ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
amending Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

•Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

This proposal aims to ensure legal consistency of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 with an international agreement.

Article 13 of Regulation 1008/2008 defines the conditions under which lease arrangements of aircraft registered in third countries, especially wet-lease, are allowed. The possibilities are exceptional circumstances, such as a lack of adequate aircraft on the Community market, and they should be strictly limited in time and fulfil safety standards equivalent to the safety rules of Community and national legislation.

The Air Transport Agreement (ATA) between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the United States of America (US), of the other part ("the EU-US Air Transport Agreement") was signed on 25 and 30 April 2007 and amended by a Protocol of 24 June 2010. The ATA has been applied provisionally since 30 March 2008. The Amending Protocol has been applied provisionally as from 24 June 2010.

The ATA foresees an open wet-lease regime between the parties. In order to bring clarity and certainty to the air carriers, the Commission has recommended the Council to authorise it to negotiate a specific wet-lease agreement with the US, aiming at lifting the time restrictions.

The present proposal aims to adapt the EU regulation accordingly. It is therefore very restricted in scope and will only apply to Article 13(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008. The other provisions of Article 13 (e.g. on safety standards and rights of the competent authority) will remain unchanged.

In the short term, the derogation from the limitations would be granted to the US which would be the first third Country with which the EU has a wet-lease agreement. Other third countries may line up in the future to seek similar derogations, but each request would be dealt with on a case by case basis and exemptions should be granted only when adequately justified.

Any direct or indirect impact will result from the wet-lease agreements themselves, not from the amendment of the regulation.

•Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area

The present initiative builds on the existing Union provisions dealing with air services as currently contained in Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008. It will also be consistent with the envisaged EU-US wet-lease agreement and EU-US ATA.

•Consistency with other Union policies

This initiative is fully consistent with the 2014-2019 strategic objectives of the Commission with respect to the promotion of 'EU as a global actor' and 'Jobs and Growth'.

2.LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

•Legal basis
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

•Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

The Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, was signed on 27 June 2014. Annex XXVI to that Agreement specifies that the Republic of Moldova shall carry out the approximation of its Customs Code with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Community Customs Code').

At the time of the signature of the Association Agreement, the Community Customs code was in application in the European Union.

The Union Customs Code was adopted on 9 October 2013 as Regulation (EU) No 952/2013; on 1 May 2016 the substantive provisions of the latter came into application in the European Union, repealing the Community Customs Code.

The goal of Annex XXVI has been to assure that the Customs Code of the Republic of Moldova is in line with prevailing rules in the European Union. The differences in certain areas between the provisions of the Community Customs Code and its successor, the Union Customs Code, imply that that goal can only be achieved if the Republic of Moldova approximates its Customs Code with the latter.

At the 6 October 2016 meeting of the EU-Republic of Moldova Customs Subcommittee, it was agreed that the reference to the customs regulation in application in the European Union should therefore be updated. It was further agreed that the modification does not affect the deadline for the approximation as specified in Annex XXVI of the Association Agreement.
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

•Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast), hereafter "the Regulation", entered into force on 26 June 2015. The Regulation will apply from 26 June 2017, with the exception of the part relating to the system for interconnection of national insolvency registers, which will apply from 26 June 2019.

Annex A to Regulation (EU) 2015/848 lists the insolvency proceedings referred to in point (4) of Article 2 of the Regulation.

In January 2017, the Republic of Croatia notified the Commission on recent changes of its domestic insolvency law introducing new types of insolvency proceedings, such as a pre-insolvency proceeding and a consumer's insolvency proceeding. At the same time, the Republic of Croatia requested to change the list set out in Annex A of the Regulation, accordingly. Pursuant to Article 1(1), to point (4) of Article 2 and to recital (9) of the Regulation, national proceedings qualify as "insolvency proceedings" in the context of the Regulation only if they are listed in Annex A thereto. Recital (9) of the Regulation confirms this: "This Regulation should apply to insolvency proceedings which meet the conditions set out in it, irrespective of whether the debtor is a natural person or a legal person, a trader or an individual. Those insolvency proceedings are listed exhaustively in Annex A.... National insolvency procedures not listed in Annex A should not be covered by this Regulation".

The Commission has carefully analysed the request of the Republic of Croatia in order to ensure compliance of the notification with the requirements of the Regulation.

Regulation (EU) 2015/848 should therefore be amended accordingly.
on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, was signed in Brussels on 20 November 1995. The Agreement entered into force on 1 June 2000.

In its Act of Accession, the Republic of Croatia undertakes to accede to the international agreements already signed or concluded by the European Union and its Member States by means of a protocol to those agreements.

The attached proposal constitutes the legal instrument for concluding the Protocol to the Agreement, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union.

By its Decision of 14 September 2012, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with the third countries concerned, in order to conclude the relevant protocols. The negotiations with the State of Israel were successfully concluded on 28 September 2017.

The Commission judges the results of the negotiations to be satisfactory and requests the Council to adopt the attached proposal for a Decision on the conclusion of the Protocol after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

In accordance with EU policy, in particular the Council Conclusions of 10 December 2012, this Protocol shall not apply to the geographic areas that came under the administration of the State of Israel after 5 June 1967.

2018/0080 (NLE)

Proposal for a

COUNCIL DECISION

on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States,

of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association

between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part,

and the State of Israel, of the other part, to take account of the accession

of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 217, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of the Republic of Croatia, and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Having regard to the consent of the European Parliament,

Whereas:

(1)The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part (hereinafter referred to as 'the Agreement'), was signed on 20 November 1995. The Agreement entered into force on 1 June 2000.
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 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 2018.

•Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area

The annexed draft Joint Committee Decision is 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

The proposal is based on Article 114 TFEU in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof. 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

In accordance with the principle of proportionality, the proposal does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve its objective – to ensure the homogeneity of the Internal Market.

•Choice of the instrument
on the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, within the EEA Joint Committee, concerning an amendment to Protocol 30 (on specific provisions on the organization of cooperation in the field of statistics) to the EEA Agreement

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

•Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

The draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee (annexed to the proposed Council Decision) aims at ensuring continuous cooperation with the EEA EFTA States (Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland) in the context of the European statistical programme 2013-17, which was extended to 2020 by Regulation (EU) 2017/1951.

The annexed draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee therefore suggests amending Protocol 30 ( on specific provisions on the organization of cooperation in the field of statistics ) to the EEA Agreement accordingly.

The EEA EFTA States shall financially contribute to the EU budget for their participation in this programme. The position on this draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee shall therefore be established by the Council.

•Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area

The annexed draft Joint Committee Decision extends the already existing EU policy to the EEA EFTA States (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein).

•Consistency with other Union policies

The extension of the EU acquis to the EEA EFTA States, through their incorporation into the EEA Agreement is conducted in conformity with the objectives and principles of that Agreement, aiming at establishing a dynamic and homogeneous European Economic Area, based on common rules and equal conditions of competition.

2.LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

•Legal basis

The legislation to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement is based on Article 338(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

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 the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the effects, be better achieved at Union level.
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 98 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.

Honduras deposited the accession instrument to the 1980 Convention on 20 December 1993. The Convention entered into force in Honduras on 1 March 1994.

The 1980 Convention is already into force between Honduras and 25 EU Member States. Only Austria, Denmark and Romania have not yet accepted the accession of Honduras 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 Honduras has to be taken at EU level by means of a Council Decision. Austria and Romania should thus make the declaration of acceptance concerning the accession of Honduras in the interest of the European Union.

The acceptance of Austria and Romania would render the 1980 Convention applicable between Honduras and all EU Member States except Denmark.
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 Hague Convention"), to date ratified by 101 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 policy to promote the rights of the child, the European Union is active at international level to improve the application of the 1980 Hague Convention and encourages third States to accede it.

Pakistan deposited the accession instrument to the 1980 Hague Convention on 22 December 2016. The Convention entered into force in Pakistan on 1st March 2017.

Article 38(4) of the 1980 Hague 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 Hague 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 Pakistan has to be taken at EU level by means of a Council Decision. The Member States of the European Union should thus deposit the declaration of acceptance concerning the accession of Pakistan in the interest of the European Union.

The acceptance of the Member States of the European Union would render the 1980 Hague Convention applicable between Pakistan and the EU Member States except Denmark.
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

•Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

The Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement (SFPA) between the European Union and the Government of the Cook Islands was signed on 3 May 2016 and on 14 May 2016 respectevely, and entered into provisional application on 14 May 2016 for a duration of eight years. It is tacitly renewable and is still in force. The first 4-year Protocol on the implentation of the SFPA entered into provisional application on 14 October 2016 and expired on 13 October 2020. Both the Agreement and the Protocol entered into force on 10 May 2017.

On 7 July 2020, the Council adopted a mandate authorising the European Commission to open negotiations for a new Protocol to the SFPA between the European Union and the Government of the Cook Islands (the Cook Islands) and for the possible prolongation of Protocol to that Agreement, which was due to expire on 13 october 2020.

During the first round of negotiations (16 July 2020), negotiators from the EU and the Cook Islands agreed that due to the complex nature of the negotiations, a number of rounds would be needed in order to complete the negotiations. Both parties therefore agreed to extend the Protocol for a maximum period of one year, in line with the mandate from the Council. The extension was established by way of an Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters which was initialled on 29 July 2020 in Brussels and Rarotonga (the Cook Islands).

The Protocol was extended for one year from the following date of the signature of the exchange of letters by both parties, i.e. the 14 November 2020. Consequently the current protocol will expire on 13 November 2021.

On the basis of the relevant negotiating directives, the Commission conducted negotiations with the Cook Islands with a view to concluding a new SFPA implementing Protocol on behalf of the European Union. Following these negotiations, a Protocol was initialled by the negotiators on 28 July 2021. The new Protocol covers a period of 3 years from the date of provisional application laid down in Article 11 thereof, that being the date on which it is signed by both parties.

The aim of the Protocol is to grant fishing opportunities to Union vessels in the Cook Islands’ fishing areas in accordance with scientific advice and the recommendations of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), within the limits of the available surplus. The aim is also to strenghten cooperation between the European Union and the Cook Islands, thereby creating a partnership framework within which to develop a sustainable fisheries policy and sound exploitation of fishery resources in the Cook Islands’ fishing areas, in the interests of both parties.