Avis juridique important

|

31990D0383

90/383/EEC: Commission Decision of 13 July 1990 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of NPK fertilizers originating in Hungary, Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia

Official Journal L 188 , 20/07/1990 P. 0063 - 0066

*****COMMISSION  DECISION  of 13 July 1990  terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of NPK fertilizers originating in Hungary, Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia  (90/383/EEC)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), and in particular Article 9 thereof,  After consultation within the Advisory Committee as provided for under Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88,  Whereas:  A. PROCEDURE  (1) In 1989 the Commission received a complaint lodged by the EFMA/CMC-Engrais, the common market committee of the nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer industry on behalf of producers representing about 90 % of Community production concerning imports of NPK fertilizers originating in Hungary, Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia. The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.  The Commission accordingly announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (2), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of NPK fertilizers falling within CN codes 3105 20 10 and 3105 20 90, and commenced an investigation.  (2) The Commission officially so advised the exporters and importers known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting countries and the complainant, and gave the parties directly concerned the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing. Questionnaires were sent to all known exporters and importers concerned.  (3) The Commission, for the purposes of obtaining all the information it deemed necessary, sent questionnaires to the companies on whose behalf the complaint was made, in order to allow each company to demonstrate the injury caused to it by dumped imports of NPK fertilizers from the alleged countries. The Commission carried out a detailed analysis of those companies which returned completed questionnaires and whose combined production represents the Community industry.  (4) All the exporters as well as the importers known to be concerned made known their views in writing. All of them requested and were granted hearings. The complainant also requested and was granted a hearing.  (5) The Commission verified the information received to the extent it deemed necessary for the purposes of a preliminary determination and carried out investigations at the premises of the following Community companies whose production of NPK fertilizers represents more than 50 % of the total Community output (the remaining complainant companies either failed to respond to the Commission's questionnaire, or comprised individually an extremely small proportion of Community output):  - Superfos Fertilizers A/S, Denmark,  - Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik, Federal Republic of Germany,  - Ruhrstickstoff AG Federal Republic of Germany,  - Norsk Hydro Azote, France,  - Agrimonte, SpA, Italy,  - Sociedad Anonima Cros, Spain,  - Empresa Nacional de Fertilizantes, SA, Spain,  - Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd, United Kingdom,  - Kemira INCE Ltd, United Kingdom,  - Hydro-fertilizers Ltd, United Kingdom.  The Commission visited, in the course of the investigation, other Community companies which had returned the questionnaires. Nevertheless, most of the information contained in these questionnaires had to be disregarded because the companies in question failed to provide acceptable evidence during the on-the-spot visits.  (6) The investigation period covered the year 1988 and the first two months of 1989. The trends in the relevant economic factors to determine whether the Community industry is suffering material injury were examined for the years 1985 to 1989 (February).  (7) Due to the complexity of the proceedings, in particular the difficulties met by the Commission in obtaining from some of the interested parties the relevant data, the investigation exceeded the normal period of one year.  B. INJURY  (8) In order to determine whether or not the allegedly dumped imports caused material injury to the Community industry, the Commission took into consideration the following facts:  (a) Volume, market share and price of imports  (i) Volume  (9) The alleged dumped imports into the Community of NPK fertilizers originating in Hungary, Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia evolved as follows:  Hungary 90 877 tonnes in 1985, 76 957 tonnes in 1988 and 15 124 tonnes in the first two months of 1989; Poland 11 791 tonnes in 1985, 34 065 tonnes in 1988 and 10 310 in the first two months of 1989; Romania 61 655 tonnes in 1985, 20 408 tonnes in 1988, no imports in the first two months of 1989; Yugoslavia 129 324 tonnes in 1985, 261 395 tonnes in 1988 and 109 509 tonnes in the first two months of 1989.  However, it should be stressed that the figures relating to the first two months of 1989 cannot accurately represent in isolation the trade results of a full year since the fertilizer trade is subject to seasonal fluctuations.  (ii) Consumption and market share  (10) The total Community consumption per annum of the product concerned decreased from 14 734 000 tonnes in 1985 to 13 443 000 tonnes in 1988; this corresponded in percentage terms to a decline of 8,7 %.  In terms of market share, the development as regards the exporters concerned was as follows:  Hungarian exporters: 0,6 % in 1985 and 0,58 % in 1988;  Polish exporters: 0,08 % in 1985 and 0,25 % in 1988;  Romanian exporters: 0,42 % in 1985 and 0,15 % in 1988;  Yugoslav exporters: 0,88 % in 1985 and 1,94 % in 1988.  (iii) Prices  (11) The evidence available to the Commission shows that during the investigation period the prices of the alleged dumped imports were, on a weighted average basis, lower than those charged by the community producers by about 20 %.  (b) Effect on Community industry  (i) Community production  (12) The production of the Community manufacturers concerned decreased from 8 226 295 tonnes in 1985 to 7 534 456 tonnes in 1988 (January and February 1989: 1 532 204 tonnes). This corresponded to a decline of about 8,9 %.  (ii) Sales  (13) The sales of the Community producers concerned increased from 5 446 258 tonnes in 1985 to 5 858 928 tonnes in 1988 (January and February 1989: 918 693 tonnes). This corresponds to an increase of about 7,5 %.  (iii) Production capacity and capactiy utilization  (14) The production capacity per annum decreased from 9 921 000 tonnes in 1985 to 8 242 000 tonnes in 1988 while the capacity utilization increased from 82,9 % in 1985 to 85,9 % in 1988.  (iv) Prices  (15) The sales prices of the Community producers generally decreased from 1985 to 1987 and then increased, with a few exceptions, throughout 1988 until the end of the investigation period on 28 February 1989. The overall decrease in prices from 1985 to the end of the investigation period was, on a weighted average basis, approximately 21 %.  (v) Profits  (16) With regard to profitability, it was found that, while some of the Community producers made substantial losses in the investigation period, others were able to make reasonable profits.  (c) Conclusion on injury  (17) Taking into account all the relevant economic factors, as referred to above, and in particular, the volume and prices of the imported products and the trend in Community production, the Commission has come to the conclusion that there are some indications of injury sustained by the Community producers.  C. CAUSATION OF INJURY  (18) Given the volumes of imports from Hungary, Poland and Romania as indicated in the eighth recital and the market shares in the Community represented by these quantities indicated in the ninth recital, the Commission has concluded that even if these imports were at dumped prices their contribution, if any, to the injury by the imports from these countries could o not be considered to be anything more than de minimis or not such as to be by itself a cause of material injury and accordingly should not be cumulated together or with other exports for the purposes of establishing causation.  (19) Consequently the Commission examined whether this injury, to the extent that it could be considered material, may have been caused by the imports from Yugoslavia or factors other than the alleged dumped imports.  In this context, it was found that most of the economic difficulties sustained by the Community producers were due to structural problems which the manufacturers of NPK fertilizers have been facing not only in the Community but worldwide. Indeed, the market demand for the product concerned has been declining in the last few years for several reasons, as is confirmed by the figures indicated in the ninth recital concerning the trend in Community consumption.  (20) The fall in consumption has caused over-capacity problems that have obliged the Community producers to reduce their output significantly. Another consequence has been a considerable reduction in the level of prices worldwide. This has resulted in a general decrease in price of the products sold within the Community from 1985 to 1988. This fall has amounted to 21 % as regards NPK fertilizers manufactured by the Community producers, to 24 % as regards the imports from Yugoslavia, and to 22 % as regards other imports.  (21) A further consequence of the contraction in demand of the product concerned has been the need of an urgent restructuring and rationalization of the production facilities of the Community producers. Some of these producers have reacted faster than others to this need which explains the increase in their sales and the improvement in their capacity utilization as indicated in recitals (12) and (13).  (22) Another factor examined was the volume and price of imports from countries not covered by the investigation. In this context it was found that these imports increased from 785 951 tonnes in 1985 to 893 818 tonnes in 1988 (January and February 1989: 264 840). These imports corresponded, in the investigation period, to 69 % of the overall imports into the Community while the imports from the countries covered by the investigation accounted for 31 %.  As regards the prices of the NPK fertilizers imported from countries not covered by the investigation, these declined from 1985 to 1988 by 22 %, as indicated in recital (19). This had an additional depressive effect on the Community producers sales, given the considerable volume of the imports in question.  Furthermore, in examining the prices of some of these countries, the Commission established that there was, in the investigation period, significant undercutting ranging from 5,19 to 16,23 %, as compared with the price of the like product in the Community.  (23) Having considered the above, the Commission has drawn the following conclusions:  - the contribution of the alleged dumped imports from Hungary, Poland and Romania to the injury suffered by the Community industry can be considered as de minimis;  - the alleged dumped imports from Yugoslavia, taken in isolation, have not had such effect as to cause material injury to the Community industry, within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, given the volume of these imports, the volume and price of other imports into the Community and the fall in consumption in the Community market for the product concerned, during the investigation period.  D. DUMPING  (24) In view of the above findings, the Commission considered it unnecessary - notwithstanding the allegation in the complaint of the existence of dumping practices during the investigation period - to further investigate the question of dumping with regard to the imports concerned.  E. WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT  (25) After having been informed by the Commission of the above findings, the complainant decided to withdraw the complaint on the following grounds:  - as regards the companies located in Hungary, Poland and Romania, in view of the new developments in these markets;  - as regards the companies located in Yugoslavia, in view of the need for a non-discriminatory approach to the case, in spite of the concentration of the Yugoslav exports in the German market.  F. CONCLUSION  (26) Having considered the circumstances mentioned above, the proceeding should be terminated without the imposition of protective measures. This does not, of course, preclude the possibility of a new investigation being initiated if a new complaint were lodged showing evidence of changed circumstances. HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:  Sole Article  The anti-dumping proceeding concerning NPK fertilizers falling within CN codes 3105 20 10 and 3105 20 90 originating in Hungary, Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia is hereby terminated.  Done at Brussels, 13 July 1990.  For the Commission  Frans ANDRIESSEN  Vice-President  (1) OJ No L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1.  (2) OJ No C 55, 4. 3. 1989, p. 3.


Avis juridique important

|

E1996C0225

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION No 225/96/COL of 4 December 1996 replacing Decision No 67/94/COL laying down the methods for control for maintaining the officially tuberculosis-free status of bovine herds in certain EFTA States, in so far as the Decision concerns Norway

Official Journal L 078 , 20/03/1997 P. 0043 - 0045

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION No 225/96/COL of 4 December 1996 replacing Decision No 67/94/COL laying down the methods for control for maintaining the officially tuberculosis-free status of bovine herds in certain EFTA States, in so far as the Decision concerns Norway THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 17 and Protocol 1 (4) (d) thereof,Having regard to the Act referred to in point 1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (Council Directive 64/432/EEC; hereinafter referred to as 'the Cattle and Swine Act`), and in particular Article 3 (14) thereof,Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, and in particular Article 5 (2) (d) and Protocol 1, Article 1 (e) thereof,Whereas Norway, by EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 67/94/COL (1), was granted tuberculosis-free status of bovine herds, providing certain conditions were met;Whereas this Decision comprises, in addition to the tuberculosis-free status thus granted to Norway, similar status granted to Finland and Sweden;Whereas the Norwegian Government, while confirming that the material situation justifying Decision No 67/94/COL is unchanged, has requested that the Decision, in so far as it concerns the status as being tuberculosis-free granted to Norway, be replaced by a new decision, covering only the tuberculosis-free status granted to Norway, alleging this to be necessary for the solution foreseen in ongoing negotiations with the European Union in the veterinary field;Whereas such a new decision would not in any way alter the material situation compared to what applies by virtue of Decision No 67/94/COL;Whereas there is accordingly no obstacle in granting the request made by the Norwegian Government;Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the EFTA Veterinary Committee assisting the EFTA Surveillance Authority,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:1. Decision No 67/94/COL laying down the methods for control for maintaining the officially tuberculosis-free status of bovine herds in certain EFTA States shall be replaced by the text in the Annex hereto, in so far as the Decision concerns Norway.2. This Decision shall enter into force on 9 December 1996.3. This Decision is addressed to Norway.4. This Decision shall be authentic in the English language.Done at Brussels, 4 December 1996.For the EFTA Surveillance AuthorityBjörn FRIÐFINNSSONCollege Member(1) OJ No L 247, 22. 9. 1994, p. 41.ANNEX '1. By way of derogation from Annex A (I) (b) to the Cattle and Swine Act the EFTA States or regions thereof referred to in the Annex to this Decision may maintain the officially tuberculosis-free status of bovine herds if the following conditions are met:1.1. An identification system making it possible to trace, for each bovine animal, the herds of origin and transit shall be set up.1.2. Every bovine animal slaughtered, except those slaughtered on the farm for on-the-farm consumption, shall be submitted to a post-mortem examination by an official veterinarian.1.3. Every suspected case of tuberculosis in a living or dead/slaughtered animal shall be notified to the competent authorities.1.4. For each suspected case, the competent authorities shall carry out the investigations required in order to confirm or invalidate the suspicion, including back-tracing the herds of origin and transit. If lesions giving rise to suspicion of tuberculosis are found at the post-mortem examination or slaughtering, the competent authorities shall submit such lesions to laboratory examination.1.5. The officially tuberculosis-free status of the herds of origin and transit of the suspected bovine animals shall be suspended and the period of suspension shall continue until clinical or laboratory examinations, or tuberculin tests have ruled out the presence of bovine tuberculosis.1.6. If the suspicion of tuberculosis is confirmed, either by tuberculin tests or by clinical or laboratory examinations, the officially tuberculosis-free status of the herds of origin and transit shall be withdrawn.2. The status of officially tuberculosis freedom shall remain withdrawn until such time as:2.1. all animals that have been deemed to be infected have been removed from the herd;2.2. disinfection of premises and utensils have taken place; and2.3. all remaining bovine animals over six weeks of age have reacted negatively to at least two official intradermal tuberculin tests in accordance with Annex B to the Cattle and Swine Act, the first test carried out at least six months after the last infected animal has left the herd and the second test carried out at least six months after the first one.3. The number of breakdown herds shall be communicated to the EFTA Surveillance Authority on an annual basis, it being understood that a breakdown herd is a herd of origin or transit which has contained a bovine animal that has proved positive for the presence of Mycobacterium bovis. The EFTA Surveillance Authority may, as appropriate in the light of such information, take a decision in accordance with Article 3 (14) second indent, of the Cattle and Swine Act.ANNEXRegions which may maintain their tuberculosis-free status based on Article 3 (14) of the Cattle and Swine ActNorway: All regions`


title: Decision No 649/2005/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005 amending Decision No 1419/1999/EC establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2005 to 2019

text:
               4.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 117/20

         DECISION No 649/2005/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
   of 13 April 2005
   amending Decision No 1419/1999/EC establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2005 to 2019
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 151 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (1),
   Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty (2),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Decision No 1419/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2005 to 2019 (3) is geared towards highlighting the wealth, diversity and shared characteristics of European cultures and towards contributing to improving European citizens' mutual knowledge.

               (2)

               Annex I to Decision No 1419/1999/EC sets out the chronological order in accordance with which the Member States can submit nominations for this event. That Annex is limited to the Member States at the time the Decision was adopted on 25 May 1999.

               (3)

               Article 6 of Decision No 1419/1999/EC states that that decision may be revised, in particular with a view to the future enlargement of the European Union.

               (4)

               In the light of the 2004 enlargement, it is important that the new Member States should likewise be able within a short period of time to submit nominations in the context of the European Capital of Culture event, without changing the order for the other Member States so that, from 2009 onwards and until the end of the current Community action, two capitals may be selected each year in the Member States.

               (5)

               Decision No 1419/1999/EC should therefore be amended,

         HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   Decision No 1419/1999/EC is hereby amended as follows:

               1.

               The following Recital shall be inserted:

                           ‘(12a)

                           Whereas account should be taken of the financial consequences of this Decision in such a way as to ensure that there is adequate and appropriate Community funding for the designation of two European Capitals of Culture;’;

               2.

               Article 2(1) shall be replaced by the following:
               ‘1.   Cities in Member States shall be designated as European Capital of Culture, in turn, as set out on the list contained in Annex I. Up until 2008 inclusive, the designation shall apply to one city of the Member State appearing on the list. From 2009 onwards, the designation shall apply to one city of each of the Member States appearing on the list. The chronological order set out in Annex I may be altered by mutual agreement between the Member States concerned. Each Member State shall submit, in turn, its nomination of one or more cities to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Committee of the Regions. This nomination shall be submitted no later than four years before the event in question is due to begin and may be accompanied by a recommendation from the Member State concerned.’;

               3.

               Annex I shall be replaced by the text appearing in the Annex to this Decision.

         Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
   It shall apply from 1 May 2004.

      Done at Strasbourg, 13 April 2005.

            For the European Parliament

            The President

         J. P. BORRELL FONTELLES

            For the Council

            The President

         N. SCHMIT

      (1)  OJ C 121, 30.4.2004, p. 15.

      (2)  Opinion of the European Parliament of 22 April 2004 (not yet published in the Official Journal), Council Common Position of 21 October 2004 (OJ C 25 E, 1.2.2005, p. 41) and Position of the European Parliament of 22 February 2005 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

      (3)  OJ L 166, 1.7.1999, p. 1.
   ANNEX
   ORDER OF ENTITLEMENT TO NOMINATE A ‘EUROPEAN CAPITAL OF CULTURE’

               2005

               Ireland

               2006

               Greece (1)

               2007

               Luxembourg

               2008

               United Kingdom

               2009

               Austria

               Lithuania

               2010

               Germany

               Hungary

               2011

               Finland

               Estonia

               2012

               Portugal

               Slovenia

               2013

               France

               Slovakia

               2014

               Sweden

               Latvia

               2015

               Belgium

               Czech Republic

               2016

               Spain

               Poland

               2017

               Denmark

               Cyprus

               2018

               Netherlands (1)

               Malta

               2019

               Italy

      (1)  The Culture/Audiovisual Council, at its meeting of 28 May 1998, noted the exchange of positions between Greece and the Netherlands in accordance with Article 2(1) of Decision No 1419/1999/EC.


title: Political and Security Committee Decision CHAD/4/2008 of 2 September 2008 amending Political and Security Committee Decision CHAD/1/2008 on the acceptance of third States’ contributions to the European Union military operation in the Republic of Chad and in the Central African Republic and Political and Security Committee Decision CHAD/2/2008 on the setting up of the Committee of Contributors for the European Union military operation in the Republic of Chad and in the Central African Republic

text:
               16.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 247/54

      POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION CHAD/4/2008
   of 2 September 2008
   amending Political and Security Committee Decision CHAD/1/2008 on the acceptance of third States’ contributions to the European Union military operation in the Republic of Chad and in the Central African Republic and Political and Security Committee Decision CHAD/2/2008 on the setting up of the Committee of Contributors for the European Union military operation in the Republic of Chad and in the Central African Republic
   (2008/731/CFSP)
   THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 25 thereof,
   Having regard to Council Joint Action 2007/677/CFSP of 15 October 2007 on the European Union military operation in the Republic of Chad and in the Central African Republic (1) (Operation EUFOR Tchad/RCA), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof,
   Having regard to Political and Security Committee Decision CHAD/1/2008 of 13 February 2008 on the acceptance of third States’ contributions to the European Union military operation in Chad and in the Central African Republic (2), and to Political and Security Committee Decision CHAD/2/2008 of 18 March 2008 on the setting-up of the Committee of Contributors for the European Union military operation in the Republic of Chad and in the Central African Republic (3),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Following the recommendations on the contribution from the Republic of Croatia by the EU Operation Commander and the European Union Military Committee, the contribution from the Republic of Croatia should be accepted.

               (2)

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

         HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
   Article 1
   Article 1 of Political and Security Committee Decision CHAD/1/2008 shall be replaced by the following:

      ‘Article 1
      Third States’ contributions
      Following the Force Generation Conferences and further consultations, the contributions from the Republic of Albania, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Croatia shall be accepted for the EU military operation in the Republic of Chad and in the Central African Republic.’

   Article 2
   The Annex to Political and Security Committee Decision CHAD/2/2008 shall be replaced by the following:

         ‘ANNEX
         LIST OF THIRD STATES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 2(1)

                     —

                     the Republic of Albania

                     —

                     the Russian Federation

                     —

                     the Republic of Croatia’.

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

      Done at Brussels, 2 September 2008.

            For the Political and Security Committee

            The Chairperson

         C. ROGER

      (1)  OJ L 279, 23.10.2007, p. 21.

      (2)  OJ L 56, 29.2.2008, p. 64.

      (3)  OJ L 107, 17.4.2008, p. 60.


Avis juridique important

|

32002D0107

2002/107/EC: Council Decision of 28 January 2002 on the conclusion of an Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part - Information on the entry into force of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community and Croatia

Official Journal L 040 , 12/02/2002 P. 0009 - 0010

Council Decisionof 28 January 2002on the conclusion of an Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part(2002/107/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133, in conjunction with Article 300(2), first subparagraph, first sentence, and Article 300(3), second subparagraph, thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),Having regard to the assent of the European Parliament(2),Whereas:(1) Pending the entry into force of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part, signed at Luxembourg on 29 October 2001, it is necessary to approve the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part, initialled in Brussels on 10 July 2001.(2) The absence of a separate, pre-existing Transport Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Croatia requires the inclusion of the relevant, trade-related, transport provisions under Protocol 6 of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.(3) In the absence of pre-existing contractual structures this Agreement establishes an Interim Committee for the implementation of this Agreement.(4) The commercial provisions contained in this Agreement are of an exceptional nature, connected with the policy implemented within the framework of the Stabilisation and Association Process and will not constitute, for the European Union, any precedent in the commercial policy of the European Community with regard to third countries other than the countries covered by the Stabilisation and Association Process,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 11. The Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part, the Annexes and Protocols annexed thereto and the Declarations attached to the Final Act are hereby approved on behalf of the Community.2. The texts referred to in paragraph 1 are attached to this Decision(3).Article 21. The Commission, assisted by representatives of the Member States, shall represent the Community in the Interim Committee established under Article 38 of the Agreement.2. The position to be taken by the Community within the Interim Committee shall be determined by the Council, on a proposal by the Commission, or, where appropriate, by the Commission, each in accordance with the corresponding provisions of the Treaty.Article 3The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered, on behalf of the Community, to deposit the act of notification provided for in Article 50 of the Agreement.Done at Brussels, 28 January 2002.For the CouncilThe PresidentJ. Piqué i Camps(1) OJ C 362 E, 18.12.2001, p. 1.(2) Opinion delivered on 14 December 2001 (not yet published in the Official Journal).(3) OJ L 330, 14.12.2001, p. 3.


title: Council Decision 2011/514/CFSP of 22 November 2010 concerning the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information#Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information

text:
               23.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 216/1

         COUNCIL DECISION 2011/514/CFSP
   of 22 November 2010
   concerning the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in particular Article 37 thereof, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Article 218(5) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(6) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               At its meeting on 22 March 2010, the Council decided to authorise the HR to open negotiations pursuant to Article 37 TEU and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 218(3) TFEU in order to conclude an Agreement on the security of information between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia.

               (2)

               Following that authorisation, the HR negotiated an Agreement with the Republic of Serbia on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information.

               (3)

               The Agreement should be approved,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.
   The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
   Article 2
   The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.
   Article 3
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 22 November 2010.

            For the Council

            The President

         S. VANACKERE

      AGREEMENT
      between the European Union and the Republic of Serbia on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information
      The EUROPEAN UNION, hereinafter referred to as ‘the EU’,
      and
      the REPUBLIC OF SERBIA,
      hereinafter referred to as ‘the Parties’;
      CONSIDERING that the Parties share the objectives of strengthening their own security in all ways;
      CONSIDERING that the Parties agree that consultations and cooperation should be developed between them on questions of common interest relating to security;
      CONSIDERING that, in this context, a permanent need therefore exists to exchange classified information between the Parties;
      RECOGNISING that full and effective consultation and cooperation may require access to and exchange of classified information and related material of the Parties;
      CONSCIOUS that such access to and exchange of classified information and related material require that appropriate security measures be taken,
      HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
      Article 1
      1.   In order to fulfil the objectives of strengthening the security of each of the Parties in all ways, the Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Serbia on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information (hereinafter ‘the Agreement’) shall apply to classified information or material in any form and in any field either provided or exchanged between the Parties.
      2.   Each Party shall protect classified information received from the other Party from unauthorised disclosure in accordance with the terms set forth herein and in accordance with the Parties’ respective laws and regulations.
      Article 2
      For the purposes of this Agreement, ‘classified information’ shall mean any information or material, in any form, which:

                  (a)

                  is determined by either Party to require protection, as its unauthorised disclosure could cause varying degrees of damage or harm to the interests of the Republic of Serbia, or of the EU or one or more of its Member States; and

                  (b)

                  bears a classification marking.

            Article 3
      The EU institutions and entities to which this Agreement applies shall be: the European Council, the Council of the European Union (hereinafter ‘the Council’), the General Secretariat of the Council, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the European External Action Service (hereinafter ‘the EEAS’) and the European Commission. For the purposes of this Agreement, these institutions and entities shall be referred to as ‘the EU’.
      Article 4
      Each of the Parties, and entities thereof as referred to in Article 3, shall ensure that it has a security system and security measures in place, based on the basic principles and minimum standards of security laid down in their respective laws or regulations, and reflected in the security arrangements to be established pursuant to Article 12, in order to ensure that an equivalent level of protection is applied to classified information provided or exchanged under this Agreement.
      Article 5
      Each of the Parties, and entities thereof as referred to in Article 3, shall:

                  (a)

                  protect classified information provided by or exchanged with the other Party under this Agreement in a manner at least equivalent to that afforded to it by the providing Party;

                  (b)

                  ensure that classified information provided or exchanged under this Agreement keeps the security classification marking given to it by the providing Party, and that it is not downgraded or declassified without the prior written consent of the providing Party. The receiving Party shall protect the classified information according to the provisions set out in its own security regulations for information or material holding an equivalent security classification as specified in Article 7;

                  (c)

                  not use such classified information for purposes other than those established by the originator or those for which the information is provided or exchanged;

                  (d)

                  not disclose such classified information to third parties, or to any EU institution or entity not referred to in Article 3, without the prior written consent of the providing Party;

                  (e)

                  not allow access to classified information to individuals unless they have a need-to-know and have been security-cleared as appropriate and authorised by the relevant Party;

                  (f)

                  ensure the security of facilities where classified information provided by the other Party is kept; and

                  (g)

                  ensure that all individuals having access to classified information are informed of their responsibilities to protect the information in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations.

            Article 6
      1.   Classified information shall be disclosed or released in accordance with the principle of originator consent.
      2.   For release to recipients other than the Parties, a decision on disclosure or release of classified information will be made by the receiving Party on a case-by-case basis subject to the consent of the providing Party and in accordance with the principle of originator consent.
      3.   No generic release shall be possible unless procedures are agreed between the Parties regarding certain categories of information, relevant to their specific requirements.
      4.   Nothing in this Agreement shall be regarded as a basis for mandatory release of classified information between the Parties.
      5.   Classified information received from the providing Party may be provided to a contractor or prospective contractor only with the prior written consent of the providing Party. Prior to such release, the receiving Party shall ensure that the contractor or prospective contractor and the contractor’s facility are able to protect the information and have an appropriate clearance.
      Article 7
      In order to establish an equivalent level of protection for classified information provided or exchanged between the Parties, the security classifications shall correspond as follows:

                  EU

                  Republic of Serbia

                  RESTREINT UE

                  ИНТΕРНО РС or INTERNO RS

                  CONFIDENTIEL UE

                  ПОΒΕРЉИВО РС or POVERLJIVO RS

                  SECRET UE

                  СТРОГО ПОΒΕРЉИВО РС or STROGO POVERLJIVO RS

                  TRES SECRET UE/EU TOP SECRET

                  ДРЖАВНА ТАЈНА РС or DRŽAVNA TAJNA RS

            Article 8
      1.   The Parties shall ensure that all persons who, in the conduct of their official duties require access, or whose duties or functions may afford access, to information classified CONFIDENTIEL UE, ПОΒΕРЉИВО РС or POVERLJIVO RS, or above, provided or exchanged under this Agreement are security-cleared as appropriate before they are granted access to such information.
      2.   The security clearance procedures shall be designed to determine whether an individual may, taking into account his or her loyalty, trustworthiness and reliability, have access to classified information.
      Article 9
      The Parties shall provide mutual assistance with regard to the security of classified information provided or exchanged under this Agreement and matters of common security interest. Reciprocal security consultations and assessment visits shall be conducted by the authorities referred to in Article 12 to assess the effectiveness of the security arrangements within their respective responsibility to be established pursuant to that Article.
      Article 10
      1.   For the purpose of this Agreement:

                  (a)

                  as regards the EU, all correspondence shall be sent through the Chief Registry Officer of the Council and shall be forwarded by him/her to the Member States and to the entities referred to in Article 3, subject to paragraph 2;

                  (b)

                  as regards the Republic of Serbia, all correspondence shall be sent through the Office of the Council for National Security and Protection of Classified Information.

            2.   However, correspondence from one Party which is accessible only to specific competent officials, organs or services of that Party may, for operational reasons, be addressed and be accessible only to specific competent officials, organs or services of the other Party specifically designated as recipients, taking into account their competencies and according to the need-to-know principle. As far as the EU is concerned, such correspondence shall be transmitted through the Chief Registry Officer of the Council, the Chief Registry Officer of the European Commission or the Chief Registry Officer of the EEAS, as appropriate. As far as the Republic of Serbia is concerned, such correspondence shall be transmitted through the Chief Registry Officer of the Mission of the Republic of Serbia to the EU.
      Article 11
      The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia, the Secretary-General of the Council and the Member of the European Commission responsible for security matters shall oversee the implementation of this Agreement.
      Article 12
      1.   In order to implement this Agreement, security arrangements shall be established between the three authorities designated below, each acting under the direction and on behalf of its organisational superiors, in order to lay down the standards for the reciprocal protection of classified information subject to this Agreement:

                  —

                  the Office of the Council for National Security and Protection of Classified Information, for classified information provided to the Republic of Serbia under this Agreement,

                  —

                  the Security Office of the General Secretariat of the Council, for classified information provided to the EU under this Agreement,

                  —

                  the European Commission Security Directorate, for classified information provided or exchanged under this Agreement within the European Commission and its premises.

            2.   Before classified information is provided or exchanged between the Parties under this Agreement, the competent security authorities referred to in paragraph 1 shall agree that the receiving Party is able to protect the information in a way consistent with the security arrangements to be established pursuant to that paragraph.
      Article 13
      1.   The competent authority of either Party referred to in Article 12 shall immediately inform the competent authority of the other Party of any proven or suspected cases of unauthorised disclosure or loss of classified information provided by that Party, and shall conduct an investigation and shall report the results to the other Party.
      2.   The competent authorities referred to in Article 12 shall establish procedures to be followed in such cases.
      Article 14
      Each Party shall bear its own costs incurred in implementing this Agreement.
      Article 15
      Nothing in this Agreement shall alter existing agreements or arrangements between the Parties nor agreements between the Republic of Serbia and Member States of the EU. This Agreement shall not preclude the Parties from concluding other agreements relating to the provision or exchange of classified information subject to this Agreement provided they are not incompatible with the obligations under this Agreement.
      Article 16
      Any differences between the Parties arising out of the interpretation or application of this Agreement shall be addressed by negotiation between them. During the negotiation both Parties shall continue to fulfil all of their obligations under this Agreement.
      Article 17
      1.   This Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the first month after the Parties have notified each other of the completion of the internal procedures necessary for this purpose.
      2.   Each Party shall notify the other Party of any changes in its laws and regulations that could affect the protection of classified information referred to in this Agreement.
      3.   This Agreement may be reviewed for consideration of possible amendments at the request of either Party.
      4.   Any amendment to this Agreement shall be made in writing only and by common agreement of the Parties. It shall enter into force upon mutual notification as provided under paragraph 1.
      Article 18
      This Agreement may be terminated by one Party by written notice of termination given to the other Party. Such termination shall take effect six months after receipt of notification by the other Party, but shall not affect obligations already contracted under the provisions of this Agreement. In particular, all classified information provided or exchanged pursuant to this Agreement shall continue to be protected in accordance with the provisions set forth herein.
      In witness whereof the undersigned, respectively duly authorised, have signed this Agreement.

         Done at Belgrade, this twenty-sixth day of May in the year two thousand and eleven in two copies, each in the English language.

               For the European Union

               For the Republic of Serbia


title: 2013/536/EU: Decision of the European Parliament of 17 April 2013 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2011, Section II — European Council and Council#Resolution of the European Parliament of 17 April 2013 with observations forming an integral part of the Decision on discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2011, Section II — European Council and Council

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 308/20

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 17 April 2013
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2011, Section II — European Council and Council
   (2013/536/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2011 (COM(2012) 436 – C7-0226/2012) (2),

               —

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

               —

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

               —

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

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               having regard to Decision No 31/2008 of the Secretary-General of the Council/High-Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy concerning reimbursement of travel expenses of delegates of Council Members (7),

               —

               having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (8),

               —

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

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0061/2013),

               1.

               Postpones its decision on granting the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Council’s and the Council’s budget for the financial year 2011;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the Resolution below;

               3.

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

            The President

         Martin SCHULZ

            The Secretary-General

         Klaus WELLE

      (1)  OJ L 68, 15.3.2011.

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

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

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

      (5)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

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

      (7)  Decision stemming from the Rules of Procedure of the Council of 22 July 2002 (OJ L 230, 28.8.2002, p. 7).

      (8)  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

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

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2011 (COM(2012) 436 – C7-0226/2012) (2),

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to Decision No 31/2008 of the Secretary-General of the Council/High-Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy concerning reimbursement of travel expenses of delegates of Council Members (7),

                  —

                  having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (8),

                  —

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

                  —

                  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0061/2013),

                  A.

                  whereas the conclusions of the European Council of 18 and 19 October 2012 pointed out that ‘democratic legitimacy and accountability should be further explored’,

                  B.

                  whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control is for the first time analysing the European Council’s implementation and management of its administrative budget,

                  C.

                  whereas all Union institutions ought to be transparent and fully accountable to the citizens of the Union for the funds entrusted to them as Union institutions,

                  1.

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

                  2.

                  Points out that in the 2011 annual report, the Court of Auditors included observations on the European Council and the Council concerning procurement procedures relating to cleaning services and the purchase of service clothing and shoes, in which certain weaknesses in the application of selection and award criteria were identified;

                  3.

                  Takes note of the replies given to the Court of Auditors’ observations and concurs with the Court of Auditors’ recommendations that authorising officers should improve the design, coordination and performance of procurement procedures through appropriate checks and better guidance; also recommends stricter application of the procurement rules, with which all the Union institutions are bound to comply;

                  4.

                  Notes that in 2011, the European Council and the Council had commitment appropriations of EUR 506 842 003,08 (EUR 642 000 000 in 2010) available, with a utilisation rate of 90 %, lower than in 2010; is concerned that the underspend rate has risen and continues to be high; calls for the budget underspend rate to be improved and for the changes made to be monitored, and suggests the development of key performance indicators within the most critical areas, such as delegations’ travel envelopes, logistics and interpretation;

                  5.

                  Emphasises the role that the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union gives Parliament in respect of the budget discharge;

                  6.

                  Considers that the budget of the European Council and the Council should be separated in order to contribute to the transparency of their financial management and to better accountability of both institutions;

                  7.

                  Notes that, contrary to what the Council has claimed, there is no Parliament-Council ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ concerning discharge for the Council;

                  8.

                  Reiterates its hope that Parliament will receive the complete annual activity report, including a comprehensive overview of all the human resources broken down by category, grade, gender, nationality and vocational training; points out that Parliament’s legal service, as well as independent legal experts, agree that Parliament has a right to that information;

                  9.

                  Hopes that Parliament will receive the internal budget decisions of the Council;

                  10.

                  Takes special note of and voices concern at the Internal Audit recommendations for the year 2011 in relation to IT consultant contracts and security contracts, where weaknesses continue to exist in the financial management and the procurement procedures;

                  11.

                  Is concerned about the follow-up applied to financial auditing carried out before 2010, in the context of which some recommendations relating to the 2007, 2008 and 2009 working programmes remain unimplemented; urges the Council to take concrete measures to improve the implementation of those recommendations;

                  12.

                  Takes note of the fact that the Council has taken measures to improve the performance of the ‘Europa building’ project, and in particular on having set up a permanent team to follow the carrying-out of the project together with the reporting plan and the creation of a document platform;

                  13.

                  Calls on the Council to provide a thorough written explanation detailing the total amount of appropriations used in the purchase of the Résidence Palace building, the budget items from which those appropriations were drawn, the instalments that have been paid thus far, the instalments that remain to be paid, and the purpose that the building will serve no later than 1 July 2013;

                  14.

                  Takes note of the fundamental changes for the budget of the year 2011, with the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the reduction of expenditure envisaged for the functioning of the European Council and the Council;

                  15.

                  Is dismayed that the creation of the EEAS was not anticipated in the draft budget 2011; takes note that an increase of appropriations was necessary in order to prepare for the accession of Croatia and to reinforce the office of the President of the European Council;

                  16.

                  Calls on the Council to submit detailed information on the Service Level Agreements established with the EEAS and the concrete administrative modernisation measures taken to promote administrative modernisation; is of the opinion that the Council’s human resources management has not been efficient enough;

                  17.

                  Regrets that the Council continues to refuse to answer Parliament’s questions and considers that effective supervision of the Union’s budget implementation requires that the Council be willing to have an open and formal dialogue with Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control; stresses the need for both institutions to have a satisfactory cooperation;

                  18.

                  Reiterates that Parliament is still waiting for the reply of the Council on the actions and request for documents set out in its resolution of 10 May 2012 (9); calls on the Secretary-General of the Council to provide Parliament’s committee responsible for the discharge procedure with comprehensive written answers to these questions;

                  19.

                  Reiterates that the expenditure of the Council must be scrutinised in the same way as that of other institutions; is of the opinion that the fundamental elements of such scrutiny are laid down in its resolution of 23 October 2012 (10);

                  20.

                  Regrets the difficulties encountered in discharge procedures for the 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 financial years, which were due to lack of cooperation from the Council; points out that the Parliament refused to grant discharge to the Secretary-General of the Council in respect of the implementation of the Council’s budget for the financial years 2009 and 2010 for the reasons set out in its resolutions of 10 May 2011 (11), 25 October 2011 (12), 10 May 2012 (13) and 23 October 2012 (14);

                  21.

                  Recalls that during negotiations on a revised Financial Regulation, no agreement could be reached on ways in which the discharge procedure could be improved; believes that if the Council continues to refuse to cooperate with Parliament, Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control is forced to introduce to the Commission its questions and request for information about the budget of the Council;

                  22.

                  Reiterates that the Commission, in its reply of 25 November 2011 to the letter from the Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control, says that it is desirable for Parliament to continue to give, postpone or refuse discharge to the other institutions – including the Council – as has been the case up until now;

                  23.

                  Considers it desirable for Parliament to exercise its power to grant discharge pursuant to Articles 316, 317 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in line with current interpretation and practice, namely to grant discharge to each heading of the budget individually in order to maintain transparency and democratic accountability towards Union taxpayers;

                  24.

                  Deplores the fact that the Council is not sufficiently transparent and stresses that all the Union institutions have a duty to respect the same standards in relation to transparency; is convinced that Parliament and the Council, as joint legislators, should apply the same standards of transparency and calls on the Council to improve its performance in this area without delay.

         (1)  OJ L 68, 15.3.2011.

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

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

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

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

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

         (7)  Decision stemming from the Rules of Procedure of the Council of 22 July 2002 (OJ L 230, 28.8.2002, p. 7).

         (8)  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

         (9)  OJ L 286, 17.10.2012, p. 23.

         (10)  OJ L 350, 20.12.2012, p. 71.

         (11)  OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 25.

         (12)  OJ L 313, 26.11.2011, p. 13.

         (13)  OJ L 286, 17.10.2012, p. 23.

         (14)  OJ L 350, 20.12.2012, p. 71.