ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
on the proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 294(7)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's position

2011/0901/B (COD)

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION



pursuant to Article 294(7)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

on the European Parliament's amendments

to the Council's position

on the proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL



amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union







1.Introduction

Article 294(7)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that the Commission must deliver an opinion on the amendments proposed by the European Parliament at second reading. The Commission's opinion on the amendments proposed by Parliament is set out below.

2.Background

Date of transmission of the Court of Justice's request

to the European Parliament and to the Council: 28 March 2011

Date of the Commission’s opinion: 30 September 2011

Date of Parliament's opinion first reading: 15 April 2014

Date of adoption of the Council's position at first reading:

23 June 2015

Date of Parliament's amendments at second reading:

28 October 2015

3.Aim of the proposal

The aim of the Court of Justice's request is to alleviate the congestion at the General Court of the European Union by increasing the number of judges. Initially, the Court requested 12 additional judges. Subsequently, in view of the worsening situation at the General Court, the Court of Justice informally suggested that the number of judges be gradually increased in three stages, to stand at 56 judges in 2019 (two judges per Member State), and that the posts of judges of the Civil Service Tribunal be integrated into the General Court. It was on this basis that the Council adopted its position at first reading.

4.Commission opinion on the amendments adopted by the Parliament

The European Parliament adopted at second reading a consolidated text containing a number of amendments to the text of the Council's position at first reading. The text is the result of negotiations between Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The Commission accepts all the amendments adopted by Parliament.
determining the EU position for a Recommendation of the Joint Readmission Committee set up under the Readmission Agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation, with regard to readmission applications requiring the arrangement of interviews

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

The Agreement between the European Union and Russia on readmission entered into force on 1 June 2007. According to Article 19(1)(b) of the Agreement, the Joint Readmission Committee has the task "to decide on arrangements necessary for the uniform execution of [the] Agreement". According to Article 6(3) of the Committee's Rules of Procedure adopted by its Decision No 1/2007 of 25 July 2007, the Committee may adopt recommendations.

A first recommendation with regard to readmission applications requiring the arrangement of interviews was adopted by the Joint Readmission Committee on 2 June 2009. It appeared that this recommendation should be further clarified by a second one to provide guidelines when time limits for the arrangement of interviews could not be respected, in order to reschedule those interviews.

2.RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

The project of the recommendation annexed to this proposal for a Council Decision was discussed and agreed with the Russian side during the 12th, 13th and 14th meetings of the Committee and was prepared in close cooperation with the Member States who were also present during the discussions of the Committee on the issue. For lack of a scheduled meeting of the Working Party on Integration, Migration and Expulsion, the Commission consulted on 20 October 2014 the Justice and Home Affairs Counsellors on this draft recommendation, which did not render any comments.

3. FINANCIAL AND BUDGET IMPACT

This proposal has no impact on the EU budget.

2015/0305 (NLE)

Proposal for a

COUNCIL DECISION

determining the EU position for a Recommendation of the Joint Readmission Committee set up under the Readmission Agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation, with regard to readmission applications requiring the arrangement of interviews

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 79 in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1)The Agreement of 25 May 2006 between the European Community and the Russian Federation on readmission (hereinafter referred to as the “Readmission Agreement”) entered into force on 1 June 2007.

(2)Article 19 of the Readmission Agreement sets up a Joint Readmission Committee to be responsible for the tasks specified therein.
on the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union within the CARIFORUM-EU Trade and Development Committee of the Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, with regard to the establishment of a Special Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

The attached proposal for a Council Decision constitutes the legal instrument for the establishment of a Special Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries in the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), signed on 15 October 2008 between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part. The Agreement is provisionally applied as of 29 December 2008.

Agriculture and fisheries is an important domain of the Agreement, and according to Article 230(4) of the CARIFORUM-EU EPA, any special committee may be set up in order to deal more efficiently with matters related to the implementation of this Agreement. This special committee on agriculture and fisheries will be composed of representatives of the European Commission, on the one hand, and representatives of the CARIFORUM Directorate and the Signatory CARIFORUM States, on the other.

The special committee needs to be established by a decision of the CARIFORUM-EU Trade and Development Committee (composed of representatives of the Parties at senior official level). In this regard, the proposed Council Decision includes as an annex the draft decision agreed by the Parties at the fifth annual meeting of the CARIFORUM-EU Trade and Development Committee that took place in Guyana on 14 July 2015.

Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area

The CARIFORUM-EU EPA includes a specific chapter dedicated to Agriculture and Fisheries issues.

Consistency with other Union policies

The establishment of this Special Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries is consistent taking into consideration the conclusion of the last two CARIFORUM-EU Trade and Development Committee annual meetings that took place in Brussels in 2014 and in Guyana in 2015.

2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

Legal basis

The legal basis for this Council decision is the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Article 207 in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof.

Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)

The common commercial policy, in accordance with Article 3 of the TFEU, is defined as an exclusive Union competence.

Proportionality

This proposal is necessary in order to establish any special committee, as set out in Article 230(4) of the CARIFORUM-EU EPA text and the rules of procedure of the CARIFORUM-EU Trade and Development Committee.

Choice of the instrument

This proposal is in accordance with Article 218(5) TFEU, which envisages the adoption by the Council of decisions on international agreements. There exists no other legal instrument that could be used in order to achieve the objective expressed in this proposal.
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

•Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

The aim of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereafter: "the 1980 Convention"), to date ratified by 93 countries, including all EU Member States, is to restore the status quo by means of the prompt return of wrongfully removed or retained children through a system of cooperation among central authorities appointed by its Contracting Parties.

As the prevention of child abduction is an essential part of the EU's policy to promote the rights of the child, the European Union is active at international level to improve the application of the 1980 Convention and encourages third States to accede to it.

Kazakhstan deposited the accession instrument to the 1980 Convention on 3 June 2013. The Convention entered into force in Kazakhstan on 1 September 2013.

Article 38(4) of the 1980 Convention stipulates that the Convention applies between the acceding country and such Contracting States as will have declared their acceptance of the accession.

As the matter of international child abduction falls into the exclusive external competence of the European Union, the decision whether to accept the accession of Kazakhstan has to be taken at EU level by means of a Council Decision. Member States should thus make the declaration of acceptance concerning the accession of Kazakhstan in the interest of the European Union.

The existence of the EU exclusive competence in the matter of the acceptance of the accession of a third State to the 1980 Convention was confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which was consulted at the Commission's initiative.

On 14 October 2014, Opinion 1/13 of the Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed that the exclusive competence of the European Union encompasses the acceptance of the accession of a third state to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The Court insisted on the need for uniformity on the matter at EU level, avoiding a géométrie variable among Member States. The objective of this decision is to make the 1980 Convention enter into force between Kazakhstan and all EU Member States.
on the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, within the EEA Joint Committee concerning an amendment to Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms (Budget Line 33.02.03.01 Company Law)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

•Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

In order to ensure the requisite of legal security and homogeneity of the Internal Market, the EEA Joint Committee is to integrate all the relevant EU legislation into the EEA Agreement as soon as possible after its adoption and also allow for the participation of the EEA EFTA States in EEA relevant EU actions or programmes.

The draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee (annexed to the proposed Council Decision) aims to amend amend Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms in order to allow the EEA EFTA States (Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein) to participate in the Union actions related to the Budget line 33 02 03 01: “Company law”, entered into the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2017.

•Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area

The annexed draft Joint Committee Decision if fully consistent with the aim of the EEA Agreement to promote a continuous and balanced strengthening of trade and economic relations between the Contracting Parties with equal conditions of competition, and the respect of the same rules, with a view to creating a homogeneous European Economic Area.

•Consistency with other Union policies

The Joint Committee Decision is also consistent with other Union policies, particularly through the aim to protect homogeneity of the EU Internal Market.

2.LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

•Legal basis

Article 1(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2894/94 concerning arrangements for implementing the EEA Agreement provides that the Council establishes the position to be adopted on the Union’s behalf on such Decisions, on a proposal from the Commission.

The Commission in cooperation with the EEAS submits the Draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee for adoption by the Council as the Union’s position. The Commission would hope to be able to present it in the EEA Joint Committee at the earliest possible opportunity.

•Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)

The proposal complies with the subsidiarity principle for the following reason.

The objective of this proposal, namely to ensure the homogeneity of the Internal Market cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States and can therefore, by reason of the effects, be better achieved at the Union level.

•Proportionality
on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide for the payment of advances in the general budget of the Union for 2018

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

Council Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020, and in particular the Article 10 thereof allows for the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, within an annual ceiling of EUR 500 million (2011 prices), over and above the relevant headings of the financial framework.

Point 11 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters on and sound financial management set ot the modalities for the mobilisation of the Fund.

The conditions of eligibility to the Fund are detailed in the Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002, which foresees that an amount of up to a maximum of EUR 50 000 000 in both commitment and payment appropriations shall be included in the budget for the payment of advances.

The Commission shall include these amounts in the Draft Budget 2018.

Proposal for a

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide for the payment of advances in the general budget of the Union for 2018

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund, and in particular Article 4a(4) thereof,

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management, and in particular point 11 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1)The European Union Solidarity Fund (the "Fund") aims to enable the Union to respond in a rapid, efficient and flexible manner to emergency situations in order to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by natural disasters.

(2)The fund is not to exceed a maximum amount of EUR 500 000 000 (2011 prices) as laid down in Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013.

(3)Article 4a(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 provides that, where necessary in order to ensure the timely availability of budgetary resources, the Fund may be mobilised in an amount of up to EUR 50 000 000 for the payment of advances, entering the corresponding appropriations into the general budget of the Union.

(4)To ensure the timely availability of sufficient budgetary resources in the general budget of the Union for 2018, the Fund should be mobilised in the amount of EUR 50 000 000 for the payment of advances,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

•Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

The aim of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereafter: "the 1980 Convention"), to date ratified by 97 countries, including all EU Member States, is to restore the status quo by mean of the prompt return of wrongfully removed or retained children through a system of cooperation among central authorities appointed by its Contracting Parties.

As the prevention of child abduction is an essential part of the EU policy to promote the rights of the child, the European Union is active at international level to improve the application of the 1980 Convention and encourages third States to accede it.

San Marino deposited the accession instrument to the 1980 Convention on 14 December 2006. The 1980 Hague Convention entered into force for San Marino on 1 March 2007.

The 1980 Convention is already into force between San Marino and the overwhelming majority of the EU Member States (23). Only Croatia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal and Romania have not yet accepted the accession of San Marino to the Convention.

Article 38(4) of the 1980 Convention stipulates that the Convention applies between the acceding country and such Contracting States as will have declared their acceptance of the accession.

The existence of the EU exclusive competence in the matter of the acceptance of the accession of a third State to the 1980 Convention was confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which was consulted at the Commission's initiative.

On 14 October 2014, Opinion 1/13 of the Court of Justice of the European Union stated that the exclusive competence of the European Union encompasses the acceptance of the accession of a third state to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The Court insisted on the need for uniformity on the matter at EU level, avoiding a géométrie variable among Member States.

As the matter of international child abduction falls within the exclusive external competence of the European Union, the decision whether to accept the accession of San Marino has to be taken at EU level by means of a Council Decision. The Member States which have not yet accepted San Marino should thus make the declaration of acceptance in the interest of the European Union.

The acceptance of Croatia, the Netherlands, Portugal and Romania would render the 1980 Convention applicable between San Marino and all EU Member States except Denmark.
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

•Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

Following a proposal by the Commission for an Article185 TFEU PRIMA initiative , the Decision (EU) 2017/1324 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the participation of the Union in the Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area ('PRIMA') jointly undertaken by several Member States was adopted.

PRIMA aims at implementing a joint programme to foster research and innovation capacities and to develop knowledge and common innovative solutions for improving the efficiency, safety, security and sustainability of agro-food systems and of integrated water provision and management in the Mediterranean area. PRIMA will be jointly undertaken by a number of Member States and third countries ('PRIMA Participating States') with a high level of commitment to scientific, management and financial integration and under the same terms and conditions.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan ('Jordan') expressed its wish to join PRIMA as a Participating State by letters of 7 November 2016 and 30 February 2017, committing to provide a financial contribution of 30 million euros to the initiative.

In order to ensure that Jordan participates in PRIMA on an equal footing with Member States and third countries associated to Horizon 2020, an International Agreement with the Union is required to extend the scope of the legal regime established by Decision (EU) 2017/1324 to Jordan.

On 30 May 2017 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations, on behalf of the Union, with Jordan on an International Agreement between the Union and Jordan laying down the terms and conditions for the participation of Jordan in PRIMA, subject to the adoption of Decision (EU) 2017/1324.

The negotiations started on 26 June 2017 and were successfully completed on 10 July 2017, when the text of the draft Agreement was initialled by representatives from each of the future Parties. The draft Agreement attached to this proposal is in line with the negotiating directives issued by the Council. In particular, it establishes that the terms and conditions for the participation of Jordan in PRIMA shall be those set out in Decision (EU) 2017/1324, making direct reference to the Union legislative act.

In order to ensure the protection of Union financial interests, particularly the powers of the Commission, the European Anti-Fraud Office, the Court of Auditors and the PRIMA Implementation Structure (PRIMA-IS) to carry out audits and investigations in accordance with the applicable Union legislation, the Agreement makes specific reference to the relevant provisions of Decision (EU) 2017/1324 and obliges the Parties to provide all necessary assistance to ensure their implementation. In addition, the future Agreement stipulates that the Parties must agree on detailed arrangements for assistance, such arrangements being essential to their cooperation under this Agreement.
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

•Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

The Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement (‘Global Agreement’) was signed on 8 December 1997 and entered into force on 1 October 2000.

The attached proposal constitutes the legal instrument for the conclusion of a Third Additional Protocol to the Global Agreement (‘the Protocol’), to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union.

Under Article 6(2) of the Act of Accession of the Republic of Croatia, Croatia undertook to accede to the existing agreements concluded or signed by the Member States and the European Union with third countries. Unless otherwise provided for in specific agreements, Croatia accedes to these existing agreements by means of protocols that the Council, acting unanimously on behalf of the Member States, concludes with the third countries concerned.

On 14 September 2012 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with the third countries concerned with a view to concluding the relevant protocols. The negotiations with Mexico have been successfully concluded. The proposed Protocol incorporates the Republic of Croatia as a party to the EU-Mexico Global Agreement. The texts of the Global Agreement and the Final Act in the Croatian language will become authentic under the same conditions as other language versions of the Agreement.

The Protocol will enter into force on the first day of the month following the date on which the Parties notify each other that they have completed the relevant internal procedures. However, it will apply provisionally pending completion of the procedures for its entry into force.

The Commission recommends that the Council adopt the attached Council Decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, of a Third Additional Protocol to the Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the United Mexican States, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union.