ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
amending Council Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

(1)On 23 December 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/798/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Central African Republic providing for arms embargo, in accordance with the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2127 (2013) of 5 December 2013.

(2)On 22 January 2015 the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2196 (2015) clarifying the scope of the arms embargo and amending the criteria for the asset freeze. The Council is preparing a decision amending Decision 2013/798/CFSP to give effect to UNSCR 2196 (2015).

(3)The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission should therefore make a new proposal for a Regulation concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic.

2015/0064 (NLE)

Joint Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

amending Council Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2013/798/CFSP of 23 December 2013 concerning restrictive measures in against the Central African Republic,

Having regard to the joint proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and of the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 gives effect to certain measures provided for in Decision 2013/798/CFSP.

(2)The United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2127 (2013) of 5 December 2013, UNSCR 2134 (2014) of 28 January 2014, and Council Decision 2013/798/CFSP, provide for an arms embargo against the Central African Republic and the freezing of funds and economic resources of certain persons engaging in or providing support for acts that undermine the peace, stability or security of the Central African Republic.

(3)On 22 January 2015 the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 2196 (2015) extending the scope of the arms embargo and the asset freeze. In Council Decision 2015/…/CFSP the Council decided to extend the scope of the criteria accordingly.

(4)These measures fall within the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, therefore, notably with a view to ensuring their uniform application by economic operators in all Member States, regulatory action at the level of the Union is necessary in order to implement them.

(5)Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 should therefore be amended,
Draft DECISION OF THE EC-TURKEY ASSOCIATION COUNCIL repealing Decision No 4/72 on the definition of the concept of "originating products" from Turkey for implementation of Chapter I of Annex No 6 of the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

Decision No 4/72 defined the concept of "originating products" from Turkey for agricultural products.

In 1998 Protocol 3 to Decision No 1/98 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 25 February 1998 on the trade regime for agricultural products laid down rules of origin which have since been applicable to trade in agricultural products between Turkey and the Community.

For this reason, Decision No 4/72 has become obsolete and in the interests of legal clarity it should be repealed.

The Commission requests the Council to present this draft Decision to the EC-Turkey Association Council.

Draft DECISION OF THE EC-TURKEY ASSOCIATION COUNCIL

repealing Decision No 4/72 on the definition of the concept of "originating products" from Turkey for implementation of Chapter I of Annex No 6 of the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement

THE EC-TURKEY ASSOCIATION COUNCIL,

Having regard to the Agreement of 12 September 1963 establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey,

Having regard to the Additional Protocol to that Agreement, and in particular Article 16 of Annex No 6 thereto,

Whereas:

(1) By Decision No 4/72 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 29 December 1972 on the definition of the concept of "originating products" from Turkey for implementation of Chapter I of Annex No 6 of the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement [1], as amended by Decision No 1/75 [2], the Association Council established the definition of the concept of "originating products" from Turkey for the implementation of Annex No 6.

[1] OJ L 59, 5.3.1973, p. 83.

[2] OJ L 142, 4.6.1975, p. 2.

(2) Protocol 3 to Decision No 1/98 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 25 February 1998 on the trade regime for agricultural products [3] laid down the rules of origin to be applied henceforth to trade in agricultural products between Turkey and the Community.

[3] OJ L 86, 20.3.1998, p. 1.

(3) Decision No 4/72 is now obsolete and should therefore be repealed.

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article

Decision No 4/72 is repealed.

Done at Brussels,

For the EC-Turkey Association Council

The President

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

1. TITLE OF THE OPERATION

Decision of the EC-Turkey Association Council revoking Decision No 4/72 on the definition of the concept of "originating products" from Turkey for implementation of Chapter I of Annex No 6 of the Additional Protocol to the Ankara Agreement.

2. BUDGET HEADING(S) INVOLVED

None.

3. LEGAL BASIS

Article 133 of the Treaty - Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey of 21 September 1963.

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE OPERATION

Revocation of a Decision which has become obsolete.

5. FINANCIAL IMPACT

None.
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 95/2/EC on food additives other than colours and sweeteners

1. Background

- Proposal transmitted to the European Parliament and to the Council: 22 July 1999 [COM (1999) 329 final/2 - 1999/0158 (COD)]

- Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee: 8 December 1999

- Opinion of the European Parliament, first reading: 11 April 2000

- Amended proposal transmitted to the European Parliament and to the Council: 19 July 2000

- Adoption of the common position by the Council: 20 July 2000

2. Purpose of the proposal

The proposal is based on Article 95 of the Treaty, and proposes the use of some new food additives, which are currently forbidden, but which have recently been evaluated by the Scientific Committee on Food and found acceptable for human consumption. The proposal also allows already authorised food additives to be used in certain new applications.

3. Comments on the common position

3.1. In general, the common position of the Council follows the Commission's original and amended proposals concerning the European Parliament and the Council Directive amending Directive 95/2/EC on food additives other than colours and sweeteners.

3.2. The European Parliament approved the Commission's original proposal with the proviso that some changes should be included. The Commission incorporated one of the Parliament's suggested amendments in an amended proposal (amendment 3 concerning E 467 Ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose). The Commission had decided to re-consult the Scientific Committee on Food, which had evaluated the substance in March 1999, to address questions raised by the European Parliament. The Commission considered it was inappropriate to proceed with the approval before receiving the findings of the re-consultation of the Scientific Committee on Food. Therefore, in its amended proposal, the Commission had decided that the use of ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose should not be approved for the time being and withdrew the authorisation. The common position adopted by the Council, therefore, endorses this amendment.

3.3. In the common position, the Council has added two new recitals. Recital 4 refers to the general criteria for approving food additives as laid down in Annex II of Directive 89/107/EEC. Recital 5 refers to the warning labelling of gases used in aerosol dispensers as laid down in Council Directive 75/324/EEC. In addition, the Council has clarified certain provisions by rewording them.

4. Conclusions

The Council unanimously adopted the common position with one abstention. The Commission agrees with the common position as this reflects the principles of the Commission's initial proposal, and complies with the European Parliament's amendment contained in the amended proposal of the Commission. In addition, the Commission agrees with the clarifications and precisions introduced by the Council.
[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 19.7.2006

SEC(2006) 955

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Annex to the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a mechanism for the creation of Rapid Border Intervention Teams and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 as regards that mechanism

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

{COM(2006) 401 final}{SEC(2006) 953}{SEC(2006) 954}

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The emergence of an area of freedom, security and justice in which internal border controls have been abolished has been accompanied by tighter and more harmonised controls at the external borders, in order to ensure a high level of security. The Member States’ control authorities thus assume responsibility for these controls on behalf of all their partners, but the security implications and the scale of the burden involved necessitate closer operational cooperation between these authorities.

There have been major advances in this cooperation in recent years, particularly with the implementation of the integrated border management plan, but this assessment has pinpointed certain shortcomings relating, on the one hand, to the lack of any framework laying down the arrangements for rapid intervention in response to unforeseen events and, on the other, to the question of the powers conferred on border guards intervening on the territory of another Member State.

A number of objectives have been identified in the light of the political context established by the Hague programme. The aim is to provide a legal framework for the creation of rapid intervention teams in a coordinated European-wide structure and to define the powers of the officers providing assistance to another Member State. There is also a need for clarity and legal certainty in the scheme, which is intended as a means of providing support to national authorities, not as an alternative to them. The option chosen should help to ensure the uniform application of the border code and improve the cost-effectiveness of the Member States’ use of border guards.

Various possibilities for intervention were considered: providing a framework for the bilateral agreements, using the “third pillar” instruments of police cooperation, creating rapid intervention teams within the Frontex Agency, and creating a European border guard corps.

The impact assessment of each of these measures shows that though the creation of a European border guard corps appears to be the most effective option, the legal and political obstacles to such a move rule it out in the short term. The most appropriate solution would therefore seem to be to create rapid intervention teams within the Frontex Agency and to define the legal framework for their deployment.
[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 14.3.2008

SEC(2008) 345 final

2008/0801 (CNS)

COMMISSION OPINION

under the second paragraph of Article 245 of the EC treaty and the second paragraph of Article 160 of the EAEC Treaty regarding the request to amend the rules of procedure of the Court of Justice on the language arrangements applicable to the review procedure, submitted by the Court, in accordance with Article 64 of the Statute of the Court of Justice

2008/0801 (CNS)

COMMISSION OPINION

under the second paragraph of Article 245 of the EC treaty and the second paragraph of Article 160 of the EAEC Treaty regarding the request to amend the rules of procedure of the Court of Justice on the language arrangements applicable to the review procedure, submitted by the Court, in accordance with Article 64 of the Statute of the Court of Justice

The purpose of the amendment requested by the Court of Justice[1] is to clarify the language arrangements applicable to the review procedure.

In substance, following the amendment, the procedural language will be that of the Court decision under review. The amendment is purely technical in nature and does not require any comment on the part of the Commission.

The Commission therefore agrees to the text proposed by the Court of Justice.

[1] Doc. 15712/06 JUR 446 COURT 57.
EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 8.10.2010 
SEC(2010) 1205 final 
  
COMMISSION OPINION 
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD EXTENDING TO 20-9-2015 
 
Communication of Mr Šef čovič 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION OPINION 
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE FOR THE PERIOD EXTENDING TO 20-9-2015 
 
Communication of Mr Šef čovič 
According to article 302, second paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functio ning of the European 
Union, the members of the Committee are appoi nted by the Council, which consults the 
Commission. On 1st October 2010, the Council requested  the Commission’s opinion on the 
nomination of one member of the EESC. 
The Commission hereby decides to give a positive answer on the proposed appointment.
EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 23.2.2011 
SEC (2011) 212 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the 
   
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 
Evaluation of EU Readmission Agreements 
 
Implementing protocols signed/conclude d by the MS under the EU readmission 
agreements in force  
 
{COM(2011) 76 final} 
{SEC(2011)209} 
{SEC(2011)210} 
{SEC(2011)211}
 
EN 2   EN 1. IMPLEMENTING PROTOCOLS SIGNED /CONCLUDED BY THE MS  UNDER THE EU 
READMISSION AGREEMENTS IN FORCE . 
 
  
State 
Bosnia and 
Herzegovina 
Montene gro 
 
Serbia 
Albania Moldova 
Russia Ukraine 
Srí Lanka Hon
g Kon g 
Macao 
1 Belgium     X  X     
2 Bulgaria            
3 Czech 
Republic            
4 Denmark            
5 Estonia X  X   X      
6 Finland       O     
7 France    O   O     
8 Ireland            
9 Italy    X X       
10 Cyprus            
11 Lithuania        X    
12 Latvia      X X     
13 Luxemburg     X       
14 Hungary     X O      
15 Malta O? X    O      
16 Germany      X    X  
17 Nederland     X       
18 Poland            
19 Portugal            
 
EN 3   EN  
               
  
X= entered in force 
O = signed  20 Austria 
    X X      
21 Rumania      X      
22 Greece            
23 Slovakia     X X X      
24 Slovenia  X  X        
25 Spain       O     
26 Sweden            
27 UK    O
The EU Cohesion policy provides for important investment possibilities to implement energy policy objectives in Malta which will be complemented by national public and private co-financing, aiming at optimal leverage. It also ensures integrated territorial solutions to challenges by supporting capacity building, technical assistance and territorial cooperation. Energy efficiency: Over 2014-2020, EU Cohesion Policy will invest some EUR 15 million in energy efficiency improvements in public and residential buildings and in enterprises in Malta. These investments are expected to contribute to a decrease of around 170 000 kWh per year of decreased primary energy consumption of public buildings. A further estimated EUR 52 million will be invested in transport, of which EUR 28 million will be used to support the move towards an energy-efficient, decarbonised transport sector. Decarbonisation: Overall, the EU Cohesion Policy investments in Malta over 2014-2020 are expected to contribute to an estimated annual decrease of GHG of around 68 000 tonnes of CO2eq. Over 2014-2020, EU Cohesion Policy will invest some EUR 31 million in renewable energy (solar) in in public and residential buildings and in enterprises in Malta. These investments are expected to contribute to around 80 MW of additional capacity of renewable energy production. Research, Innovation and Competitiveness: Over 2014-2020, EU Cohesion Policy will invest significantly in R&I and in SME competitiveness in Malta. This will be based on the national strategy for smart specialisation. For Malta, the strategy includes seven areas of specialisation, plus ICT as a horizontal enabler. One of the seven areas targets resource efficient buildings, aiming to develop solutions for improved resource efficiency in new and existing buildings through, inter alia, demonstration projects and optimisation of building design. At this stage, the allocations foreseen for investments in R&I and adoption of low-carbon technologies in Malta are not specified, but should become available in line with the evolving content of the smart specialisation strategy.
The EU Cohesion policy provides for important investment possibilities to implement energy policy objectives in Poland which will be complemented by national public and private co-financing, aiming at optimal leverage. It also ensures integrated territorial solutions to challenges by supporting capacity building, technical assistance and territorial cooperation, including the Baltic Sea Region macro-regional strategy in which Poland takes part. Internal energy market: Over 2014-2020, EU Cohesion Policy will invest some EUR 1 300 million in smart energy storage and transmission systems, as well as some EUR 100 million in smart electricity distribution grids in Poland. This funding will be complemented by national public and private co-financing, aiming at optimal leverage. These investments are expected to contribute to around 543 000 additional users connected to smart grids. Energy efficiency: Over 2014-2020, EU Cohesion Policy will invest some EUR 3 290 million in energy efficiency improvements in public and residential buildings and in enterprises, as well as in high-efficiency cogeneration and district heating in Poland. A further estimated EUR 13 000 million will be invested in supporting the move towards an energy-efficient, decarbonised transport sector. These investments are expected to contribute to around 102 000 households with improved energy consumption classification and a decrease of around 1 181 502 000 kWh per year of decreased primary energy consumption of public buildings, as well as to around 10 km of new railway lines, 2 210 km of reconstructed or upgraded railway lines, 190 km of new or improved tram and metro lines, and 10 km of new or improved inland waterways. Decarbonisation: Overall, the EU Cohesion Policy investments in Poland over 2014-2020 are expected to contribute to an estimated annual decrease of GHG of around 4 281 000 tonnes of CO2eq. Over 2014-2020, EU Cohesion Policy will invest some EUR 939 million in renewable energy in Poland. These investments are expected to contribute to around 960 MW of additional capacity of renewable energy production. Research, Innovation and Competitiveness: Over 2014-2020, EU Cohesion Policy will invest significantly in R&I and in SME competitiveness in Poland. This will be based on one national strategy and 16 regional strategies for smart specialisation. For Poland, the national strategy includes a focus on the sustainable energy sector in three areas: highly-efficient, low-emission and integrated circuits of manufacturing, storage, transmission and distribution of energy; smart and energy efficient construction; and environmentally friendly transport solutions. Some of the regional smart specialisation strategies also identify similar priority areas (e.g. renewable energy, low-carbon economy, sustainable energy, advanced construction materials). At this stage, at least EUR 453 million is foreseen for investments in R&I and adoption of low-carbon technologies in Poland, but this might increase further in line with the evolving content of the smart specialisation strategy.
Energy and transport related taxes as a share of GDP in Finland is higher than for the EU-average. The taxation of transport fuel as a share of GDP is in line with the EU-average, while both taxation of transport vehicles, and electricity and heating fuels is above average. The overall tax burden in 2012 has been stable since 2005 in relation to GDP, but the composition has changed. Taxation of transport vehicles and fuel has fallen somewhat as a share of GDP, which has been compensated by an increased tax burden on electricity and heating fuels.

Finland is above EU average, the US and South Korea in terms of public support share allocated to research and innovation in the field of energy and environment. In terms of intensity of low-carbon technologies patents, Finland performs much better than the EU average and main worldwide partners.

Although lower than the EU average, energy prices remain higher than in the US. Significant discrepancies can be noted between electricity and gas prices paid by industrial users. Electricity prices are among the lowest in the EU, while gas prices are among the highest.

The real unit energy costs in Finland have increased but remain slightly below the EU average, while higher than in the US. This development reflects the fact that real energy prices have increased in Finland over the past ten years, while energy intensity of the manufacturing sector has improved. It remains, however, higher than in the EU, but lower than in the US.
The growing information needs for policymaking and other purposes increasingly confront Eurostat and the National Statistical Institutes (NSIs) with additional high quality requirements – including timeliness – for statistical data. At the same time new technological innovations change the possibilities available for data collection while also further (re)shaping the future needs of data users. The current system for social statistics is fragmented into separate domain-specific Regulations, which rigidly fix the contents (the topics to be covered) and the technical requirements of the data collection (size sample, quality criteria, transmission requirements, etc.). The resulting fragmented and inflexible legal system at the EU level is mirrored in the national processes on data collection – through mostly independent surveys - and contributes to the following key problems of European social statistics: (i) lack of responsiveness to users’ needs; (ii) quality issues in particular on consistency and comparability across data collections; (iii) little support to the use of innovative methods of data collection and of available data sources. In addition, the combination of these problems also contributes to increasing inefficiencies: (iv) higher than necessary cost and response burden of data collection. The ultimate consequence of these problems is that the statistics collected by Eurostat gradually lose relevance for policymakers and other data users.
Lead is particularly toxic. According to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2010, lead has no safe threshold in humans. The 3 limits for lead in toys, of 2009 (Toy Safety Directive 2009/48/EC; TSD), therefore have to be strengthened.

Market monitoring studies in 2010 and 2011 in Germany (almost 2 500 samples) showed that most toys already complied with strengthened limits, except finger paints, colour pencil leads and water paint tablets, possibly due to contaminated raw material. These results were confirmed by Sweden.