Address https://gelex.eu/eli/EU/decision/2015/702@2007-07-13/en

Contents

1. Preamble
2. 1. Article 1
   2. Article 2

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 310, in conjunction with the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) thereof,

Having regard to the 2003 Act of Accession, and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) On 10 February 2004, the Council authorised the Commission, on behalf of the Community and its Member States, to open negotiations with the Republic of Lebanon with a view to adjusting the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the new Member States to the EU.

(2) These negotiations have been concluded to the satisfaction of the Commission.

(3) Article 9(2) of the Protocol negotiated with the Republic of Lebanon provides for the provisional application of the Protocol before its entry into force.

(4) The Protocol should be signed on behalf of the Community and its Member States and applied on a provisional basis, subject to its conclusion at a later date.

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign, on behalf of the Community and its Member States, the Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and Lebanon, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the European Union. The text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The Protocol shall be applied provisionally subject to its conclusion at a later date.

Done at Brussels, 13 July 2007. For the Council The President E. A. Santos

Versions

1. 2007-07-13

Cited by

• Opinion of Advocate General Bobek delivered on 23 September 2020 Joined Cases C‑83/19, C‑127/19 and C‑195/19 Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România v Inspecţia Judiciară (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Mehedinţi (Regional Court, Mehedinţi, Romania)) and Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România, Asociaţia Mişcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor v Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Court of Appeal, Alba Iulia, Romania)) and PJ v QK (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Romania)) Case C‑291/19 SO v TP and Others (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Braşov (Court of Appeal, Braşov, Romania)) Case C‑355/19 Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România, Asociaţia Mişcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor, OL v Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Procurorul General al României (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti (Court of Appeal, Piteşti, Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  Mr Netejoru was appointed Chief Inspector of the Judicial Inspection by decision No 702/2015 of 30 June 2015 of the general assembly of the SCM, with a mandate of three years (from 1 September 2015 to 1 September 2018). At the time of the lodging of the defence in the main proceedings, Mr Netejoru was acting in the capacity of interim chief inspector on the basis of Emergency Ordinance No 77/2018, adopted on 5 September 2018.

• Opinion of Advocate General Bobek delivered on 23 September 2020 Joined Cases C‑83/19, C‑127/19 and C‑195/19 Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România v Inspecţia Judiciară (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Mehedinţi (Regional Court, Mehedinţi, Romania)) and Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România, Asociaţia Mişcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor v Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Court of Appeal, Alba Iulia, Romania)) and PJ v QK (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Romania)) Case C‑291/19 SO v TP and Others (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Braşov (Court of Appeal, Braşov, Romania)) Case C‑355/19 Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România, Asociaţia Mişcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor, OL v Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Procurorul General al României (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti (Court of Appeal, Piteşti, Romania)) Opinion · Grade B

  The defendant submitted that Decision No 702/2015 of the SCM, appointing Mr Netejoru as chief inspector, appears on the Judicial Inspection’s website. Furthermore, the defendant invoked Emergency Ordinance No 77/2018. On that basis, the defendant claimed that the applicant’s objection should be rejected as unfounded.