Green - Paper Diplomatic and consular protection of Union citizens in third countries
Date: 2006-11-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European citizenship, diplomatic protection, public awareness campaign, traveller

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 28.11.2006 
COM(2006)712 final 

GREEN PAPER 

Diplomatic and consular protection of Union citizens in third countries 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Under Article 20 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (hereafter EC), 
if a citizen of the Union is in a third country in which the Member State of which he is 
a national does not have an embassy or a consular post, he is entitled to protection by 
the authorities of any Member State represented on the spot, on the same conditions as 
the nationals of that State.  

Decision 95/553/EC1 outlines possible action by Member States in cases such as: 

–  arrest or detention; 

–  accident or serious illness; 

–  an act of violence against a citizen; 

–  death; 

–  help for a distressed citizen or  

–  his repatriation. 

It also covers the procedures for financial advances to citizens in difficulties.  

The above list is not exhaustive. The Decision states that a citizen can also apply for 
protection in other circumstances, in which, in so far as it is within the States' powers, 
immediate assistance should be given to a national in difficulties.  

A working party on consular cooperation ("COCON") has also been set up in the EU 
Council to organise exchanges of information on best national practices. In June this 
year  it  drew  up  guidelines  on  consular  protection  of  EU  citizens  in  third  countries2. 
These non-binding guidelines focus on the exchange of information between Member 
States with a view to close cooperation, also involving the Commission delegations3

.  

1.2. 

There are several reasons why the Commission is proposing possible lines of action 
for reinforcing this protection of citizens: 

–  Article  46  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights,  proclaimed  in  Nice  on 
7 December  2000,  enshrined  the  right  to  consular  and  diplomatic  protection  as  a 
fundamental right of the European citizen; 

1 

2 

3 

Decision of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council of 
19 December 1995 regarding protection for citizens of the European Union by diplomatic and consular 
representations (OJ L 314, 28.12.1995 p. 73). 
Council of the European Union document 10109/06 of 2.6.2006. 
The guidelines require each Member State to prepare emergency plans, which all Member States should 
be  familiar  with.  Member  States  are  also  encouraged  to  share  changes  to  travel  advice.  Likewise, 
Member  States  should  encourage  EU  citizens  to  report  to  consulates  and  register  their  details  so  that 
emergency plans can be implemented efficiently.. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  Decision  95/553/EC  provides  for  it  to  be  reviewed  five  years  after  its  entry  into 

force, which was in May 2002;  

–  in 2007, the Commission will present its 5th report on the citizenship of the Union, 
which could signal initiatives on the right to diplomatic and consular protection; 

–  the  Commission  Communication  of  June  2006  on  implementing  the  Hague 
Programme4  put  forward  various  suggestions  on  diplomatic  and  consular 
protection;  

–  the need to define the links between consular and diplomatic protection and other 
areas  (civil  protection,  crisis  intervention,  humanitarian  relief),  highlighted  in  the 
Report presented on 9 May by Mr Barnier5 (hereafter Barnier Report).  

1.3. 

Diplomatic and consular protection can concern individuals or groups of people.  

1.4. 

To  deal  with  crisis  situations  such  as  natural  disasters,  terrorist  acts,  pandemics  or 
military conflicts, the Union has a range of instruments at its disposal: 

–  the civil protection mechanism, which can operate inside and outside the Union;  

–  humanitarian relief for civilians hit by a disaster outside the Union; 

–  specific  instruments  to  cope  with  crisis  management  situations  such  as  the  rapid 

reaction mechanism; 

–  civilian crisis management missions under the foreign, security and defence policy. 

All  these  instruments  call  for  close  cooperation  between  the  Council  and  the 
Commission  to  ensure  the  coherence  of  the  external  activities  of  the  Union  and  its 
Member States.  

These areas of intervention can be supplemented by a reinforcement of the protection 
for citizens provided for under Article 20 EC. 

4 

5 

COM (2006) 331 of 28 June 2006 "Implementing the Hague Programme: the way forward". 
Report by Michel Barnier to the President of the Council of the European Union and the President of the 
European Commission: "For a European civil protection force: europe aid." 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.5. 

Article  20  EC  assumes  particular  importance  because  of  the  sharp  increase  in  the 
number of trips made by EU nationals to third countries6, and the rise in the number 
of  nationals  who  establish  their  residence  in  these  countries.  Not  all  the  Member 
States, however, have a permanent representation in every third country.  

At present there are only three countries where all the Member States are represented: 
the  People’s  Republic  of  China,  the  Russian  Federation  and  the  United  States  of 
America, and in 107 out of 167 third countries a maximum of 10 Member States are 
represented7. This situation became patently clear at the end of 2004 when the tsunami 
hit South East Asia, where most of the Member States did not have a representation in 
the countries affected by the disaster. In Thailand, for example, 17 Member States are 
represented  whereas  only  6  are  represented  in  Sri  Lanka  and  3  in  Brunei.  In  the 
conflict  in  Lebanon  in  July  this  year,  it  also  became  clear  that  not  all  the  Member 
States had a permanent and accessible representation on the spot. The Barnier report 
also  showed  that  the  European  presence  in  the  form  of  the  European  Commission 
delegations was ensured in countries where the national representations are sometimes 
very limited. Although they do not have consular powers, these delegations could be 
included in joint efforts to pool resources. 

1.6. 

In  view  of  the  limits  to  the  Member  States’  consular  and  diplomatic  networks,  the 
current Community acquis is fairly slim, consisting only of Decision 95/553/EC and 
exchanges of information between the Member States within the COCON.  

Yet citizens want the European profile to be raised. A recent Eurobarometer survey8 
revealed  citizens’  ignorance  of  their  rights  and  at  the  same  time  their  high 
expectations of Europe in this area. It also emerged that half the people living in the 
Union plan to travel to a third country within the next three years and that only 23% 
of them claim to be familiar with possibilities offered by Article 20 EC; at the same 
time,  17%  believe  that  it  is  possible  to  seek  protection  from  the  Commission 
delegations. 

Lastly, in its Communication to the European Council of 10  May 2006 "A  citizens’ 
agenda”9,  the  Commission  highlighted  the  Union’s  need  to  foster  cooperation  on 
consular affairs in order to protect EU citizens in third countries more fully and also to 
enable  every  European  citizen  to  be  aware  of  and  enjoy  full  access  to  their  existing 
rights.  

The Commission proposes courses of action for informing citizens more fully and 
examining  the  scope  of  the  protection  that  they  should  be  offered  and  the 
structures and resources that the Union should have for this and the links to be 
developed with third-country authorities. 

6 

7 

8 

9 

In April 2006 the COCON Group estimated these trips at some 180 million per year. 
Council  document  15646/05  of  12  December  2005  on  Presidency  diplomatic  representation  in  third 
countries,  not  published.  There  are  areas  where  the  Member  States’  diplomatic  and  consular 
representations on the spot are inadequate: Central America and the Caribbean (for example, 1 Member 
State  is  represented  in  Belize,  3  in  Haiti,  4  in  El  Salvador,  none  in  the  Bahamas),  Central  Asia  (in 
Tajikistan only 1 Member State, and 3 in Turkmenistan); Central and West Africa (1 Member State is 
represented in Liberia and SaoTome and 3 in Mali and Congo-Brazzaville).  
Eurobarometer No 188 of July 2006. 
COM (2006) 211 final. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

INFORMATION FOR CITIZENS 

It is essential to ensure that citizens are more fully informed about consular protection.  

The Commission suggests several measures, some of them immediate, and others that 
require more complex decision-making at European level.  

2.1. 

Information on the right to diplomatic and consular protection 

The  institutions  and  the  Member  States  should  ensure  that  citizens  and  the  trade 
sectors  involved  in  passenger  transport,  such  as  travel  agencies,  are  provided  with 
regular information.  

Examples  include  distributing  information  leaflets,  putting  up  posters  in  places  such 
as airports, ports, railway stations or passport offices, information on the "Europa" site 
and  on  the  internet  site  of  the  Commission  delegations  in  third  countries.  Another 
example could be telephone calls or e-mails to EUROPE DIRECT10, enabling citizens 
to ask questions about consular and diplomatic protection in third countries.  

Suggested actions: 

–  Distribute leaflets, including to the relevant trade sectors 

–  Put  information  on  the  "Europa"  site  and  on  the  internet  site  of  the 

Commission delegations in third countries. 

–  Put  up  posters  in  airports,  ports,  railway  stations  or  any  other  appropriate 

points. 

–  Citizen information services. 

2.2. 

Information on Member States’ representation in third countries 

If  their  country  does  not  have  an  embassy  or  consulate  in  the  third  country  of 
destination,  citizens  must  be  given  information  about  the  other  Member  States’ 
embassies and consulates there.  

The  Commission  could  take  responsibility  for  conducting  this  type  of  information 
campaign  with  the  help  of  the  Member  States.  They  would  accordingly  be  asked  to 
provide the Commission with an updated list of all their embassies and consulates in 
third countries, with the necessary contact details.   

Suggested action: 

–  Publish  and  update  the  contact  details  of  embassies  and  consulates  of  the 

Member States represented in each third country. 

10 

http://.eu.int/europedirect/index_en.htm  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.3. 

Using passports as a means of information  

The Barnier report suggested that all passports should have Article 20 EC printed in 
them. 

In its report of 15 June 2006 to the European Council11, the Council Presidency asked 
the Member States to print Article 20 EC in passports. 

The Commission considers that this would be an effective way of reminding citizens 
of their rights. 

Suggested action: 

–  Adopt a Commission Recommendation calling on the Member States to print 

Article 20 EC in passports.  

2.4. 

Advice for travellers 

In  order  to  discourage  citizens  from  going  to  a  third  country  where  their  safety  and 
health could be endangered, each of the Member States issues advice to its nationals, 
giving  its  own  assessment  of  the  risk,  which  may  differ  from  that  of  other  Member 
States depending on its knowledge of the country concerned or the nature of its links 
with that country12.  

The  question  is  whether  it  is  possible  to  have  a  coordinated  presentation  of  the 
different advice. 

For  example,  Decisions  2119/98/EC13  and  2000/57/EC14  have  established  a  network 
at  Community  level  to  promote  cooperation,  coordination  and  the  exchange  of 
information  with  a  view  to  improving  the  prevention  and  control  of  communicable 
diseases.  The  information  concerns  public  health  measures  taken  by  the  Member 
States  to  cope  with  a  public  health  threat,  including  the  threat  of  a  pandemic.  It  is 
transmitted via an Early Warning and Response System - EWRS. 

The  Commission  and  Member  States  also  inform  concerned  professionals  and  the 
general public of any guidance agreed at Community level. It will also be important to 
give  preventive  advice  on  the  risks  involved  by  providing  appropriate  and  common 
advice  to  citizens  via  the  competent  authorities,  and  in  accordance  with  the  advice 
given by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). 

Suggested action: 

–  Coordinated presentation of advice to travellers.  

11 

12 

13 

14 

Document 10551/06 of 15 June 2006: Reinforcing the European Union's emergency and crisis response 
capacities. 
For a schematic presentation, see: http://www.travel-voyage.consilium.europa.eu. 
OJ L 268, 3.10.1998. 
Commission Decision 2000/57/EC of 22.12. 1999 (OJ L 21, 26.1.2000, p.32). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.5. 

Publication of any measures implementing Article 20 EC 

For  the  sake  of  transparency,  citizens  should  be  properly  informed  of  their  rights 
under Article 20 EC. For example, guidelines on the application of this Article should 
be published in the Official Journal.  

Suggested action: 

–  Publish any measures connected with the implementation of Article 20 EC. 

3. 

THE SCOPE OF PROTECTION FOR CITIZENS 

Given that protection is not uniform, since Article 20 EC only requires each Member 
State to protect citizens of the Union on the same conditions as those afforded to its 
own  nationals,  EU  citizens  are  confronted  with  the  same  number  of  protection 
arrangements as there are Member States.  

The scope and legal force of these arrangements can vary15. 

The Commission considers that differences between the various aspects of protection 
should be examined over the longer term, with a view to considering the possibilities 
of offering citizens similar protection irrespective of their nationality.  

In the immediate future, the following courses of action should be explored: 

3.1. 

Protection of European citizens working and living in third countries 

By  its  Decision  88/384/EEC  setting  up  a  prior  communication  and  consultation 
procedure  on  migration  policies  in  relation  to  non-member  countries16,  the 
Commission  established  a  consultation  procedure  between  Member  States  aimed  at 
promoting the inclusion of a maximum of common provisions in bilateral agreements, 
and  improving  the  protection  of  Community  nationals  working  and  living  in  third 
countries. 

Provisions  on  the  protection  of  EU  citizens  should  therefore  be  included  in  bilateral 
agreements  with  third  countries  with  a  view  to  ensuring  this  protection,  as  provided 
for by Article 20 EC. 

Suggested action: 

–  Include in Member States’ bilateral agreements with third counties provisions 
protecting  Union  citizens  working  and  living  in  third  countries,  in  order  to 
apply Decision 88/384/EEC properly.  

15 
16 

For example, only some Member States recognise the right of appeal against the refusal of protection. 
OJ L 183, 14.7.1988, p 35. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.2. 

Union citizens’ family members who are not nationals of a Member State 

The  need  for  joint  protection  of  citizens  and  members  of  their  families  who  are  not 
EU nationals emerged in the Lebanon conflict in July this year, with the procedures 
for evacuating and repatriating via Cyprus family members of citizens whose Member 
State was not represented. It is time to put an end to the considerable difficulties that 
citizens  and  their  families  face  in  such  situations  and  therefore  to  lay  down 
arrangements for joint protection of distressed citizens and family members who are 
not nationals of an EU Member State. 

Suggested action: 

–  Extend consular protection to Union citizens’ family members who are third 
country  nationals,  by  appropriate  means  (amend  Decision  95/553/EC  or 
Commission proposal on the basis of Article 22 EC).  

3.3. 

Identifying and repatriating remains  

The aftermath of the tsunami at the end of 2004 revealed the scale of the problem of 
identifying and repatriating remains. The third country local authorities can require a 
series  of  formalities,  such  as  obtaining  a  mortal  remains  certificate  (issued  by  the 
consular  authority)  or  health  and  police  certificates  confirming  death  and  causes  of 
death, compliance with certain public health requirements concerning the coffin, or a 
certified translation of the administrative documents.  

The families of victims therefore have to cope with the complex procedures and costs 
of repatriation. 

Some  Member  States  have  acceded  to  the  Council  of  Europe  Convention  of 
26 October  1973  on  the  transfer  of  corpses17,  which  is  designed  to  simplify 
administrative  formalities  for  repatriating  remains.  However,  this  instrument  leaves 
the  Member  States  wide  discretionary  powers.  It  is  important  to  convince  all  the 
Member States to accede to this instrument, while at the same time continuing efforts 
at simplification.  

With regard to the costs of repatriating remains, a complementary action could be to 
set up a European compensation system.  

Identifying  remains  is  a  necessary  prerequisite  for  their  repatriation.  In  this 
connection,  the  Commission  will  encourage  research  and  development  of  effective 
tools for analysing DNA which are less costly than those currently available. 

17 

Convention No 80 of the Council of Europe Treaty Series (15 Member States have ratified). 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Suggested actions: 

In the short term:  

–  Amend  Decision  95/553/EC  in  order  to  include  the  identification  and 

repatriation of remains. 

–  Recommend Member States which are not yet contracting parties to the 1973 

Strasbourg Convention to accede to it. 

In the long term: 

–  Simplify procedures for repatriating remains.  

–  Possibly set up a European compensation system. 

–  Encourage  research  and  development  of  DNA  analysis  tools  and  encourage 

some European laboratories to specialise in victim identification. 

3.4. 

Simplifying procedures for financial advances 

Decision 95/553/EC shows the complexity of the procedure for repaying expenditure 
and  the  advances  paid  to  distressed  citizens:  the  applicant  must  obtain  permission 
from the Member State of which he is a national and sign a document promising to 
repay; the Member State of which he is a national reimburses all costs, on request, to 
the assisting State; the citizen reimburses his own State. Nationals of some Member 
States may be asked to leave their passport with the assisting State as a guarantee.  

A  possible  solution  could  be  to  centralise  the  processing  of  all  files  in  a  common 
office  in  the  third  country,  thereby  simplifying  the  administrative  steps  described  in 
Decision 95/553//EC. 

Suggested action: 

–  Simplify procedures for financial advances. 

4. 

STRUCTURES AND RESOURCES 

4.1. 

Setting up common offices 

Requests for protection should not cause any particular problem when it is a matter of 
dealing with individual situations, such as loss of documents. However, the situation 
may  be  different  in  the  case  of  large  groups  of  people  in  the  wake  of  disasters, 
pandemics, acts of terrorism or military conflicts.  

There  needs  to  be  a  fair  division  of  tasks  between  the  Member  States  in  cases  of 
requests for assistance or repatriation by a large number of citizens whose own State 
has  no  representation.  An  attempt  at  this  division  of  tasks  has  been  made  in  the 
abovementioned guidelines.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
One way of dealing with this sort of situation would be to set up common offices, as 
proposed in the Barnier Report and taken up in the abovementioned Communication, 
of  28  June  2006  on  implementing  the  Hague  Programme18.  Similar  proposals  had 
been backed by European Parliament19.  

Setting up common offices would help to streamline functions and save on the fixed 
costs of the structures of Member States' diplomatic and consular networks. 

The  functions  performed  by  these  common  offices  could  be  based  on  a  system  of 
deputising between Member States, which would enable the following proposals to be 
put into practice: 

–  Depending  on  the  countries  and  the  presence  of  Member  State  representations, 
these offices could be housed in various representations or national embassies or in 
just one, or they could share the Commission delegation under arrangements still to 
be defined. In all cases, the consular officials would perform their functions, under 
the  authority  of  their  State,  in  common  offices.  Initially,  the  four  experimental 
areas proposed in the Barnier report could be adopted: the Caribbean, the Balkans, 
the  Indian  Ocean  and  West  Africa.  These  areas  were  proposed  because  of  the 
number of European tourists visiting them, the relatively low representation of the 
Member States and the presence of Commission delegations, which could provide 
the  appropriate  support.  The  programme  of  staff  exchanges  between  the  Member 
States’  national  diplomatic  services,  the  Commission  and  the  Council  Secretariat 
could be used on this occasion, in the spirit of the Commission Communication to 
the European Council of 8 June 2006 on Europe in the world20. 

–  To perform these functions, the Member States could draw up and make available 
to citizens a set of rules establishing a system for deputising and sharing the work 
done by the common office in each third country. 

–  To  facilitate  the  work  of  the  common  offices,  information  campaigns  could  be 
organised, inviting citizens to register on a voluntary basis, which would then make 
possible rescue operations easier.  

–  Significant steps have been taken under the common visa policy, through Council 
decisions  amending  the  Common  Consular  Instructions  (CCI).  These  specific 
measures provide an example of the added value that Europe can offer. To make up 
for the drawbacks of an inadequate consular presence in some third countries, the 
possibility  that  already  exists  for  one  Member  State  to  represent  another  for  the 
purposes  of  issuing  visas  on  its  behalf  should  be  further  extended21.  Other 
amendments to the CCI have also helped to strengthen local consular cooperation 
and  to  give  it  a  bigger  role  in  applying  the  common  visa  policy22.  Taking  these 
measures further, the Commission recently presented initiatives to supplement the 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

See footnote on page 4.  
Resolution of 5 September 2000 on common Community diplomacy. 
COM  (2006)  278  final  "Europe  in  the  World  —  Some  Practical  Proposals  for  Greater  Coherence, 
Effectiveness and Visibility". 
Decision 2004/15 of 22.12.2003, OJ L 5, 9.1.2004. 
Decision  2002/585  of  16.7.2002,  OJ  L,  16.7.2002  on  cooperation  with  travel  agencies  and  Decision 
2004/17 of 12.2003, OJ L 5, of 9.1.2004, establishing the requirement to have travel insurance. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
existing  acquis  in  this  field.  First  it  presented  a  proposal  to  establish  common 
centres for the reception of visa applications23, in order to facilitate the introduction 
of  biometrics  and  to  extend  the  scope  of  representation.  Then  it  put  forward  a 
proposal  for  a  Regulation  establishing  a  Code  on  Visas,  a  single  instrument  that 
reviews and incorporates all the provisions on visa-issuing procedures24. The aim 
of  the  proposed  Code  is  to  reinforce  and  enhance  local  consular  cooperation  in 
respect of visas. In the long term, thought needs to be given to harnessing moves 
towards  common  offices  for  the  purposes  of  consular  protection  with  moves 
towards common centres for the purposes of visa policy.  

Suggested actions:  

–  Initially  set  up  “common  offices”  in  the  Caribbean,  the  Balkans,  the  Indian 

Ocean and West Africa. 

–  Publish  rules  establishing  a  system  of  deputising  between  Member  States  in 

third countries. 

–  Organise  information  campaigns  encouraging  citizens  to  register  at  the 

common office.  

–  In  the  long  term,  common  offices  could  perform  consular  functions,  such  as 

issuing visas or legalising documents. 

4.2. 

Training for Member State officials 

To  ensure  effective  training,  especially  for  the  staff  of  the  “common  offices”,  the 
Commission could organise joint training activities for Member State and Community 
institution  officials  on,  for  example,  EU  external  border  checks,  repatriation  of 
remains or the right to diplomatic and consular protection. 

Suggested action 

–  Training for Member State and Community institution officials. 

5. 

THE CONSENT OF THE THIRD-COUNTRY AUTHORITIES 

Implementation of Article 20 EC requires the consent of the third countries. 

It is a general principle of international law that the protection of a citizen of one State 
by another State is subject to the third country’s consent25.  

Under Article 20 EC Member States must start the international negotiations required 
to this end. 

23 

24 

25 

COM(2006)269 final of 31.5.2006. 
COM(2006)403 final of 13.7.2006. 
Articles 45 (c) and 46 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations and Article 8 of the 1963 
Vienna Convention on consular relations. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Each Member State is therefore expected to initiate bilateral negotiations26 with third 
countries.  But  it  would  also  be  possible,  in  “mixed”  agreements  concluded  by  the 
Community  and  its  Member  States,  to  negotiate  a  standard  consent  clause  for 
diplomatic and consular protection. Under such a clause third countries would accept 
that Union citizens can be assisted by any Member State represented on the spot.  

A specific case concerns the boarding of fishing vessels flying the flag of a Member 
State or the arrest of the master and crew. Under some fishing agreements, the third 
country authorities are required to inform the European Commission delegation on the 
spot, which has “a duty to provide diplomatic protection”27 as stated in the "Odigitria" 
judgment28. 

Although no general lesson can be drawn from the "Odigitria" judgment outside the 
context  of  the  fishing  agreement  concerned,  in  the  long  term,  the  question  of  the 
application of this diplomatic protection could arise if it resulted from the exercise of 
Community competence. 

Suggested actions: 

–  Insert a consent clause in “mixed” agreements concluded with third countries. 

–  In  the  long  term:  examine  the  possibilities  of  getting  the  consent  of  third 
countries  for  the  Union  to  exercise  a  duty  of  protection,  via  the  Commission 
delegations, in cases relating to Community competence. 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

In this Green Paper the Commission sets out ideas to be considered for strengthening 
the  right  to  Community  diplomatic  and  consular  protection.  Before  carrying  out  the 
actions needed for this, which call for initiatives on its part or coordination with the 
Member States, the Commission wishes to launch a wide-ranging public debate with 
the European Parliament and the Council of the Union and with all interested parties: 
Member States, NGOs, civil society and European citizens. 

To  this  end,  the  Commission  wishes  to  receive  contributions  commenting  on  the 
actions  suggested  above,  by  31  March  2007.  These  should  be  sent  by  e-mail  to  the 
following address: JLS-diploconsul-protection@ec.europa.eu. 

The contributions received will be published on "Your Voice in Europe", giving the 
name of the authors, unless they wish to remain anonymous or they ask for the entire 
contribution to remain confidential.  

This dialogue will end with a hearing open to all interested parties. 

26 

27 

28 

These  agreements  supplement  those  provided  for  by  Decision  88/384/EC  :  see  paragraph  3.1  of  this 
paper. 
For  example,  the  Agreement  between  the  EEC  and  the  Republic  of  Côte  d'Ivoire  on  fishing 
(OJ L 379/90, page 3).  
Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 July 1995, Case T-572/93. 

EN 

12 

   EN