Commission Implementing Decision of 30 November 2011 on a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in Spain in 2009 (notified under document C(2011) 8721) (Only the Spanish text is authentic) (2011/798/EU)
Grade B
mapped from publisher markup. A grade says how a document's structure was obtained, not how reliable the law is.
Address https://gelex.eu/eli/EU/decision/2011/798@2011-11-30/en
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field, and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) In accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the Union budget shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.
(2) Decision 2009/470/EC lays down the procedures governing the financial contribution from the Union towards specific veterinary measures, including emergency measures. With a view to eradicate avian influenza as rapidly as possible the Union should contribute financially to eligible expenditure borne by the Member States. Article 4(3), first and second indents, of that Decision identifies the percentage of Union financial contributions that can be paid to compensate the costs incurred by the Member States.
(3) Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 of 28 February 2005 laying down rules on the Community financing of emergency measures and of the campaign to combat certain animal diseases under Council Decision 90/424/EEC sets rules on the expenditure eligible for Union financial support.
(4) Commission Decision 2010/148/EU of 5 March 2010 on a financial contribution from the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza in the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, France and Italy in 2009 provided for a financial contribution by the Union towards emergency measures to combat avian influenza, amongst others, in Spain in 2009.
(5) Spain submitted an official request for reimbursement on 3 May 2010 as set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.
(6) Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 makes the payment of that financial contribution from the Union subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines.
(7) An audit according to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005 carried out by the Commission’s services did reveal only minor financial issues.
(8) Spain has thus to this point complied with its technical and administrative obligations as set out in Article 3(4) of Decision 2009/470/EC and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 349/2005.
(9) In view of the above considerations, a first tranche of the financial support from the Union to Spain to the eligible expenditure incurred in association with the eradication of avian influenza in 2009 should now be fixed.
(10) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
A first tranche of EUR 500000,00 shall be paid to Spain as part of the Union financial contribution.
Article 2
This Decision constituting a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.
Done at Brussels, 30 November 2011. For the Commission John Dalli Member of the Commission
Versions
Cited by
- Commission Implementing Decision of 16 May 2013 establishing the financial contribution by the Union to the expenditure incurred in the context of the emergency measures taken to combat avian influenza in Spain in 2009 (notified under document C(2013) 2779) (Only the Spanish text is authentic) (2013/222/EU) Decision · Grade B
The payment of the financial contribution from the Union is to be subject to the condition that the planned activities were actually implemented and that the authorities provided all the necessary information within the set deadlines. Commission Implementing Decision 2011/798/EU provided that a first tranche of EUR 500000,00 be paid as part of the Union’s financial contribution.
- Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) 12 November 2025 Judgment · Grade B
According to the arbitration agreement, the task with which the arbitration tribunal was entrusted consisted in determining, on the basis of negotiations which took place between the applicant and Metlen, an electricity supply tariff corresponding to the specific characteristics of Metlen and covering at least the costs borne by the applicant. In addition, the arbitration tribunal had to take account of the legislative framework specified by the parties to the agreement, namely RAE Decision No 692/2011 establishing the [b]asic [p]rinciples for [p]ricing of [e]lectricity to [high-voltage] [c]us
- Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) 12 November 2025 Judgment · Grade B
Even if the applicant ought to have been more prudent in laying down criteria in the arbitration agreement and, in particular, in regards to the assessment of its costs, it should be borne in mind that the applicant itself was also dependent on Metlen, inasmuch as Metlen’s existence and consumption enabled it to limit its costs. In that regard, it is apparent from RAE Decision No 798/2011, taken into account by the arbitration tribunal in accordance with the conditions fixed by the parties to that agreement, that Metlen’s consumption justified the construction and cost-effective operation of a
- Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 22 September 2021 Judgment · Grade B
The intervener states, in essence, that the arbitration agreement is the result of the applicant’s free will, following lengthy negotiations with the intervener, and was approved by the applicant’s legal department, Board of Directors and general meeting, and therefore its complaints are incorrect and contrary to the general principle of law that none may rely to their advantage on their own omission or illegality (nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans). It states that that agreement contains clear and objective parameters which reasonably define the scope of the arbitration tribunal’s p
- Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 22 September 2021 Judgment · Grade B
In the third place, with regard to the applicable criteria in order to resolve the dispute between the applicant and the intervener, Decision No 798/2011 of the RAE also does not provide sufficiently clear and precise indications to that end. That decision states, first, that the purpose of the option to conduct negotiations between [high-voltage] customers and, in particular, a customer with [the intervener’s] electricity consumption profile, which represents approximately 5% of the total consumption of the interconnected system, and the main supplier, namely [the applicant], is to explore an