   Article 2
   This Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.

      Done at Brussels, 15 May 2017.

            For the Commission

         Margrethe VESTAGER

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  Formerly ‘Electricidade de Portugal’ until 2004.

      (2)  State aid SA.35429 (2013/C) (ex 2012/CP) — Extension of use of public water resources for hydro electricity generation — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C 117, 16.4.2014, p. 113).

      (3)  Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (OJ L 176, 15.7.2003, p. 37).

      (4)  Adopted by the Commission on 26 July 2001 and communicated to Member States by letter SG(2001) D/290869 of 6 August 2001.

      (5)  Namely EDP, Tejo Energia and Turbogas.

      (6)  Commission Decision C(2004)3468 of 22 September 2004 concerning State aid N 161/2004, Stranded costs in Portugal (OJ C 250, 8.10.2005, p. 9).

      (7)  The Portuguese authorities explained that the principle that non-amortised investments are compensated when the relevant assets revert to the State at the end of a concession was already provided for before the liberalisation of the sector under Portuguese law.

      (8)  Commission Decision C(2004)3468 of 22 September 2004 concerning State aid N 161/2004, Stranded costs in Portugal (OJ C 250, 8.10.2005, p. 9).

      (9)  Adopted by the Commission on 26 July 2001 and communicated to Member States by letter SG(2001) D/290869 of 6 August 2001.

      (10)  See recital 16 of the opening decision.

      (11)  See recital 16 of the opening decision.

      (12)  See Communication from the Commission on the application of the European Union State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest (OJ C 8, 11.1.2012, p. 4), paragraph 33, where reference is made to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 May 2003, Connect Austria Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation GmbH v Telekom-Control-Kommission, and Mobilkom Austria AG, C-462/99, ECLI:EU:C:2003:297, paragraphs 92 and 93; and to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2007, Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom SA v Commission, T 475/04, ECLI:EU:T:2007:196, paragraphs 101, 104, 105 and 111.

      (13)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1).

      (14)  See judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2007, Scott v Commission, T-366/00, ECLI:EU:T:2007:99, paragraph 134; and judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 December 2010, Seydaland Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe, C-239/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:778, paragraph 39.

      (15)  See judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2004, Valmont Nederland BV v Commission, T-274/01, ECLI:EU:T:2004:266, paragraph 71.

      (16)  See judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2007, Scott v Commission, T-366/00, ECLI:EU:T:2007:99, paragraph 158.

      (17)  2020 corresponds to the average end year of the PPAs and the stranded costs compensation period, for the 27 hydro power plants involved in the transaction. 2044 corresponds to the average date of the end of the extension period of the concessions for the 27 hydro power plants.

      (18)  See recital 51 of the opening decision.

      (19)  The Iberian electricity market, or MIBEL, was defined in the International Agreement between the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Spain for the Constitution of an Iberian Electricity Market. MIBEL was implemented through a series of laws adopted in Spain (for example, Order ITC/2129/2006, of 30 June 2006) and in Portugal (for example, Portaria 643/2006, of 26 June 2006).

      (20)  See, for example, State aid — Hungary — SA.38454 (2015/C)(ex 2015/N) — Possible aid to the Paks nuclear power station — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C 8, 12.1.2016, p. 2), and T-319/12 and T-321/12 — Spain and Ciudad de la Luz v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2014:604, paragraph 40, T-233/99 and T-228/99 — Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2003:57, paragraph 245.

      (21)  See recitals 48 to 51 of the opening decision.


title: 2008/567/EC: Commission Decision of 4 July 2008 concerning the financial contribution by the Community, for the year 2008, towards actions of the OIE in the area of animal welfare and animal disease surveillance and categorisation

text:
               10.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 181/55

      COMMISSION DECISION

   of 4 July 2008
   concerning the financial contribution by the Community, for the year 2008, towards actions of the OIE in the area of animal welfare and animal disease surveillance and categorisation
   (2008/567/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 20 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Decision 90/424/EEC, the Community may undertake, or assist the Member States or international organisations in undertaking, the technical and scientific measures necessary for the development of Community veterinary legislation and for the development of veterinary education or training.

               (2)

               The Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010 identified the need for continuing the support and initiating further international activities in order to raise awareness and to create a greater consensus on animal welfare as one of the five main areas of action.

               (3)

               The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) is the intergovernmental organisation responsible for improving animal health worldwide. In 2005, the OIE adopted guidelines on animal welfare concerning the transport of animals by land and sea, the slaughter of animals for human consumption and the humane killing of animals for disease control. The OIE intends to further develop those guidelines, to adopt new guidelines and to support the implementation of the guidelines already adopted by OIE member countries, in particular by providing training and guidance.

               (4)

               The planned training and communication events of the OIE are necessary for the development of veterinary legislation in force, and also the development of veterinary education and training, in all the participating countries. The improvements in third countries are strictly linked to the development of Community veterinary legislation and to the need for such legislation to be effective in reaching its aims. Furthermore, the planned trainings and communication events respond to the wish of the majority of European citizens (2) that the animal welfare conditions in countries exporting to the Community are equivalent to those applied in the Community. The Community should therefore contribute towards the financing of these events.

               (5)

               The Second OIE Global Conference on Animal Welfare ‘Putting the OIE standards to work’ aims at supporting the worldwide implementation of OIE guidelines for sea and land transport of livestock, livestock slaughter for human consumption and killing for disease control. The conference also intends to raise the profile of animal welfare and to encourage veterinarians and veterinary services to take greater responsibility for animal welfare.

               (6)

               The Second OIE Global Conference on Animal Welfare might have a considerable influence on the development of Community veterinary legislation. Its aims are in line with the aims laid down in the Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010. It is therefore appropriate to make a Community financial contribution to the OIE conference.

               (7)

               The Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a new Animal Health Strategy for the EU (2007 to 2013) describes prioritisation of EU intervention as one of the pillars of the new animal health strategy. In this context a study on the cost of surveillance and categorisation of animal diseases in the framework of the OIE follow-up of the Global Animal Health Initiative, would provide with information to help to categorise animal diseases and prioritise surveillance measures.

               (8)

               The OIE has a de facto monopoly in its sector, as mentioned in Article 168(1)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3); hence a call for proposals is not required.

               (9)

               The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   A Community financial contribution, for the financing of a training seminar on the implementation of the OIE guidelines on animal welfare, organised by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), of EUR 100 000 constituting a Community co-financing of at maximum 65 % of the total eligible costs is approved.
   Article 2
   A Community financial contribution, for the financing of the Second OIE Global Conference on Animal Welfare ‘Putting the OIE standards to work’, organised by the OIE in 2008, of EUR 200 000 constituting a Community co-financing of at maximum 50 % of the total eligible costs is approved.
   Article 3
   A Community financial contribution, for the financing of a study on the cost of surveillance and categorisation of animal diseases by the OIE in 2008, of EUR 200 000 constituting a Community co-financing of at maximum 67 % of the total eligible costs is approved.
   Article 4
   The financial contributions provided for in Articles 1, 2 and 3 shall be financed through the budget line 17 04 02 01 of the budget of the European Communities for 2008.
   A grant agreement for the financial contributions provided for in Articles 1, 2 and 3 will be awarded to the OIE without a call for proposals as the OIE is the intergovernmental organisation for improving animal health worldwide and has a de facto monopoly.

      Done at Brussels, 4 July 2008.

            For the Commission

         Androulla VASSILIOU

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 19. Decision as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 (OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 1).

      (2)  Special Eurobarometer 270: Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare, http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/survey/sp_barometer_aw_en.pdf, p. 32.

      (3)  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 478/2007 (OJ L 111, 28.4.2007, p. 13).


title: Council Decision (EU) 2017/866 of 11 May 2017 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence with regard to asylum and non-refoulement

text:
               20.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 131/13

         COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2017/866
   of 11 May 2017
   on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence with regard to asylum and non-refoulement
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 78(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Union participated alongside the Member States as an observer in the negotiation of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (‘the Convention’), which was adopted by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers on 7 April 2011. The Convention was opened for signature on 11 May 2011.

               (2)

               In accordance with Article 75 of the Convention, the Convention is open for signature by the Union.

               (3)

               The Convention creates a comprehensive and multifaceted legal framework to protect women against all forms of violence. It seeks to prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against women and girls and domestic violence. It covers a broad range of measures, from data collection and awareness-raising to legal measures on criminalising different forms of violence against women. It includes measures for the protection of victims and the provision of support services, and addresses the gender-based violence dimension in matters of asylum and migration. The Convention establishes a specific monitoring mechanism in order to ensure effective implementation of its provisions by the Parties.

               (4)

               The signing of the Convention on behalf of the Union will contribute to the realisation of equality between women and men in all areas, which is a core objective and value of the Union to be realised in all its activities in accordance with Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Violence against women is a violation of their human rights and an extreme form of discrimination, entrenched in gender inequalities and contributing to maintaining and reinforcing them. By committing to the implementation of the Convention, the Union confirms its engagement in combating violence against women within its territory and globally, and reinforces its current political action and existing substantial legal framework in the area of criminal procedural law, which is of particular relevance for women and girls.

               (5)

               Both the Union and its Member States have competence in the fields covered by the Convention.

               (6)

               The Convention should be signed on behalf of the Union as regards matters falling within the competence of the Union insofar as the Convention may affect common rules or alter their scope. This applies, in particular, to certain provisions of the Convention relating to judicial cooperation in criminal matters and to the provisions of the Convention relating to asylum and non-refoulement. The Member States retain their competence insofar as the Convention does not affect common rules or alter the scope thereof.

               (7)

               The Union also has exclusive competence to accept the obligations set out in the Convention with respect to its own institutions and public administration.

               (8)

               Since the competence of the Union and the competences of the Member States are interlinked, the Union should become a Party to the Convention alongside its Member States, so that together they can fulfil the obligations laid down by the Convention and exercise the rights vested in them in a coherent manner.

               (9)

               This Decision concerns only Articles 60 and 61 of the Convention. It does not concern the provisions of the Convention on judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which are addressed by a separate Council decision on signing to be adopted in parallel with this Decision.

               (10)

               In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and are not bound by it or subject to its application.

               (11)

               In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

               (12)

               The Convention should be signed,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence with regard to asylum and non-refoulement is hereby authorised, subject to the conclusion of the said Convention (1).
   Article 2
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Convention on behalf of the Union.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 11 May 2017.

            For the Council

            The President

         R. GALDES

      (1)  The text of the Convention will be published together with the decision on its conclusion.


Avis juridique important

|

32000D0742

2000/742/EC: Council Decision of 16 November 2000 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation

Official Journal L 299 , 28/11/2000 P. 0014 - 0014

Council Decisionof 16 November 2000concerning the conclusion of the Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation(2000/742/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 170, in conjunction with Article 300(2), first sentence of the first subparagraph, and Article 300(3), first subparagraph thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),Whereas:(1) The European Community and the Russian Federation are pursuing specific research programmes in areas of common interest.(2) The Russian Federation, on the one hand, and the European Community and its Member States, on the other hand, have signed an Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation(3), wherein Article 62 provides for the negotiation of "specific arrangements" in the field of science and technology.(3) By its Decision of 10 November 1997, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate an agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation for the duration of the fifth framework programme, established by Decision No 182/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(4).(4) The Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation should be approved,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and the Government of the Russian Federation is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.Article 2The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Community, give the notification provided for in Article 12 of the Agreement(5).Done at Brussels, 16 November 2000.For the CouncilThe PresidentR. Schwartzenberg(1) OJ C 370 E, 26.10.1999, p. 22.(2) Not yet published in the Official Journal.(3) OJ L 327, 28.11.1997, p. 3.(4) OJ L 26, 1.2.1999, p. 1.(5) The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal by the General Secretariat of the Council.


Avis juridique important

|

32000D0068

Decision No 68/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 amending the basic Decision relating to the Socrates programme so as to include Turkey among the beneficiary countries

Official Journal L 010 , 14/01/2000 P. 0001 - 0002

DECISION No 68/2000/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCILof 13 December 1999amending the basic Decision relating to the Socrates programme so as to include Turkey among the beneficiary countriesTHE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 149 and 150 thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee(2),Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions(3),Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty(4),Whereas:(1) Decision No 819/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 1995 establishes the Community action programme Socrates(5) in which Turkey does not participate;(2) Turkey is an associated country whose links with the Community have been substantially bolstered with the entry into force of the final phase of the Customs Union;(3) the economic and trade links instituted by the Customs Union should be strengthened by closer cooperation in the field of education, training and youth;(4) a considerable amount of time needs to be allowed, on the one hand, between the amendment of the Decision establishing the said programme, which is the subject of this Decison, enabling it to be opened up to Turkey and the end of the negotiations on the arrangements (particularly financial arrangements) for Turkey's participation and, on the other, between the end of those negotiations and its actual participation;(5) the principle of such an opening-up, however, apart from giving a tangible sign of the European Union's oft-repeated willingness to develop sectoral cooperation with Turkey, makes it possible to undertake preparatory measures and measures to increase awareness, with a view to full participation in the said programme or in the future framework programme which is currently being drawn up,HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The second sentence of Article 7(3) of Decision No 819/95/EC shall be replaced by the following: "This programme shall be open to the participation of Cyprus, Malta and Turkey on the basis of additional appropriations in accordance with procedures to be agreed with the countries in question, taking as a starting point the rules applied to the European Free Trade Association countries, and in compliance with the provisions of Article 3 of the current Financial Regulation."Article 2This Decision concerns full or partial participation at the earliest possible date by Turkey in the Socrates programme in its current form, to the extent permitted by negotiations, as well as the launch of preparatory measures or measures to increase awareness with a view to such participation or to that provided for under the future framework programme (2000 to 2004).Article 3The purpose of the participation of Turkey in the Socrates programme is to enable genuine exchanges to take place between young people from both sides and the staff accompanying them, while respecting their linguistic, educational and cultural diversity, in accordance with Article 149(1) of the Treaty, and the rights of minorities.Article 4The European Parliament shall be kept informed of the various measures taken to implement this Decision.Article 5This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.Done at Brussels, 13 December 1999.For the European ParliamentThe PresidentN. FONTAINEFor the CouncilThe PresidentS. HASSI(1) OJ C 186, 26.6.1996, p. 8.(2) OJ C 158, 26.5.1997, p. 74.(3) OJ C 293, 13.10.1999, p. 23.(4) Opinion of the European Parliament of 25 February 1999 (OJ C 153, 1.6.1999, p. 19), common position of the Council of 12 July 1999 (OJ C 249, 1.9.1999, p. 1) and Decision of the European Parliament of 28 October 1999 (not yet published in the Official Journal).(5) OJ L 87, 20.4.1995, p. 10.


title: Political and Security Committee Decision BiH/8/2006 of  15 March 2006  amending Decision BiH/1/2004 on the acceptance of third States’ contributions to the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Decision BiH/3/2004 on the setting-up of the Committee of Contributors for the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina

text:
               5.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 96/14

      POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION BiH/8/2006
   of 15 March 2006
   amending Decision BiH/1/2004 on the acceptance of third States’ contributions to the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Decision BiH/3/2004 on the setting-up of the Committee of Contributors for the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina
   (2006/267/CFSP)
   THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 25 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Political and Security Committee adopted Decision BiH/1/2004 (1) on 21 September 2004 and Decision BiH/3/2004 (2) on 29 September 2004.

               (2)

               Following the recommendation of the EU Operation Commander on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's contribution, the European Union Military Committee (EUMC) agreed to recommend the Political and Security Committee to accept the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's contribution.

               (3)

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

               (4)

               The Copenhagen European Council adopted on 12 and 13 December 2002 a Declaration stating that the ‘Berlin plus’ arrangements and the implementation thereof will apply only to those EU Member States which are also either NATO members or parties to the ‘Partnership for Peace’, and which have consequently concluded bilateral security agreements with NATO,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The Annex to Decision BiH/1/2004 shall be replaced by the following:

         ‘ANNEX
         LIST OF THIRD STATES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1

                     —

                     Albania

                     —

                     Argentina

                     —

                     Bulgaria

                     —

                     Canada

                     —

                     Chile

                     —

                     former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

                     —

                     Morocco

                     —

                     New Zealand

                     —

                     Norway

                     —

                     Romania

                     —

                     Switzerland

                     —

                     Turkey’.

   Article 2
   The Annex to Decision BiH/3/2004 shall be replaced by the following:

         ‘ANNEX
         LIST OF THIRD STATES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3(1)

                     —

                     Albania

                     —

                     Argentina

                     —

                     Bulgaria

                     —

                     Canada

                     —

                     Chile

                     —

                     former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

                     —

                     Morocco

                     —

                     New Zealand

                     —

                     Norway

                     —

                     Romania

                     —

                     Switzerland

                     —

                     Turkey’.

   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 15 March 2006.

            For the Political and Security Committee

            The Chairperson

         F. J. KUGLITSCH

      (1)  OJ L 324, 27.10.2004, p. 20. Decision as amended by Decision BiH/5/2004 (OJ L 357, 2.12.2004, p. 39).

      (2)  OJ L 325, 28.10.2004, p. 64. Decision as amended by Decision BiH/5/2004.