title: 2005/470/EC: Commission Decision of 24 June 2005 terminating the examination procedure concerning piracy of Community sound recordings in Thailand and its effects on Community trade in sound recordings

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 165/32

      COMMISSION DECISION

   of 24 June 2005
   terminating the examination procedure concerning piracy of Community sound recordings in Thailand and its effects on Community trade in sound recordings
   (2005/470/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community’s rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation (1), and in particular Article 11(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 5 June 1991 the Commission received a complaint, pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2641/84 of 17 September 1984 on the strengthening of the common commercial policy with regard in particular to protection against illicit commercial practices (2) from the European Office of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), representing virtually all producers of sound recordings in the Community.

               (2)

               The complaint alleged that piracy of Community sound recordings was taking place on a large scale in Thailand and that such piracy was causing injury to the Community industry, notably by affecting exports of Community sound recordings to Thailand as well as to other third markets.

               (3)

               The Commission decided that the complaint contained sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an examination procedure. A corresponding notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities
                   (3).

               (4)

               Following the initiation of the procedure, the Commission conducted a factual and legal examination and presented on 20 February 1992 its examination report to the Advisory Committee. From this it appeared that, during the reference period, and essentially as a result of the Thai authorities' failure to properly enforce the then Thai legislation on copyright, the level of piracy of sound recordings (international repertoire) was likely to have reached 90 %, and that this situation resulted in material injury to the Community industry, notably in the form of lost sales on the Thai market (as well as certain other third markets).

               (5)

               The Commission then held consultations with the Thai authorities which brought about the commitment of the Thai Government, in September 1992, to bring down piracy of EC sound recordings to negligible levels within the shortest possible time span and, in a first stage, to achieve a substantial reduction within one year. The new Thai Copyright Act entered into force on 21 March 1995. It introduced numerous provisions aimed at simplifying action against the pirates and including the necessary deterrent effects against potential as well as actual infringers, notably through much increased penalties. Under these circumstances, it was decided by Commission decision 96/40/EC (4) to suspend the examination procedure, and to continue a close monitoring of the situation.

               (6)

               The Commission conducted a further factual and legal examination and presented on 29 May 2002, 13 October 2003 and 29 June 2004 three examination reports to the Advisory Committee. From these it appeared that Thailand has taken measures aimed at effectively reducing the level of piracy of sound recordings including the adoption by the Thai Parliament of an Optical Media Legislation, intensified enforcement activities targeted at persons engaged in music piracy, closer coordination between the different Thai authorities involved in the fight against music piracy and between the Thai authorities and music industry associations, and the organisation of public campaigns aimed at making consumers aware of the adverse effects of piracy.

               (7)

               Despite these initiatives, piracy of sound recordings (international repertoire) remains a serious problem in Thailand, and substantial numbers of pirated sound recordings continue to be exported to the European Union. These continuing problems can, however, better be addressed in other contexts than an investigation under Regulation 3286/94.

               (8)

               Further progress in the reduction of piracy of Community sound recordings in Thailand should be sought in the context of permanent bilateral and regional cooperation arrangements between Thailand and the Community.

               (9)

               Measures to address piracy may also be developed in the context of a bilateral partnership and cooperation agreement between Thailand and the Community.

               (10)

               The Community may also continue to support efforts to enhance the technical capacity of Thai authorities to combat piracy of sound recordings in the context of financial support programmes.

               (11)

               The efforts made by Thailand to address problems of piracy of Community sound recordings can be monitored in the framework of the mechanisms envisaged by the Communication on the Strategy for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Third Countries (5).

               (12)

               Accordingly, it is appropriate to terminate the examination procedure.

               (13)

               The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Advisory Committee,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Sole Article
   The examination procedure concerning piracy of Community sound recordings in Thailand and its effects on Community trade in sound recordings, is hereby terminated.

      Done at Brussels, 24 June 2005.

            For the Commission

         Peter MANDELSON

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 71. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 356/95 (OJ L 41, 23.2.1995, p. 3).

      (2)  OJ L 252, 20.9.1984, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 522/94 (OJ L 66, 10.3.1994, p. 10).

      (3)  OJ C 189, 20.7.1991, p. 26.

      (4)  OJ L 11, 16.1.1996, p. 7.

      (5)  OJ C 129, 26.5.2005, p. 3.


title: Council Decision of 14 April 2014 appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for Greece and Romania

text:
               17.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/4

      COUNCIL DECISION

   of 14 April 2014
   appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for Greece and Romania
   2014/C 118/03
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Decision 2003/C 218/01 of 22 July 2003 setting up an Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
   Having regard to the list of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               By its Decision of 22 April 2013 (2), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period from 22 April 2013 until 28 February 2016.

               (2)

               The Governments of Greece and Romania have submitted further nominations for several posts to be filled,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The following are appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period ending on 28 February 2016:
   I.   TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVES

               Country

               Member

               Alternate

               Romania

               Mr Adrian CLIPII

               Mr Corneliu CONSTANTINOAIA
               Mr Dumitru FORNEA

   II.   EMPLOYERS’ REPRESENTATIVES

               Country

               Member

               Alternate

               Greece

               Mr Christos KAVALOPOULOS

               Mr Pavlos KYRIAKONGONAS
               Ms Natassa AVLONITOU

         Article 2
   The members and alternate members not yet nominated will be appointed by the Council at a later date.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

      Done at Luxembourg, 14 April 2014.

            For the Council

            The President

         A. TSAFTARIS

      (1)  OJ C 218, 13.9.2003, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ C 120, 26.4.2013, p. 7.


title: EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 534/09/COL of 16 December 2009 amending, for the 78th time, the procedural and substantive rules in the field of State aid by introducing a new chapter on best practices for the conduct of State aid procedures

text:
               22.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 82/7

         EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION
   No 534/09/COL
   of 16 December 2009
   amending, for the 78th time, the procedural and substantive rules in the field of State aid by introducing a new chapter on best practices for the conduct of State aid procedures
   THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY (1),
   HAVING REGARD to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2), in particular to Articles 61 to 63 thereof and Protocol 26 thereto,
   HAVING REGARD to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (3), in particular to Article 24 and Article 5(2)(b) thereof,
   WHEREAS under Article 24 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the Authority shall give effect to the provisions of the EEA Agreement concerning State aid,
   WHEREAS under Article 5(2)(b) of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the Authority shall issue notices or guidelines on matters dealt with in the EEA Agreement, if that Agreement or the Surveillance and Court Agreement expressly so provides or if the Authority considers it necessary,
   RECALLING the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid adopted on 19 January 1994 by the Authority (4),
   WHEREAS, on 16 June 2009, the European Commission adopted a Code of Best Practice for the conduct of State aid procedures (5),
   WHEREAS this Communication is also of relevance for the European Economic Area,
   WHEREAS uniform application of the EEA State aid rules is to be ensured throughout the European Economic Area,
   WHEREAS, according to point II under the heading ‘GENERAL’ at the end of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement, the Authority, after consultation with the European Commission, is to adopt acts corresponding to those adopted by the European Commission,
   HAVING consulted the European Commission, and the EFTA States by a way of letters on the subject dated 20 November 2009 (Events No 537430, 537439 and 537441),
   HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The State Aid Guidelines shall be amended by introducing a new chapter on best practices for the conduct of State aid procedures. The new chapter is contained in the Annex to this Decision.
   Article 2
   Only the English version is authentic.

      Done at Brussels, 16 December 2009.

            For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

         Per SANDERUD

            President

         Kristján A. STEFÁNSSON

            College Member

      (1)  Hereinafter referred to as the Authority.

      (2)  Hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement.

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

      (4)  Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the Authority on 19 January 1994, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as OJ) L 231, 3.9.1994 p. 1 and EEA Supplement No 32, 3.9.1994, p. 1, as amended. Hereinafter referred to as the State Aid Guidelines. The updated version of the State Aid Guidelines is published on the Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/state-aid-guidelines/.

      (5)  OJ C 136, 16.6.2009, p. 13.

      ANNEX

         GUIDELINES ON BEST PRACTICE FOR THE CONDUCT OF STATE AID CONTROL PROCEDURES
          (1)

      1.   Scope and purpose

                  (1)

                  The EFTA Surveillance Authority (the Authority) issues these Guidelines on best practice for the conduct of State aid control procedures in order to make State aid procedures as productive and efficient as possible for all parties concerned.

                  (2)

                  This Chapter of the Authority’s Guidelines is built on the experience acquired in the application of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (Part II of Protocol 3) (2). The principal aim of this Chapter is to provide guidance on the day-to-day conduct of State aid procedures, thereby fostering a spirit of better cooperation and mutual understanding between the Authority, the EFTA States and the legal and business community.

                  (3)

                  A successful improvement of State aid procedures requires discipline on both sides and a mutual commitment from the Authority and the EFTA States. The Authority will endeavour to enhance its cooperation with the EFTA States and interested parties, and will furthermore work to improve the conduct of its investigations and its internal decision-making process, in order to ensure greater transparency, predictability and efficiency of State aid procedures.

                  (4)

                  In line with modern State aid architecture, this Chapter is the final part of a simplification package comprising the Authority’s Guidelines on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain types of State aid (3) and the Authority’s Guidelines on the enforcement of State aid law by national courts (4) which contributes to more predictable and transparent procedures.

                  (5)

                  The specific features of an individual case may however require an adaptation of, or deviation from, this Chapter (5).

                  (6)

                  Moreover, to the extent that the EEA Agreement applies to these sectors, the specificities of the fishery and aquaculture sectors and of the activities in the primary production, marketing or processing of agricultural products may also justify a deviation from this Chapter of the Guidelines.

            2.   Relationship to EEA Law

                  (7)

                  This Chapter is not intended to provide a full or comprehensive account of the relevant legislative, interpretative and administrative measures which govern State aid control. It should be read in conjunction with and as a supplement to the basic rules governing State aid procedures.

                  (8)

                  This Chapter therefore does not create or alter any rights or obligations as set out in the EEA Agreement, Protocol 3 and Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 (6) as amended, as interpreted by the case-law of the EFTA Court and the Courts of Justice of the European Union.

                  (9)

                  This Chapter sets out day-to-day best practices to contribute to speedier, more transparent and more predictable State aid procedures at each step of the investigation of a notified or non-notified case or a complaint.

            3.   Pre-notification contacts

                  (10)

                  The Authority’s experience demonstrates the added value of pre-notification contacts, even in seemingly standard cases. Pre-notification contacts provide the Authority and the notifying EFTA State with the possibility to discuss the legal and economic aspects of a proposed project informally and in confidence prior to notification, and thereby enhance the quality and completeness of notifications. In this context, the EFTA State and the Authority can also jointly develop constructive proposals for amending problematic aspects of a planned measure. This phase thus paves the way for a more speedy treatment of notifications, once formally submitted to the Authority. Successful pre-notifications should effectively allow the Authority to adopt decisions pursuant to Article 4(2), (3) and (4) of Part II of Protocol 3 within 2 months from the date of notification (7).

                  (11)

                  Pre-notification contacts are strongly recommended for cases where there are particular novelties or specific features which would justify informal prior discussions with the Authority but informal guidance will be provided whenever an EFTA State calls for it.

            3.1.   Content

                  (12)

                  The pre-notification phase offers the possibility to discuss and provide guidance to the EFTA State concerned about the scope of the information to be submitted in the notification form to ensure it is complete as from the date of notification. A fruitful pre-notification phase will also allow discussions, in an open and constructive atmosphere, of any substantive issues raised by a planned measure. This is particularly important as regards projects which could not be accepted as such and should thus be withdrawn or significantly amended. It can also comprise an analysis of the availability of other legal bases or the identification of relevant precedents. In addition, a successful pre-notification phase will allow the Authority and the EFTA State to address key competition concerns, economic analysis and, where appropriate, external expertise required to demonstrate the compatibility of a planned project with the functioning with the EEA Agreement. The notifying EFTA State may thus also request the Authority, in pre-notification, to waive the obligation to provide certain information foreseen in the notification form which in the specific circumstances of the case is not necessary for its examination. Finally, the pre-notification phase is decisive to determine whether a case qualifies prima facie for treatment under the simplified procedure (8).

            3.2.   Scope and timing

                  (13)

                  In order to allow for a constructive and efficient pre-notification phase, it is in the interest of the EFTA State concerned to provide the Authority with the information necessary for the assessment of a planned State aid project, on the basis of a draft notification form. In order to facilitate swift treatment of the case, contacts by e-mails or conference calls will in principle be favoured rather than meetings. Within 2 weeks from the receipt of the draft notification form, the Authority will normally organise a first pre-notification contact.

                  (14)

                  As a general rule, pre-notification contacts should not last longer than 2 months and should be followed by a complete notification. Should pre-notification contacts not bring the desired results, the Authority may declare the pre-notification phase closed. However, since the timing and format of pre-notification contacts depend on the complexity of the individual case, pre-notification contacts may last several months. The Authority therefore recommends that, in cases which are particularly complex (for example, rescue aid, large research and development aid, large individual aid or particularly large or complex aid schemes), EFTA States launch pre-notification contacts as early as possible to allow for meaningful discussions.

                  (15)

                  In the Authority’s experience, involving the aid beneficiary in the pre-notification contacts is very useful, particularly for cases with major technical, financial and project-related implications. The Authority therefore recommends that beneficiaries of individual aid be involved in the pre-notification contacts.

                  (16)

                  Except in particularly novel or complex cases, the Authority will endeavour to provide the EFTA State concerned with an informal preliminary assessment of the project at the end of the pre-notification phase. That non-binding assessment will not be an official position of the Authority, it will only represent an informal guidance on the completeness of the draft notification and the prima facie compatibility of the planned project with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. In particularly complex cases, the Authority may also provide written guidance, at the EFTA State's request, on the information still to be provided.

                  (17)

                  Pre-notification contacts are held in strict confidence. The discussions take place on a voluntary basis and remain without prejudice to the handling and investigation of the case following formal notification.

                  (18)

                  In order to enhance the quality of notifications, the Authority will endeavour to meet requests for training sessions by EFTA States. The Authority will also maintain regular contacts with EFTA States to discuss further improvements of the State aid procedure, in particular as regards the scope and content of the applicable notification forms.

            4.   Mutually agreed planning

                  (19)

                  In cases which are particularly novel, technically complex or otherwise sensitive, or which have to be examined as a matter of absolute urgency, the Authority will offer mutually agreed planning to the notifying EFTA State to increase the transparency and predictability of the likely duration of a State aid investigation.

            4.1.   Content

                  (20)

                  Mutually agreed planning is a form of structured cooperation between the EFTA State and the Authority, based on a joint planning and understanding of the likely course of the investigation and its expected time frame.

                  (21)

                  In this context, the Authority and the notifying EFTA State could in particular agree on:

                              —

                              the priority treatment of the case concerned, in return for the EFTA State formally accepting the suspension of the examination (9) of other notified cases originating from the same EFTA State, should this be necessary for planning or resource purposes,

                              —

                              the information to be provided by the EFTA State and/or the beneficiary concerned, including studies or external expertise, or unilateral information-gathering by the Authority, and

                              —

                              the likely form and duration of the assessment of the case by the Authority, once notified.

                  (22)

                  In return for the EFTA State's efforts in providing all the necessary information in a timely manner and as agreed in the context of mutually agreed planning, the Authority will endeavour to respect the mutually agreed time frame for the further investigation of the case, unless the information provided by the EFTA State or interested parties raises unexpected issues.

            4.2.   Scope and timing

                  (23)

                  Mutually agreed planning will in principle be reserved for cases which are so novel, technically complex or otherwise sensitive that a clear preliminary assessment of the case by the Authority proves impossible at the end of the pre-notification phase. In such cases, mutually agreed planning will take place at the end of the pre-notification phase, and be followed by the formal notification.

                  (24)

                  However, the Authority and the EFTA State concerned may also agree, at the latter's request, on mutually agreed planning for the further treatment of the case at the outset of the formal investigation procedure.

            5.   The preliminary examination of notified measures

      5.1.   Requests for information

                  (25)

                  In order to streamline the course of the investigation, the Authority will endeavour to group requests for information during the preliminary examination phase. In principle, there will therefore only be one comprehensive information request, normally to be sent within 4-6 weeks after the date of notification. Unless otherwise agreed in mutually agreed planning, pre-notification should enable EFTA States to submit a complete notification thereby reducing the need for additional information. However, the Authority may subsequently raise questions most notably on points that have been raised by the EFTA States’ answers, although this does not necessarily indicate that the Authority is experiencing serious difficulties in assessing the case.

                  (26)

                  Should the EFTA State fail to provide the requested information within the prescribed period, Article 5(3) of Part II of Protocol 3 will, after one reminder, normally be applied, and the EFTA State will be informed that the notification is deemed to have been withdrawn. The formal investigation procedure will normally be initiated whenever the necessary conditions are met, and generally after two rounds of questions at most.

            5.2.   Agreed suspension of the preliminary examination

                  (27)

                  In certain circumstances, the course of the preliminary examination may be suspended if an EFTA State so requests to amend its project and bring it in line with State aid rules, or otherwise by common agreement. Suspension may only be granted for a period agreed in advance. Should the EFTA State fail to submit a complete, prima facie compatible project at the end of the suspension period, the Authority will resume the procedure from the point at which it was halted. The EFTA State concerned will normally be informed that the notification is deemed to have been withdrawn, or the formal investigation procedure opened without delay in case of serious doubts.

            5.3.   State of play contacts

                  (28)

                  At their request, notifying EFTA States will be informed of the state of play of an ongoing preliminary examination. EFTA States are invited to involve the beneficiary of an individual aid in these contacts.

            6.   The formal investigation procedure

                  (29)

                  In the light of the general complexity of cases subject to formal investigation, the Authority is committed to improving the transparency, predictability and efficiency of this phase as a matter of utmost priority, to contribute to meaningful decision-making in line with the needs of modern business. The Authority will therefore streamline the conduct of formal investigations through efficient use of all the procedural means available to it under Part II of Protocol 3.

            6.1.   Publication of the decision and meaningful summary

                  (30)

                  Where the EFTA State concerned does not request the removal of confidential information, the Authority will endeavour to publish its decision to open the formal investigation procedure, including the meaningful summaries, within 2 months from the date of adoption of that decision.

                  (31)

                  Where there is disagreement concerning confidentiality issues, the Authority will apply the principles of its Guidelines on professional secrecy in State aid decisions (10) and use its best endeavours to proceed with publication of the decision within the shortest possible time frame following its adoption. The same will apply to the publication of all final decisions.

                  (32)

                  To improve the transparency of the procedure, the EFTA State, the beneficiary and other stakeholders (in particular potential complainants) will be informed of all delays triggered by disagreements concerning confidentiality issues.

            6.2.   Comments from interested parties

                  (33)

                  According to Article 6 of Part II of Protocol 3, interested parties must submit comments within a prescribed period which must normally not exceed 1 month following the publication of the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure. That time limit will not normally be extended, and the Authority will thus usually not accept any belated submission of information from interested parties, including the beneficiary of the aid (11). Extensions may be granted only in exceptional duly justified cases, such as the provision of particularly voluminous factual information or following contact between the Authority and the interested party concerned.

                  (34)

                  In order to improve the factual basis of the investigation of particularly complex cases, the Authority may send a copy of the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure to identified interested parties including trade or business associations, and invite them to comment on specific aspects of the case (12). Interested parties’ cooperation in this context is purely voluntary, but if an interested party chooses to provide comments, it is in its interest to submit those comments in a timely manner so that the Authority will be able to take them into account. Therefore, the Authority will invite interested parties to react within 1 month from the date on which the copy of the decision is sent to them. The Authority will not wait any further for those comments to be submitted. In order to ensure equal treatment between interested parties the Authority will send the same invitation to comment to the aid beneficiary. In order to respect the EFTA State’s right of defence, it will forward to the EFTA State a non-confidential version of any comments received from interested parties and invite the EFTA State to reply within 1 month.

                  (35)

                  In order to ensure transmission of all comments from interested parties to the EFTA State concerned in the most expedient manner, EFTA States will, as far as possible, be invited to accept transmission of those comments in their original language. If an EFTA State so requests, the Authority will provide a translation, which may have implications as regards the expediency of procedures.

                  (36)

                  EFTA States will also be informed of the absence of any comments from interested parties.

            6.3.   EFTA States’ comments

                  (37)

                  To ensure timely completion of the formal investigation procedure, the Authority will rigorously enforce all time limits applicable to this phase under Part II of Protocol 3. If an EFTA State fails to submit its comments on the Authority’s decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure and on interested parties’ comments within the one-month time limit set in Article 6(1) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority will immediately send a reminder granting the EFTA State concerned an additional period of 1 month and informing the EFTA State that no further extension will be granted, save in exceptional circumstances. In the absence of a meaningful reply by the EFTA State concerned, the Authority will take a decision on the basis of the information available to it, in accordance with Articles 7(7) and Article 13(1) of Part II of Protocol 3.

                  (38)

                  In the case of unlawful aid, and in the absence of comments from the EFTA State on the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Authority will, pursuant to Article 10 of Part II of Protocol 3, issue an information injunction. Should the EFTA State fail to reply to that injunction within the time limit set therein, the Authority will take a decision on the basis of the information available to it.

            6.4.   Request for additional information

                  (39)

                  It cannot be excluded that, in particularly complex cases, the information submitted by the EFTA State in response to the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure may require the Authority to send a further request for information. A time limit of 1 month will be set for the EFTA State to reply.

                  (40)

                  Should the EFTA State not reply within the time limit, the Authority will immediately send a reminder setting a final deadline of 15 working days and informing the EFTA State concerned that the Authority will thereafter take a decision on the basis of the information available to it, or issue an information injunction in the case of unlawful aid.

            6.5.   Justified suspension of the formal investigation

                  (41)

                  Only in exceptional circumstances and by common agreement between the Authority and the EFTA State concerned may the formal investigation be suspended. Suspension could, for example, occur if the EFTA State formally requests a suspension in order to bring its project in line with State aid rules, or if there is pending litigation before the EFTA Court or the EU Courts regarding similar issues, the outcome of which is likely to have an impact on the assessment of the case.

                  (42)

                  Suspension will normally only be granted once, and for a period agreed in advance between the Authority and the EFTA State concerned.

            6.6.   Adoption of the final decision and justified extension of the formal investigation

                  (43)

                  In accordance with Article 7(6) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority will as far as possible endeavour to adopt a decision within a period of 18 months from the opening of the procedure. That time limit may be extended by common agreement between the Authority and the EFTA State concerned. An extension of the duration of the investigation may in particular be appropriate in cases concerning novel projects or raising novel legal issues.

                  (44)

                  In order to ensure effective implementation of Article 7(6) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority will endeavour to adopt the final decision no later than 4 months after the submission of the last information by the EFTA State, or the expiry of the last time limit without information having been received.

            7.   Complaints

                  (45)

                  The efficient and transparent handling by the Authority of complaints brought before it is of considerable importance to all stakeholders in State aid procedures. The Authority therefore proposes the following best practices, designed to contribute to that joint objective.

            7.1.   The complaint form

                  (46)

                  The Authority will systematically invite complainants to use the complaint form available on its website (http://www.eftasurv.int/media/documents/Complaint-form—State-aid.doc) and, at the same time, to submit a non-confidential version of the complaint. The submission of complete forms will normally allow complainants to enhance the quality of their submissions.

            7.2.   Indicative time frame and outcome of the investigation of a complaint

                  (47)

                  The Authority will use its best endeavours to investigate a complaint within an indicative time frame of 12 months from its receipt. That time limit does not constitute a binding commitment. Depending on the circumstances of the individual case, the possible need to request complementary information from the complainant, the EFTA State or interested parties may extend the investigation of a complaint.

                  (48)

                  The Authority is entitled to give different degrees of priority to the complaints brought before it (13), depending for instance on the scope of the alleged infringement, the size of the beneficiary, the economic sector concerned or the existence of similar complaints. In the light of its workload and its right to set the priorities for investigations (14), it can thus postpone dealing with a measure which is not a priority. Within 12 months, the Authority will, therefore, in principle, endeavour to:

                              (a)

                              adopt a decision for priority cases pursuant to Article 4 of Part II of Protocol 3, with a copy addressed to the complainant;

                              (b)

                              send an initial administrative letter to the complainant setting out its preliminary views on non-priority cases. The administrative letter is not an official position of the Authority, it only represents a preliminary view, based on the information available and pending any additional comments the complainant might wish to make within 1 month from the date of the letter. If further comments are not provided within the prescribed period, the complaint will be deemed to be withdrawn.

                  (49)

                  As a matter of transparency, the Authority will use its best endeavours to inform the complainant of the priority status of its submission, within 2 months from the date of receipt of the complaint. In the case of unsubstantiated complaints, the Authority will inform the complainant within 2 months from receipt of the complaint that there are insufficient grounds for taking a view on the case, and that the complaint will be deemed to be withdrawn if further substantive comments are not provided within 1 month. As regards complaints which refer to approved aid, the Authority will also endeavour to reply to the complainant within 2 months from receipt of the complaint.

                  (50)

                  In the case of unlawful aid, complainants will be reminded of the possibility to initiate proceedings before national courts, which can order the suspension or recovery of such aid (15).

                  (51)

                  When necessary, the non-confidential version of a complaint will be transmitted to the EFTA State concerned for comments. EFTA States and the complainants will systematically be kept informed of the closure or other processing of a complaint. In return, EFTA States will be invited to respect the time limits for commenting and providing information on complaints transmitted to them. They will also be invited to accept, as far as possible, transmission of complaints in their original language. If an EFTA State so requests, the Authority will provide a translation, which may have implications as regards the expediency of procedures.

            8.   Internal decision-making procedures

                  (52)

                  The Authority is committed to streamlining and further improving its internal decision-making process, in order to contribute to an overall shortening of State aid procedures.

                  (53)

                  To this effect, internal decision-making procedures will be applied as efficiently as possible. The Authority will also review its current internal legal framework to optimise its decision-making procedures.

                  (54)

                  The Authority will keep its internal decision-making practice under constant review and adapt it if necessary.

            9.   Future review

                  (55)

                  Procedural best practices can only be effective if they are based on a shared commitment by the Authority and EFTA States to diligently pursue State aid investigations, respect applicable time limits and thereby ensure the necessary transparency and predictability of procedures. This Chapter and the best practices enshrined therein are a first contribution to this joint commitment.

                  (56)

                  The Authority will apply this Chapter to measures which have been notified to the Authority or otherwise brought to the Authority's attention as from 1 January 2010.

                  (57)

                  This Chapter may be revised to reflect changes to legislative, interpretative and administrative measures or the case-law of the EFTA Court and the Courts of Justice of the European Union, which govern State aid procedure or any experience gained in its application. The Authority further intends to engage, on a regular basis, in a dialogue with the EFTA States and other stakeholders on the experience gained in the application of Part II of Protocol 3 in general, and this Chapter of best practice in particular.

         (1)  This Chapter corresponds to the Commission Code of Best Practice for the conduct of State aid control procedures (OJ C 136, 16.6.2009, p. 13).

         (2)  Part II of Protocol 3 mirrors Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1).

         (3)  OJ L 75, 15.3.2012, p. 26 and EEA Supplement No 14, 15.3.2012, p. 1, available at: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/state-aid-guidelines/ These Guidelines corresponds to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain types of State Aid (OJ C 136, 16.6.2009, p. 3).

         (4)  Not yet published in the OJ or the EEA Supplement. These Guidelines correspond to the European Commissions Notice on the enforcement of State aid law by national courts (OJ C 85, 9.4.2009, p. 1).

         (5)  In the context of the 2008 banking crisis, the Authority has taken appropriate steps to ensure the swift adoption of decisions upon complete notification, and when necessary within less than 2 weeks. See the Authority’s Guidelines on the application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis (not yet published in the OJ or the EEA Supplement), which corresponds to the Communication from the Commission — The application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis (OJ C 270, 25.10.2008, p. 8). As regards the real economy, see the Authority’s Temporary framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis (not yet published in the OJ or the EEA Supplement), which corresponds to the Communication from the Commission — Temporary Community framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis (OJ C 83, 7.4.2009, p. 1).

         (6)  Decision No 195/04/COL (OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37, EEA Supplement No. 26, 25.5.2006, p. 1) corresponds to Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1), which implements Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

         (7)  This time limit cannot be respected where the Authority has to issue several requests for information due to incomplete notifications.

         (8)  See Guidelines on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain types of State aid.

         (9)  See Article 4(5) of Part II of Protocol 3.

         (10)  Adopted by College Decision No 15/04/COL of 18 February 2004 (OJ L 154, 8.6.2006, p. 27 and EEA Supplement No 29, 8.6.2006, p. 1). These guidelines correspond to the European Commission Communication of 1 December 2003 on professional secrecy in State aid decisions (OJ C 297, 9.12.2003, p. 6).

         (11)  Without prejudice to Article 10(1) of Part II of Protocol 3.

         (12)  According to settled case-law of the Community Courts, the Authority is entitled to send the decision to open the formal investigation to identified third parties; see for example, Case T-198/01 Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission (2004) ECR II-2717, paragraph 195; T-198/01R Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission (2002) ECR II-2153; Joined Cases C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P Falck Spa and others v Commission (2002) ECR I-7869, paragraph 83.

         (13)  Case C-119/97 Ufex and Others v Commission (1999) ECR I-1341, paragraph 88.

         (14)  Case T-475/04 Bouygues SA v Commission (2007) ECR II-2097, paragraphes 158 and 159.

         (15)  See the Authority’s Guidelines on the enforcement of State aid law by national courts.


Avis juridique important

|

31994D0268

94/268/Euratom: Council Decision of 26 April 1994 concerning a framework programme of Community activities in the field of research and training for the European Atomic Energy Community (1994 to 1998)

Official Journal L 115 , 06/05/1994 P. 0031 - 0037 Finnish special edition: Chapter 16 Volume 2 P. 0073  Swedish special edition: Chapter 16 Volume 2 P. 0073

COUNCIL DECISION of 26 April 1994 concerning a framework programme of Community activities in the field of research and training for the European Atomic Energy Community (1994 to 1998) (94/268/Euratom)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 7 thereof,  Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),  Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),  Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3),  Whereas Community activities in the field of nuclear research and training can be the subject of a multiannual framework programme and of specific programmes both determined in accordance with Article 7 of the Treaty;  Whereas by Decision 90/221/Euratom, EEC (4) the Council adopted a third framework programme for the period 1990 to 1994 in the field of research and technological development (RTD) which is in the process of being implemented; whereas on 9 April 1992  the Commission presented an assessment of progress in implementing the third framework programme; whereas by Decision 93/167/Euratom, EEC (5) the Council provided for supplementary financing for the last two years of implementation of the third  framework programme;  Whereas it has been judged appropriate to adopt a new framework programme on nuclear research and training for the period 1994 to 1998 in order to ensure the continuity of multiannual Community activities in this field;  Whereas, Article 4 (1) of the Treaty provides for Community nuclear research and training activities designed to complement the activities carried out by the Member States; whereas Community action should therefore allow value to be added to efforts  undertaken by the Member States; whereas, furthermore, the Community RTD effort should concentrate on activities which are carefully selected in accordance with well-defined criteria;  Whereas Community research only envisages peaceful purposes, in accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty;  Whereas Community research activities should continue to focus on generic and precompetitive research;  Whereas the Community shall only support research activities of high quality;  Whereas research activities in the fields of nuclear fission safety and controlled thermonuclear fusion should be pursued; whereas these activities are implemented by means of specific programmes based on cooperation with and between undertakings,  research centres and universities;  Whereas cooperation in the field of Community research with third countries and international organizations should be promoted; whereas in this field of activity it is necessary that the Community continues to play an important international role in the  area of nuclear fission safety, in particular, with the countries of central and eastern Europe and the States which have emerged from the former USSR; whereas it is also important to continue international cooperation activities with third countries in  the field of controlled thermo-nuclear fusion where appropriate; whereas it is important systematically to reinforce complementarity and to improve links between Community activity and research activities undertaken in the framework of specialized  international organizations; whereas synergy with other Community instruments (e.g Phare, Tacis) should be sought;  Whereas action should be taken to promote the dissemination and optimization of the results of Community research activities; whereas the Treaty contains precise provisions regarding the dissemination of know-how which apply principally to the nuclear  research programmes;  Whereas action should also be taken to promote the stimulation of the training and mobility of researchers, particularly young researchers, in the Community;  Whereas the Joint Research Centre (JRC) contributes to the implementation of the framework programme, particularly in those fields where it has the appropriate competence to offer impartial and independent expertise for the benefit of Community  policies; whereas the JRC will progressively compete for the funds available through indirect action;  Whereas the European Council of 12 December 1992 at Edinburgh stated that the development of expenditure on R&  D should be consistent with the overall development of expenditure on internal policies under Category 3 of the Financial Perspective,  remaining between one-half and two-thirds of the overall figure;  Whereas the framework programme is to be implemented through specific programmes;  Whereas assessment and monitoring operations should be intensified and expanded to maximize the effectiveness of RTD policy;  Whereas there should be continual and systematic monitoring of progress with the framework programme; whereas the Commission shall submit an annual report on the implementation of the activities carried out under this framework programme to the European  Parliament and to the Council; whereas there should also be an independent assessment of management of the programme and of progress with the activities undertaken, before the presentation by the Commission of its proposal for the next framework  programme;  Whereas, without prejudice to the entry of the amounts needed to implement the programmes under the annual budgetary procedure in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 7 of the Treaty, it is necessary to make an estimate of the Community  financial means necessary for the realization of the activities envisaged;  Whereas, in order to ensure coherence between the research and training activities undertaken within this framework programme, and those undertaken by virtue of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the decision relating to the fourth  framework programme of European Community activities in the field of RTD should be adopted simultaneously with this framework programme and for the same period;  Whereas the Scientific and Technical Committee has been consulted by the Commission and has delivered its opinion,  HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:   Article 1  1. A multiannual framework programme for Community activities in the field of nuclear research and training is hereby adopted for the period 1994 to 1998.  2. The framework programme shall include all activities regarding research and technological development, including demonstration projects, international cooperation, dissemination and optimization of results, as well as training, in the fields of:  - nuclear fission safety,  - controlled thermonuclear fusion.  3. Without prejudice to the third paragraph of Article 7 of the Treaty, the amount deemed necessary for Community financial participation in this framework programme shall be ECU 1 254 million. Of this the indicative amount for the period 1994 to 1996  shall be ECU 617 million and the indicative amount for the period 1997 to 1998 shall be ECU 637 million. Not later than 30 June 1996, in the light of an assessment of the state of implementation of the framework programme, of its contribution to the  competitiveness of Community industry at international level, of value for money and of the development of the financial perspectives of the European Union, the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 7 of the Treaty, shall  review the above amount, with the possibility of increasing it to ECU 1 359 million.  Annex I gives the indicative breakdown between the two fields mentioned above.  4. The selection criteria to be applied in the implementation of the framework programme are laid down in Annex II.  5. Annex III establishes the scientific and technological objectives to be achieved by the activities, in accordance with the abovementioned criteria, fixes the relevant priorities and indicates the broad lines of such activities.   Article 2  The framework programme shall be implemented through specific programmes. These programmes shall be adopted in accordance with Article 7 of the Treaty. Each specific programme shall specify its precise objectives on the lines of the  scientific and technological objectives in Annex III, define the detailed rules for implementing it, fix its duration and provide for the means deemed necessary.  The implementation of this framework programme may also give rise to cooperation agreements with third countries or international organizations in accordance with Article 101 of the Treaty.   Article 3  The detailed rules for financial participation by the Community in this framework programme shall be those provided for by the specific provisions regarding RTD funding of the Financial Regulation applicable to the General Budget of the  European Communities as supplemented by Annex IV to this Decision.   Article 4  1. The Commission shall continually and systematically monitor, with appropriate assistance from independent, external experts, the progress of the framework programme as regards the criteria and objectives set out in Annexes II and III. It  shall examine in particular whether the objectives, priorities and financial resources are still appropriate to the changing situation. If necessary, it shall make proposals to adopt or supplement the framework programme according to the results of such  monitoring.  The Commission shall submit an annual report on the implementation of the activities carried out under this framework programme to the European Parliament and to the Council.  2. The Commission shall have an external assessment conducted by independent qualified experts into the management of and progress with Community activities carried out during the five years preceding this assessment. It shall communicate this  assessment and conclusions, accompanied by its comments, to the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee prior to submitting its proposal for the next framework programme.  3. In order to help ensure, inter alia, cost-effective implementation of the framework programme, each specific programme shall provide for systematic monitoring with appropriate assistance from independent, external experts, and, on completion of the  programme, independent evaluation against the precise objectives referred to in Article 2; the procedures for such valuation shall be laid down in each specific programme decision.  Done at Luxembourg, 26 April 1994.  For the Council The President G. MORAITIS  (1) OJ No C 230, 26. 8. 1993, p. 35.  (2) OJ No C 329, 6. 12. 1993, p. 328.  (3) OJ No C 34, 2. 2. 1994, p. 90.  (4) OJ No L 117, 8. 5. 1990, p. 28.  (5) OJ No L 69, 20. 3. 1993, p. 43.      ANNEX I   FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME (1994 to 1998): AMOUNT AND INDICATIVE BREAKDOWN  "" ID="1">Nuclear fission safety> ID="2">414"> ID="1">Controlled thermonuclear fusion> ID="2">840"> ID="1">Amount deemed necessary > ID="2">1 254 (1) (2) ""> (1) Of which ECU 300 million for the operational budget of the JRC allocated as follows: nuclear fission safety ECU 254 million and controlled thermonuclear fusion ECU 46 million.  (2) With the possibility of an increase to ECU 1 359 million, in accordance with Article 1 (3).      ANNEX II  SELECTION CRITERIA FOR COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES  Community nuclear research, training and demonstration activities should complement the activities undertaken in the Member States and focus on clearly defined objectives. The projects will be selected on the  basis of their scientific and technical excellence. The activities should:  - strengthen the technological base of Community industry and provide it with the knowledge and know-how required to make it more competitive at international level,  and/or - contribute to the implementation of the policies laid down in the Treaty.  The Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action,  be better achieved by the Community.  Any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty.  Activities should contribute to meeting the general objectives of the Community, thereby contributing to energy supply and to improving the quality of life of the Community's citizens.  Activities should be selected on the basis of thorough prior appraisal. They should also yield short-term, medium-term or long-term advantages (added value) and contribute to achieving maximum cost-efficiency, the means being commensurate with the  objectives set. Research activities should continue to focus on generic and precompetitive research in the fields set out in Annex I to the Treaty.  The following criteria in particular should be used to justify Community action:  - research on a very large scale for which Member States could not, or could only with difficulty, provide the necessary finance and personnel,  - research, the joint execution of which would offer obvious benefits, even after taking account of the extra costs inherent in all international cooperation,  - research which, because of the complementary nature of work being done nationally in part of a given field, enables significant results to be obtained in the Community as a whole in the case of problems whose solution requires research on a large  scale, particularly geographical,  - research which contributes to the completion of the internal market and research leading, where the need is felt, to the establishment of uniform norms and standards,  - research which contributes to the strengthening of the economic and social cohesion of the Community and the promotion of its overall harmonious development, while being consistent with the pursuit of scientific and technical quality,  - research actions which contribute to the mobilization or improvement of European scientific and technical potential and actions which improve coordination between national RTD programmes, between national and Community RTD programmes, and between  Community programmes and work in other international fora.     ANNEX III  SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES  Two main avenues will be used for the implementation of nuclear research and training supported by the Community: first, focusing financial resources on a limited number of subjects selected on the basis of the  criteria detailed in Annex II (shared-cost activities), and secondly improving the coordination between national RTD programmes and between national and Community RTD programmes by appropriate means.  In particular, alongside the traditional networks established in the context of Community activities hitherto, the following means could be used:  - consortia for integrated projects along the lines, in previous framework programmes, of the fusion programme. The Member States will help the Commission in identifying the laboratories or institutes which will be associated in an integrated project  supported through the pooling of financial resources within the Community. Other major European research bodies may be invited to take part,  - concertation networks organized by the Commission along the lines of what has already been carried out in the past, for instance in the biomedical programmes of the third framework programme,  - thematic networks bringing together for a given technological or industrial objective manufacturers, users, universities and research centres to facilitate the integration and transfer of knowledge and technologies and to ensure that fuller account is  taken of the needs of the market. They would be organized with support from the Community. They will be 'bottom-up' in both initiative and management.  The JRC can make a contribution towards the implementation of this new approach. As it is itself actively engaged in nuclear research and is closely involved in the formulation and implementation of Community policy, it could play a role, in the  scientific and technical areas which it covers, in the organization of networks or consortia bringing together public and private laboratories in the Member States.  Moreover, the JRC will progressively compete for the funds available under the activities of the framework programme other than direct action.  With respect to demonstration projects, the objective is to prove the technical viability of a new technology, together with, as appropriate, its possible economic advantages. The projects will be pre-competitive, and should as such focus on the  application of new technologies and involve participation by both producers and users.  The following paragraphs set out the scientific and technological content of the activities to be conducted and the reasons for including them in the framework programme for 1994 to 1998.  Nuclear fission safety The objective is to ensure the safety of all nuclear activities whatever they are, the production of electricity from fission, the use of radioactivity or ionizing radiation, or the presence of natural radioactivity. In spite of the progress achieved by  the electricity industry, the accident at Chernobyl has highlighted the need for research on specific topics in collaboration with the nuclear safety Community in central and eastern Europe. It is necessary to consolidate the nuclear option by showing  our ability to control it in all areas of application. This demonstration of a full nuclear safety capability will be made through four priority routes:  - the development of a dynamic approach to nuclear safety contributing to the consolidation of a 'safety culture' on a world scale,  - the joint use of the large European facilities to arrive at a better understanding of the crucial phenomena linked to the nuclear fuel cycle and waste,  - pursuing the development of nuclear safeguard techniques,  - the integration of radiological protection into a global system for the protection of man and the environment.  As far as the first priority is concerned, and in close cooperation with the competent international organizations, the areas of activities will concern the study of new systems of control and monitoring, aspects related to severe accidents, with their  incidence on man and the environment, and work on new safety features for innovative reactors. The ageing of installations and their prolonged operation will require complementary studies in the framework of research networks. Research and concerted  actions, in coordination with national authorities, on specific aspects of the decommissioning of installations in the Community as well as the restoration of sites are envisaged.  As far as the second priority is concerned, work in the field of the nuclear fuel cycle and radioactive waste, carried out, inter alia, by the JRC, will focus on the problems of safety related to nuclear fuel, on final disposal and on actinides.  Prenormative approaches will be developed. The joint use of experimental underground installations by research workers of all the Member States will have to be increased.  The research activities at the JRC in the field of control of safeguards, in particular in the framework of networks of national laboratories, will be aimed at obtaining results, or the developments of new techniques necessary to continue to assure the  respect of the obligations concerning safeguards relevant to treaties and to contribute to the respect of obligations following from the Treaty on non-proliferation. Moreover, the JRC will pursue its activities in supporting the fulfilment of the tasks  which are the responsibility of the Commission in this field, as well as with its participation in establishing a coherent and reliable international system of control of safeguards through its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency  (IAEA) and its cooperation with the countries wishing to contribute to such a system.  In the field of radioprotection, the thorough understanding of the biological mechanisms arising from radiation exposure remains the key to achieving a better quantification of the effects of low doses, parallel to epidemiological studies in  contaminated regions. The reduction of exposure from all sources, taking into account social and economic constraints, remains the objective of the protection of man and his environment. Studies of the environmental transfer of radioactivity, and  development of better methods of exposure assessment will in particular have to be made in order to improve the assessment and management of risks associated with ionizing radiation, with a view to further reducing or preventing adverse health effects.   The problems of radioactive pollution originating from accidents or inappropriate operational procedures in the central and eastern European countries, in particular Chernobyl, require cooperation with these countries. The setting up of a network of  international centres will stimulate international collaboration and contribute to a better coordination of bilateral and international initiatives.  As regards aspects of nuclear fission safety which are of particular interest to the central and eastern European countries and the independent States of the former USSR, the participation of laboratories and research institutes of these countries will  be considered. Community funding can be made available to facilitate such participation. The appropriate modalities for such participation will be set out in the specific programme decision.  Controlled thermonuclear fusion The long-term objective of the Community action, embracing all activities undertaken in Member States (plus Sweden and Switzerland) in the field of controlled thermonuclear fusion by magnetic confinement, is the joint creation of safe, environmentally  sound prototype reactors which should result in the construction of economically viable power stations, which will meet the needs of potential users. In this context, particular attention will be given to the constraints imposed by the requirements of  power utilities. The long time span and the large efforts required before reaching this objective make necessary the total cohesion of the network of organizations associated in the Community action, as well as the full exploitation of the cooperation  with the large fusion programmes outside the Community.  Safety and environmental issues will play a central role in the realization of the large devices included in the strategy which is envisaged for moving towards a prototype reactor. During the period 1994 to 1998, the simultaneous development of three  themes of activity is necessary for implementing this strategy; the Next Step activities, on the first experimental reactor; the improvement of concepts, in plasma physics and engineering, for the subsequent step, the demonstration reactor; the long  term technology, essential for progressing towards the exploitation of fusion as an energy source.  For the period 1994 to 1998, the objective of the Next Step activites will be to establish the engineering design of an experimental reactor, in the frame of the quadripartite international agreement ITER, between Euratom, Japan, the Russian Federation  and the United States of America. For Euratom, the activities, other than the participation in the 'Joint Central Team', will be coordinated by the NET team and carried out by the Associations, industry (with increasing involvement), JET and the JRC.  A European candidate site for the construction of the Next Step will be identified. The JET Joint Undertaking will end after a phase of operation with tritium; expertise will be transferred, in particular to ITER; available equipment will be utilized in  organizational frames to be defined.  Before a firm decision is taken to commit the amount of funds needed for the construction of a Next Step device, and in principle not later than 1996, a rigorous, independent assessment of the prospects of fusion should be undertaken and finalized in  the light of available evidence of real progress achieved towards the programme's ultimate goal.  The optimization of concepts, on which tokamaks and similar configurations are based, will be continued by the Associations; the upgrading of existing devices, as well as the construction of new ones, such as a stellarator, could be necessary. The  possibility of using other fusion reactions will be studied. The technologies developed for the long term will concern tritium breeding blankets, materials, safety and the need for highly reliable remote handling in particular reactor environments; the  specialized laboratories, in particular at the JRC, will contribute in demonstrating the safe handling of tritium.  The research will continue to focus on controlled thermo-nuclear fusion by magnetic confinement. The present keep-in-touch activity with other approaches to controlled thermo-nuclear fusion, and particularly inertial confinement, will be continued.  The synergy between research and training will be developed. The mobility of scientists will be increased, in particular in the framework of consortia for integrated actions, grouping several Associations on joint projects. The decentralized management  of the programme will be maintained.     ANNEX IV  RULES FOR FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION BY THE COMMUNITY  1. The financial participation by the Community in RTD activities undertaken within the specific programmes shall be:  (a) Indirect action - Shared cost actions with third parties (1):  - for RTD projects, including consortia for integrated projects: not more than 50 % of the costs of the project and progressively lower participation the nearer the project is to the market place. Those universities, higher education establishments and  other research centres which do not use analytical budget accountancy will be reimbursed on the basis of 100 % of the additional costs,  - for thematic networks and training and mobility of researchers: 100 % of the additional costs,  - for preparatory, accompanying and support measures: up to 100 % of the costs of the measure.  - Concerted action:  For concerted actions consisting of the coordination of RTD projects, such as concertation networks: up to 100 % of the costs of the concertation.  (b) Direct action For direct action carried out by the JRC consisting of RTD programmes or parts of programmes and scientific and technical activities necessary for the implementation of the EAEC Treaty and which require the JRC's neutrality: normally 100 % of the costs  of the research.  There may be no derogation from these general rules, except under the conditions set out in each specific programme.  2. The rules for the participation of the Community in the JET Joint Undertaking and ITER activities are specified in the specific programme relating to controlled thermonuclear fusion.   (1) The JRC, in association with partners established in the Member States, can participate in shared-cost actions on the same basis as third parties.


Avis juridique important

|

31995D0462

95/462/EC: Council Decision of 30 October 1995 appointing a member and two alternate members of the Committee of the Regions

Official Journal L 267 , 09/11/1995 P. 0040 - 0040

COUNCIL DECISION of 30 October 1995  appointing a member and two alternate members of the Committee of the Regions (95/462/EC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 198a  thereof, Having regard to the Council Decision of 26 January 1994 appointing members and alternate members  of the Committee of the Regions for the period 26 January 1994 to 25 January 1998  (1), Whereas a seat as a member of the Committee has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Juan  Hormaechea Cazón, notified to the Council on 10 October 1995; Whereas two seats as alternate members of the Committee have become vacant following the  resignation of Mr José Ramón Ruíz Martínez and Mr Ramón Ropero Mancera, notified to the Council on  10 October 1998, Having regard to the proposal from the Spanish Government, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Sole Article Mr Joaquín Martínez Sieso is hereby appointed a member of the  Committee of the Regions in place of Mr Juan Hormaechea Cazón for the remainder of the latter's  term of office, which runs until 25 January 1996. Mr Emilio Del Valle Rodríguez is hereby appointed an alternate member of the Committee of the  Regions in place of Mr José Ramón Ruíz Martínez for the remainder of the latter's term of office,  which runs until 25 January 1998. Mr Ignacio Sánchez Amor is hereby appointed an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions in  place of Mr Ramón Ropero Mancera for the remainder of the latter's term of office, which runs until  25 January 1998. Done at Luxembourg, 30 October 1995. For the Council The President J. SAAVEDRA ACEVEDO


title: 2006/167/EC: Council Decision of  21 February 2006  on the conclusion of a Protocol to the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway   (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
               28.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 57/15

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 21 February 2006
   on the conclusion of a Protocol to the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2006/167/EC)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 63 point (1)(a), in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
   Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament (1),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Commission, on behalf of the European Community, has negotiated with the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway a Protocol to the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway.

               (2)

               The Protocol was signed on behalf of the European Community on 29 June 2005, subject to conclusion at a later date, in accordance with the Decision of 13 June 2005.

               (3)

               This Protocol should be approved.

               (4)

               The United Kingdom and Ireland, in accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, will take part in adopting and applying this Decision.

               (5)

               In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application,

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The Protocol to the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.
   The text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   The President of the Council shall give the notification provided for by the second paragraph of Article 5 of the Protocol (2).
   Article 3
   This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 21 February 2006.

            For the Council

            The President

         K. GASTINGER

      (1)  Opinion delivered on 13 December 2005 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

      (2)  The date of entry into force of the Protocol shall be the first day of the second month following notification by the Contracting Parties.
    ---documentbreak---

               28.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 57/16

         PROTOCOL
   to the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway
   THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY,
   and
   THE REPUBLIC OF ICELAND,
   and
   THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY,
   hereinafter referred to as ‘the Contracting Parties’,
   BEARING IN MIND that the Protocol on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, provides that no measure adopted pursuant to Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community shall be binding upon or applicable in Denmark,
   REFERRING to Article 12 of the Agreement between the European Community, the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member State or in Iceland or Norway (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement between the European Community, Iceland and Norway’) which states that the Kingdom of Denmark may request to participate in that Agreement,
   NOTING that Denmark by letter dated 16 February 2001 requested to participate in the Agreement between the European Community, Iceland and Norway,
   RECALLING that according to Article 12 of the Agreement between the European Community, Iceland and Norway, the conditions for such participation by the Kingdom of Denmark shall be determined by the Contracting Parties, acting with the consent of Denmark, in a Protocol to that Agreement,
   CONSIDERING that it was appropriate, in the first place, for Denmark and the Community to conclude an Agreement in order to settle, in particular, matters relating to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and to the coordination between the Community and Denmark regarding international agreements,
   CONSIDERING the Agreement between the Community and Denmark on the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the State responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in Denmark or any other Member State of the European Union and ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention (hereinafter called ‘the Agreement between the European Community and Denmark’),
   CONSIDERING that it is therefore necessary to fix the conditions whereby Denmark participates in the Agreement between the European Community, Iceland and Norway and in particular it is necessary to establish rights and obligations between Iceland and Norway and Denmark,
   NOTING that the entry into force of this Protocol is based on the consent of Denmark, in accordance with its constitutional requirements,
   HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   The Kingdom of Denmark shall participate in the Agreement between the Community, Iceland and Norway, under the conditions set out in the Agreement between the European Community and Denmark and this Protocol.
   Article 2
   1.   The provisions of the ‘Dublin II Regulation’ (1), which is annexed to this Protocol and forms part thereof, together with its implementing measures adopted pursuant to Article 27(2) of the ‘Dublin II Regulation’ shall, under international law, apply to the relations between Denmark, on the one hand, and Iceland and Norway, on the other hand.
   2.   The provisions of the ‘Eurodac Regulation’ (2), which is annexed to this Protocol and forms part thereof, together with its implementing measures adopted pursuant to Article 22 or 23(2) of the ‘Eurodac Regulation’ shall, under international law, apply to the relations between Denmark, on the one hand, and Iceland and Norway, on the other hand.
   3.   Amendments to the Acts referred to under paragraph 1 and 2 which are notified by Denmark to the Commission in accordance with Article 3 of the Agreement between the European Community and Denmark and which are notified by Iceland and Norway to the Commission in accordance with Article 4 of the Agreement between the European Community, Iceland and Norway shall, under international law, apply to the relations between Denmark, on the one hand, and Iceland and Norway, on the other hand.
   4.   Implementing measures adopted pursuant to Article 27(2) of the ‘Dublin II Regulation’ and implementing measures adopted pursuant to Article 22 or 23(2) of the ‘Eurodac Regulation’ which are notified by Denmark to the Commission in accordance with Article 4 of the Agreement between the European Community and Denmark and which are notified by Iceland and Norway to the Commission in accordance with Article 4 of the Agreement between the European Community, Iceland and Norway shall, under international law, apply to the relations between Denmark, on the one hand, and Iceland and Norway, on the other hand.
   Article 3
   Iceland and Norway shall be entitled to submit statements of case or written observations to the Court of Justice in cases where a question has been referred to it by a Danish court or tribunal for a preliminary ruling in accordance with Article 6(1) of the Agreement between the European Community and Denmark.
   Article 4
   1.   In the case of a complaint by Norway or Iceland concerning the application or the interpretation by Denmark of this Protocol, Norway or Iceland may ask that the matter be officially entered as a matter of dispute on the agenda of the Joint Committee.
   2.   In the case of a complaint by Denmark concerning the application or the interpretation by Norway or Iceland of this Protocol, Denmark shall be entitled to ask the Commission to enter officially the matter as a matter of dispute on the agenda of the Joint Committee. The matter shall be placed on agenda by the Commission.
   3.   The Joint Committee shall have 90 days from the date of the adoption of the agenda on which the dispute has been entered within which to settle the dispute. For this purpose, Denmark shall be entitled to make observations to the Joint Committee.
   4.   In a case where a dispute is settled by the Joint Committee in a manner that it requires implementation in Denmark, Denmark shall, within the timeframe envisaged in paragraph 3, notify the Parties whether or not it will implement the content of the settlement. In a case where Denmark notifies its decision not to implement the content of the settlement, paragraph 5 shall apply.
   5.   In a case where the dispute cannot be settled by the Joint Committee within the period envisaged in paragraph 3, a further period of 90 days shall be observed for reaching a final settlement. If the Joint Committee has not taken a decision at the end of that period this Protocol shall be considered terminated at the end of the last day of that period.
   Article 5
   This Protocol is subject to ratification or approval by the Contracting Parties. Instruments of ratification or approval shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the Council who shall act as depositary.
   This Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of the second month following the notification by the Contracting Parties of the completion of their respective procedures required for this purpose.
   The entry into force of this Protocol is also subject to the prior receipt by the depositary of a Note from the Kingdom of Denmark to the effect that the Kingdom of Denmark assents to the provisions contained in this Protocol and declares that it shall apply the provisions referred to in Article 2 in its mutual relations with Iceland and Norway.
   Article 6
   Each Contracting Party may terminate this Protocol by written declaration to the depositary. Such declaration shall take effect six months after its deposition.
   This Protocol shall cease to be effective if the Agreement between the Community and Denmark is terminated.
   This Protocol shall cease to be effective if either the Community or both Iceland and Norway have denounced it.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ L 50, 25.2.2003, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 concerning the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention (OJ L 316, 15.12.2000, p. 1).
   ANNEX TO THE PROTOCOL
   Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ L 50, 25.2.2003, p. 1)
   Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 concerning the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention (OJ L 316, 15.12.2000, p. 1)


title: 2013/695/EU: Council Decision of 25 November 2013 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the facilitation of the issuance of visas

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 320/7

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 25 November 2013
   on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the facilitation of the issuance of visas
   (2013/695/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular point (a) of Article 77(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5), thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Joint Declaration of the Warsaw Eastern Partnership Summit of 30 September 2011 confirms the political support towards enhancing the mobility of citizens by way of visa liberalisation and the intention to take gradual steps towards visa free travel for their citizens in due course.

               (2)

               On 19 December 2011, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with the Republic of Azerbaijan on an Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (‘the Agreement’). The negotiations were successfully concluded by the initialling of the Agreement on 29 July 2013.

               (3)

               The Agreement should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion.

               (4)

               This Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC (1); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

               (5)

               This Decision constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC (2); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

               (6)

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

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan on the facilitation of the issuance of visas is hereby authorised, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (3).
   Article 2
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 25 November 2013.

            For the Council

            The President

         D. PAVALKIS

      (1)  Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 131, 1.6.2000, p. 43).

      (2)  Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland’s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 20).

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


title: 2012/805/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 23 October 2012 on the closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010

text:
               20.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 350/95

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 23 October 2012
   on the closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010
   (2012/805/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

               having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010,

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               having regard to its Decision of 10 May 2012 (2) postponing the discharge decision in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010, its accompanying Resolution and the replies by the Executive Director of the Agency,

               —

               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 (3), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 of 7 May 1990 on the establishment of the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network (4), and in particular Article 13 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Regulation (EC) No 401/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network (5), and in particular Article 13 thereof,

               —

               having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (6), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

               —

               having regard to the Joint Statement on decentralised agencies and the Common Approach annexed thereto, agreed in June 2012 by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, resulting from the work of the Interinstitutional Working Group on decentralised agencies created in March 2009, and in particular the sections on governance, operation, programming, accountability and transparency of the Common Approach,

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0300/2012),

               1.

               Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2010;

               2.

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

            The President

         Martin SCHULZ

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ C 366, 15.12.2011, p. 57.

      (2)  OJ L 286, 17.10.2012, p. 356.

      (3)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 120, 11.5.1990, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ L 126, 21.5.2009, p. 13.

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