ARCHIVESHISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEEDES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM(78)707
Vol.1978/0266

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement(CEE,Euratom)n°354/83duConseildu1erfévrier1983
concernantl'ouvertureaupublicdesarchiveshistoriquesdelaCommunauté économique
européenneetdelaCommunautéeuropéennedel'énergieatomique(JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifiéparlerèglement(CE,Euratom)n°1700/2003du22septembre2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003,p.1),cedossierestouvertaupublic.Lecaséchéant,lesdocuments
classifiésprésentsdanscedossierontétédéclassifiésconformément àl'article5dudit
règlement.
InaccordancewithCouncilRegulation(EEC,Euratom)No354/83of1February1983
concerningtheopeningtothepublicofthehistoricalarchivesoftheEuropeanEconomic
CommunityandtheEuropeanAtomicEnergyCommunity(OJL43,15.2.1983,p.1),as
amendedbyRegulation(EC,Euratom)No1700/2003of22September2003(OJL243,
27.9.2003,p.1),thisfileisopentothepublic.Wherenecessary,classifieddocumentsinthis
filehavebeendeclassified inconformitywithArticle5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung(EWG,Euratom)Nr.354/83desRatesvom1.
Februar1983überdieFreigabederhistorischen ArchivederEuropäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI.L43vom15.2.1983,
S.1),geändertdurchdieVerordnung(EG,Euratom)Nr.1700/2003vom22.September2003
(ABI.L243vom27.9.2003,S.1),istdieseDateiderÖffentlichkeitzugänglich.Soweit
erforderlich,wurdendieVerschlusssachen indieserDateiinÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel5
dergenanntenVerordnungfreigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(78)707
Brussels,8final.
December 1978
REQUESTS FORTRANSFERS FOR1975SUBMITTED BYCERTAINOCTS
UNDERTHEEXPORTEARNINGSSTABILIZATION SYSTEM
(Commission Communication totheCouncil)
C0M(78)707final./r:
K-&■R*ICv*'«ν>\\
i
v.
<.:ί·

-1-
1#Background
Three OCTs addressed "totheCommission four late 1975 transfer requests
under theexport earnings stabilization system# Therequest came from
theSolomon Islands (on1July 1977 and15July 1977 ),Tuvalu (2October
1977 )andtheGilbert Islands (2October 1977)®
TheCommission wasunable toaccept these requests for legal reasons since
itconsidered that theappraisal ofrequests submitted after the end ofthe
financial year following theyear ofapplication was contrary toArticles .
20(2)and (3)and21(3)oftheCouncil Decision of29June 1976 onthe
association oftheoverseas countries andterritories with theEuropean
Economic Community# ■ v
InJuly 1977 theUnited Kingdom presented totheCouncil 'sACPandACP/PIN
Working Parties arequest forapproval oftransfers under theexport ear­
nings stabilization system tocertain British overseas countries and terri -
tories# Noagreement wasreached onthis matter intheWorking Parties nor
inthePermanent Representatives Committee# These bodies considered that
since there were legal obstacles which could beovercome only byaCouncil
Decision amending theDecision of29June 197,6 ,afavourable response to
theUnited Kingdom 'srequest could have constituted aprecedent forthose
ACPStates that hadalso presented late requests for 1975 transfers#
Inview ofthefact that theDecision of29June 1976 reflects theprovi­
sions oftheLome Convention ,itwasagreed toawait theoutcome ofthe
good offices procedure initiated bythetwoPresidents oftheACP/EECCoun­
cilbefore deciding whether ornottoaccept thelate applications received
for1975 from thethree OCTs#
2#Therecommendation resulting from thegood offices procedure
Thegood offices procedure provided forinArticle 8l(2)oftheLome Con­
vention wasinitiated todeal with three late applications for1975 presented
byACPStates#
Theprocedure resulted inarecommendation that theCouncil ofMinisters
request theCommission toappraise thethree applications#

Together with this recommendation there were observations which will be
particularly important forthefuture implementation ofthesystem :
-"They considered ,however ,that theadministration oftheStabex system
mayhave caused difficulties inrelation tothefirst year ofappli­
cation ." •••
"Under these circumstances ,they areoftheopinion that thedelay which
hasoccurred inthepresentation oftheabove-mentioned requests should
notprevent their examination# "
-"Itwasrecognized that theneed forspeedy transfers -asstipulated in
Article 19(6)oftheConvention –andtheimplementation oftheConven­
tion 'sprovisions relating totheStabex system imply that transfer re­
quests should bepresented before theendoftheyear following theyear
ofapplication#"#.#
"They considered that some support forthis view could befound inthefact
that itwasdecided atthemeeting oftheACP/EECCommittee ofAmbassa­
dors on28March 1977 tointroduce aspecific time limit forthesub­
mission ofrequests forStabex transfers# "###
Therecommendation wasbased "ontheunderstanding that nofurther
claims may beaccepted inrespect ofyears where the time limit referred
toabove has expired# "
-"They also took account ofthefact that justice requires that these three
requests should notbeplaced inapreferred position over other requests ,
submitted within thespecified time limit ,with regard totheavailability
offunds# They therefore further recommend that iftheexamination bythe
Commission ofthese requests results inproposals tomake financial trans­
fers ,therelevant payments shall bemade when theCommission isable to
certify that thenecessary funds will beavailable# "
TheCommission's position
Inview oftherecommendation resulting from thegood offices procedure re­
ferred toabove andthefact that theDecision of29June 1976 reflects the
provisions oftheLome Convention ,theCommission isoftheopinion that

theCouncil should agree "toconsider theUnited Kingdom 'srequest tothe
extent ofasking theCommission toappraise thefour late applications for
1975 presented bythree British OCTs# . ,
TheCommission would emphasize ,however ,that such acceptance must take
account ofthefapt that thelate applications submitted bytheOCTs must
notbetreated anydiffierently from those submitted bytheACPStates .
Therequest canbe .considered only inthecontext oftheobservations
cited atpoint 2above ,which areinseparable from therecommendation re­
sulting from thegood offices procedure# Inaddition ,therecommendation
must beimplemented inaccordance with therules governing thesystem#
Inpractical terms ,theabove considerations mean that :
–Therecommendation constitutes arequest that theapplications beexa–
*
mined# Itinnowayprejudges theoutcome oftheappraisal ,which will
beconducted "inaccordance with theusual rules ,andmay .ormaynotlead
toproposals forfinancial transfers#
-Theaimoftherecommendation istoensure that thedelay which has oc­
curred inthepresentation ofthefour requests caused intheexceptional
oircumstances ofthesystem 'steething troubles ,does notprevent their
examination# This ,then ,canbeonly anexceptional measure andcanin
nowayconstitute aprecedent ,andtheauthors ofthenote drawn upunder
thegood offices procedure state this very clearly#
f
-Should theappraisal oftherequests result moneormore transfer pro­
posals ,therules ofthesystem require that anypayments made should
come outofthe1975 annual instalment# This isconfirmed ,moreover ,by
theauthors ofthenote resulting from thegood offices procedure when
they state that thefour requests concerned should notbeplaced ina
preferential position over other requests that were presented within
thespecified time limit# Thefunds would have tobemade available
from thebalance remaining from the1975 annual instalment }should this
balance ,prove inadequate ,theACP/EECCouncil ofMinisters would have
toauthorize abackdated advance payment from the1976 instalment to
cover thedifference ,subject ,however ,toalimit of2Cifoofthat in-
stalment# Thebalance remaining after thepayments made for1976 are
perfectly adequate forsuch anoperation ,whioh represents theonly way

ofmaintaining thestraightforward systemofpaymentbyannualinstal­
mentsetup"bytheLomeConvention.
TheCommissionproposesthattheCouncilauthorizetheCommissiontoap­
praisethelateapplications presentedfor1975"bytheOCTs,ontheterms
setoutatpoint3above®