10.6.2005

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/1

Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 24 May 2005 meeting within the Council on the evaluation of activities conducted in the framework of European cooperation in the youth field

(2005/C 141/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES MEETING WITHIN THE COUNCIL,

Whereas:

1.	The European Commission's White Paper entitled ‘A new impetus for European youth’ (1), presented on 21 November 2001, sets out a new framework for European cooperation on youth affairs.

2.	The Council, in its conclusions of 14 February 2002 (2), recognised the White Paper as the starting point for developing a European framework for cooperation on youth affairs.

In its Resolution of 27 June 2002 (3) the Council

(a)	adopted the open method of coordination as the new framework for cooperation on youth policy and approved four thematic priorities: participation, information, voluntary activities and greater understanding and knowledge of youth;

(b)

invited the Commission, no later than the end of the first implementation exercise for the four thematic priorities, to prepare an evaluation report in association with the Member States on the framework for cooperation, covering in particular an evaluation of the open method of coordination and, as appropriate, suggestions for its modification, and to submit that report to the Council for consideration.

4.	In its resolution of 25 November 2003 (4), the Council recalled that implementation must be flexible, incremental and appropriate for the youth field, and must respect the powers of the Member States and the principle of subsidiarity.

5.	On 15 November 2004 the Commission submitted to the Council a communication on the evaluation of activities conducted in the framework of European cooperation in the youth field (5).

On 21 February 2005, the Council adopted a contribution to the Spring European Council on the basis of a commission Communication (‘Working together for growth jobs — A new start for the Lisbon strategy’) on the Mid-term review of the Lisbon Strategy which states that ‘we still need a vision for society which can integrate both the ageing and the young’.

7.	The Spring European Council on 22 and 23 March 2005 adopted a European Pact for youth as one of the instruments for fulfilling the Lisbon objectives.

EMPHASISE THAT trends among young people are changing constantly, hence the need for regular adjustments to youth policy priorities.

WELCOME the assessment given by the Commission in its communication entitled ‘Follow-up to the White Paper on a New Impetus for European Youth: evaluation of activities conducted in the framework of European cooperation in the youth field’, which points out that political cooperation has paved the way for:

—	the consultation and closer involvement of young people and their organisations at all levels of political debate,

—	the development of regular and structured dialogue between young people and their organisations, administrations and policymakers,

—	the direct involvement of young people and their organisations in the discussions on the European Constitution,

—	a higher profile for measures targeting young people,

—	exchanges of examples of good practice,

—	the launch of the European Youth Portal.

SHARE THE VIEW of the Commission who, in its communication of 27 October 2004, highlights the following points as warranting closer consideration:

—	priorities for European cooperation with regard to youth policy,

—	the effectiveness of the open method of coordination as it affects young people,

—	a reassessment of the balance between the flexibility and effectiveness of the open method of coordination in the youth field,

—	the need for young people and their organisations to be consulted constantly and in a structured way, at both national and European level,

—	the need for a better understanding of the situation of young people in order to take into account the youth dimension in other policies and to influence such policies.

—	the need for all actors (policymakers, youth organisations) at all levels (local, national and European) to be mobilised in order to have a real impact.

AGREE

—

to further develop the procedures for implementing the open method of coordination once the common objectives for a given priority have been agreed; this could involve:

—	taking stock of the national situation in respect of these objectives, using a set of methods determined by each Member State,

—	setting out priority lines of action,

—	assessing the progress achieved since the initial review,

—	consulting young people in an appropriate fashion at the various stages of the process,

—	to ensure consistency between the open method of coordination and the European Pact for Youth.

INVITE THE COMMISSION

to propose implementing procedures, taking into consideration the above agreed principles in view of a future implementation by Member States, bearing in mind the Conclusions of the Spring European Council, the national reports relating to the common objectives on Participation and Information, and taking into account the views of young people and their organisations.

(1) 14441/01 – COM(2001) 681 final.

(2) OJ C 119, 22.5.2002, p. 6.

(3) OJ C 168, 13.7.2002, p. 2.

(4) OJ C 295, 5.12.2003, p. 6.

(5) 13856/04 – COM(2004) 694 final.

10.6.2005

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/3

Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 24 May 2005 meeting within the Council on implementing the common objective: to increase participation by young people in the system of representative democracy

(2005/C 141/02)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES MEETING WITHIN THE COUNCIL,

Whereas:

(1)	The European Commission's White Paper entitled ‘European governance’ (1), presented on 30 July 2001, places openness and participation at the top of its list of five principles underpinning good governance.

(4)

In its Resolution of 27 June 2002 (4), the Council

(a)	adopted the open method of coordination as the new framework for cooperation on youth policy and approved four thematic priorities: participation, information, voluntary activities and greater understanding and knowledge of youth;

(b)

(5)

In its Resolution of 25 November 2003 (5), the Council:

(a)	adopted common objectives for the first two priorities, namely participation by and information for young people, setting increased participation by young people in the system of representative democracy as one of the common objectives for the participation priority;

(b)	recalled that implementation of the common objectives must be flexible, incremental and appropriate for the youth field, and must respect the powers of the Member States and the principle of subsidiarity;

(c)	invited the Commission to convene, where appropriate, representatives of the national administrations dealing with the youth field, in order to promote the exchange of information on the progress made and on best practice.

(6)	The European Union is founded on both principles of representative democracy and participatory democracy.

HAVE TAKEN NOTE OF the work accomplished under the Irish Presidency, in particular at the informal Ministerial Conference in Clare, and of the discussions launched as part of cooperation with the Council of Europe.

ARE AWARE THAT:

(a)	young women and men continue to have a keen involvement and interest in societal issues;

(b)	young people's readiness for active citizenship does not automatically lead them to engage with the institutions of representative democracy;

(c)	young people's participation and interest in the institutions of representative democracy tend to decline in many EU Member States;

(d)	this lack of interest in democratic institutions is often reflected in a reluctance to make a long-term commitment to youth organisations, low turnouts at elections, declining membership of political parties and their youth sections.

RECALL, HOWEVER, THAT:

(a)	representative democracy is one of the mainstays of our society;

(b)	democracies need the participation of all their citizens;

(c)	in particular, the participation of young women and men in the institutions of representative democracy is crucial if democracy is to function properly;

(d)	young people do not form a homogenous group, and the issue of their non-participation in the institutions of representative democracy presents various challenges, depending on gender, level of education, ethnic origin or other factors.

EMPHASISE:

(a)	the value of an ongoing dialogue at national level between young women and men and political leaders in creating a climate conducive to participation in the institutions of representative democracy;

(b)	the importance of the Commission guideline on a structured dialogue between young people and political representatives;

(c)	the key role played by non-formal education and by youth-oriented information in providing quality civic education on a broad basis;

(d)	the special importance of youth organisations and associations in providing opportunities for young women and men to learn about democratic mechanisms and active, critical citizenship;

AGREE:

(a)	that action to achieve these objectives cannot target young women and men alone but must also be directed at the institutions of representative democracy themselves;

(b)	that the commitment of those participating in representative democracy should be highlighted and encouraged;

(c)

that when implementing the common objective of increasing the participation of young women and men in the system of representative democracy, particular attention should be paid to creating a climate which encourages young women and men to participate, taking into account the important role played by the education system, youth organisations, political parties and the family;

(d)	that particular care should be taken to tailor measures to their target groups and the groups' specific characteristics;

(e)	to involve young people and youth organisations in developing specific implementing measures.

INVITE MEMBER STATES TO:

—	encourage political parties' awareness of the importance of increasing their youth membership, having more young women and men on their organisational bodies and more young women and men on their lists of candidates;

—	encourage, where applicable, the placing of young people on the electoral register;

—	mobilise the support of regional and local authorities for young people's participation in representative democracy;

—	make young people aware of the importance of participating in representative democracy and, in particular, through casting their votes.

INVITE THE COMMISSION AND THE MEMBER STATES:

—	under the common priority regarding greater understanding and knowledge of youth, to make an inventory of the existing knowledge about obstacles to young people's active participation in representative democracy;

—	to pool measures already undertaken and examples of good practice for achieving the common objective of increasing participation by young people in the system of representative democracy, at both Member State and European level;

—	to strengthen dialogue between young people and political leaders, for example by introducing regular meetings;

—	to meet in 2006 to review progress on this objective on the basis of national reports on the participation priority.

(1) 11574/01 – COM(2001) 428 final.

(2) 14441/01 – COM(2001) 681 final.

(3) OJ C 119, 22.5.2002, p. 6.

(4) OJ C 168, 13.7.2002, p. 2.

(5) JO C 295, 5.12.2003, p. 6.

10.6.2005

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/5

Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 24 May 2005 meeting within the Council on implementing the common objectives for youth information

(2005/C 141/03)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES MEETING WITHIN THE COUNCIL,

Whereas:

1.	The European Commission's White Paper entitled ‘A new impetus for European youth’ (1), presented on 21 November 2001, sets out a new framework for European cooperation on youth affairs.

2.	The Council, in its conclusions of 14 February 2002 (2), recognised the White Paper as the starting point for developing a European framework for cooperation on youth affairs.

In its Resolution of 27 June 2002 (3) the Council

(a)	adopted the open method of coordination as the new framework for cooperation on youth policy and approved four thematic priorities: participation, information, voluntary activities and greater understanding and knowledge of youth;

(b)

In its resolution of 25 November 2003 (4) the Council

(a)	adopted common objectives for the first two priorities, namely participation by and information for young people;

(b)

agreed on the following common objectives in the area of youth information:

(i)	improving access for young people to information services,

(ii)	increasing the provision of information for young people,

(iii)

increasing participation by young people in youth information;

(c)	recalled that implementation must be flexible, incremental and appropriate for the youth field, and must respect the powers of the Member States and the principle of subsidiarity;

(d)	invited the Commission to convene, where appropriate, representatives of the national administrations dealing with the youth field, in order to promote the exchange of information on the progress made and on best practice.

RECALL THAT

—	youth information is important for each Member State and common objectives cannot be implemented unless the subsidiarity principle is upheld;

—	the promotion of information supply services which take into consideration the specific needs of young people is crucial to providing young people with access to information;

—	young people form a heterogeneous group whose needs vary depending on their age, gender, socioeconomic circumstances and geographical location;

—	by its very nature, youth information is a highly diverse area affecting many young people in different circumstances;

—	participation by young people in producing and disseminating information remains the key to providing them with information to meet their needs;

—	implementing the common objective with regard to information has resulted in an Internet portal, which the Commission has launched in association with the Eurodesk, ERYICA (European Youth Information and Counselling Agency) and EYCA (European Youth Card Association) networks.

AGREE THAT, TO IMPLEMENT THE COMMON OBJECTIVES IN THE INFORMATION PRIORITY AREA, SPECIAL ATTENTION SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON

—	stepping up networking among youth-oriented information structures in various sectors at local, national and European level;

—	continuous training of those involved in youth information with regard to content, most suitable methods and use of available technology, so that young people can recognise quality information easily.

CALL ON THE COMMISSION AND THE MEMBER STATES

—	to use existing means and work with established European networks to propose guiding principles in order to enable youth information structures to develop quality assessment;

—	to raise the profile of quality youth information in Europe and thus make it more accessible;

—	to promote and develop cooperation, networking and the exchange of good practice between national youth information sites and portals across Europe, together with analyses of the use of such sites and portals;

—

with this in mind, to use European programmes when working with youth information to develop

—	a greater insight into young people's information needs,

—	an exchange of experience between youth information experts at various levels at European seminars and training sessions,

—	a regularly updated database of innovative approaches and examples of good practice, with particular reference to networking among youth information structures in various sectors.

(1) 14441/01 – COM(2001) 681 final.

(2) OJ C 119, 22.5.2002, p. 6.

(3) OJ C 168, 13.7.2002, p. 2.

(4) OJ C 295, 5.12.2003, p. 6.

10.6.2005

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/7

COUNCIL CONCLUSIONS

of 24 May 2005

on new indicators in education and training

(2005/C 141/04)

THE COUNCIL,

Having regard to:

the new strategic goal set for the European Union by the Lisbon European Council of 23-24 March 2000 and reaffirmed by the Stockholm European Council of 23 and 24 March 2001, ‘to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth, with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’;

2.	the conclusions of the Spring 2005 European Council, which underline that ‘human capital is Europe's most important asset’ (1);

the Lisbon European Council's affirmation that Europe's education and training systems need to adapt both to the demands of the knowledge society and to the need for a higher level and quality of employment. Hence, the mandate from the Lisbon European Council to the Education Council ‘to undertake a general reflection on concrete future objectives of education systems, focusing on common concerns and priorities while respecting national diversity with a view to contributing to the Luxembourg and Cardiff processes’ (2);

the Barcelona European Council Conclusions of 15-16 March 2002 (3), which endorsed the work programme (4), including an indicative list of indicators to be used to measure progress towards the implementation of the thirteen concrete objectives through the Open Method of Coordination, with the aim for European education and training systems of becoming ‘a world reference for quality by 2010’, and which called for the establishment of a linguistic competence indicator;

5.	the reaffirmation of the central role of indicators and the five reference levels in giving directions and measuring progress in the field of education and training towards the Lisbon goals (5);

the Joint Interim Report of February 2004, (6) which underlined the need to improve the quality and comparability of existing indicators, particularly in the field of lifelong learning, and its request that the Standing Group on Indicators and Benchmarks and all existing Working Groups propose, by the end of 2004, a limited list of new indicators for development;

7.	the Commission's preliminary response to this request, outlining possible short, medium and long-term strategies in nine indicator areas (7);

REAFFIRMS that

periodic monitoring of performance and progress through the use of indicators and benchmarks is an essential part of the Lisbon process, allowing the identification of strengths and weaknesses with a view to providing strategic guidance and steering for both short and long term measures of the Education and Training 2010 strategy;

RECOGNISES that

9.	it is desirable to develop a coherent framework of indicators and benchmarks to monitor performance and progress in the field of education and training;

10.	the development of the necessary data for new indicators can be a long-term project, at times lasting 5-10 years;

11.	enhanced cooperation in education and training could be used for the establishment of a coherent indicator framework supported by appropriate data sources, going beyond the 2010 Lisbon horizon;

12.	the establishment of the ‘research unit on lifelong learning’ at the Joint Research Centre at ISPRA can significantly increase the Commission's research capacity in terms of the development of new indicators;

STRESSES that

13.	full use should be made of existing data and indicators while further efforts should be made to improve their comparability, relevance and timeliness;

14.

the development of new indicators shall fully respect the responsibility of Member States for the organisation of their education systems and should not impose undue administrative or financial burdens on the organisation and institutions concerned, nor inevitably lead to an increased number of indicators used to monitor progress;

15.	there is a need to continue to enhance cooperation with other international organisations active in this field (e.g. OECD, Unesco, IEA), particularly in order to improve international data coherence.

INVITES the Commission

16.

with regard to indicator areas where data collections already exist or EU surveys are planned, to further develop and submit to the Council strategies in the indicator areas of efficiency of investment, ICT, mobility, adult education, teachers and trainers, vocational education and training, social inclusion and active citizenship;

17.

with regard to indicator areas where no comparable data exist, to present to the Council detailed survey proposals for the development of new indicators, in the areas of:

—	learning-to-learn;

—	language skills;

and in any other area where new surveys might become relevant;

18.

with regard to indicator areas where international organisations (e.g. OECD, Unesco, IEA) are planning new surveys, to cooperate with international organisations in order to satisfy the information needs of the EU in indicator areas such as ICT, adult skills and professional development of teachers, where other international organisations are already discussing the possibility of carrying out surveys;

19.

when developing such strategies and new instruments for data collection, including in cooperation with international organisations to:

—	where necessary analyse their political relevance also considering the relation between the development of human capital and integrated education work policies;

—	present a detailed technical specification of the proposed new surveys;

—	include a timetable for the development work to be undertaken;

—	include an estimate of the likely costs and necessary infrastructure for such developmental works and subsequent data collection in the Member States involved and for the Commission;

—	specify appropriate management structures, enabling Member States to be involved in methodological and development work, and to be in a position to take the necessary decisions, ensuring the development of relevant and high quality data, in accordance with the timetable;

20.

with a view to reporting back to the Council, no later than the end of 2006, to:

—	take stock of initiatives taken in other survey areas, including the impact of ICT on teaching and learning, the labour market outcomes of mobility, and the social background of tertiary students;

—	assess progress made towards the establishment of a coherent framework of indicators and benchmarks for following-up on the Lisbon objectives in the area of education and training, including a reconsideration of the suitability of existing indicators used for monitoring progress.

(1) Doc 7619/05, paragraph 34.

(2) Doc. SN 100/1/00 REV 1, paragraph 27.

(3) SN 100/1/02 REV 1.

(4) ‘Detailed work programme for the follow-up of the report on the concrete objectives of education and training systems’ adopted by the Education Council on 14 February 2002.

(5) Council Conclusions on benchmark adopted on 5 May 2003.

(6) ‘Education and training 2010’ — The Success of the Lisbon Strategy Hinges on Urgent Reforms, adopted jointly by the Council and the Commission on 26 February 2004.

(7) Staff Working Paper from the Commission, ‘New Indicators on Education and Training’ (SEC(2004), 1524).

10.6.2005

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/9

Euro exchange rates (1)

9 June 2005

(2005/C 141/05)

1 euro=

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,2239
JPY	Japanese yen	131,37
DKK	Danish krone	7,4457
GBP	Pound sterling	0,67130
SEK	Swedish krona	9,201
CHF	Swiss franc	1,5343
ISK	Iceland króna	78,73
NOK	Norwegian krone	7,9135
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CYP	Cyprus pound	0,5743
CZK	Czech koruna	30,07
EEK	Estonian kroon	15,6466
HUF	Hungarian forint	250,56
LTL	Lithuanian litas	3,4528
LVL	Latvian lats	0,6960
MTL	Maltese lira	0,4293
PLN	Polish zloty	4,0642
ROL	Romanian leu	36 175
SIT	Slovenian tolar	239,49
SKK	Slovak koruna	38,685
TRY	Turkish lira	1,6741
AUD	Australian dollar	1,5946
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,5347
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	9,5239
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,7165
SGD	Singapore dollar	2,0353
KRW	South Korean won	1 228,98
ZAR	South African rand	8,3424
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	10,1296
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,3130
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	11 780,04
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,6518
PHP	Philippine peso	67,315
RUB	Russian rouble	34,819
THB	Thai baht	49,821

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

10.6.2005

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/12

STATE AID — UNITED KINGDOM

State aid C 13/2005 (ex NN 86/2004) — Investments of Shetland Leasing and Property Developments Ltd

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

(2005/C 141/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By means of the letter dated 20 April 2005 reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the Commission notified the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the abovementioned aid/measure.

Interested parties may submit their comments within one month of the date of publication of this summary and the following letter, to:

European Commission

Directorate General for Fisheries

DG FISH/D/3 ‘Legal Issues’

B-1049 Brussels

(Fax (32-2) 295 19 42)

These comments will be communicated to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the request.

SUMMARY

In January 2004 the Commission was informed of investments which possibly concerned illegal State aid by Shetland Leasing and Property Ltd (SLAP), a commercial limited company operating for profit which is wholly owned and funded by Charitable Trust, a trust fund of the Shetland Islands Council (SIC). The Charitable Trust has been set up to receive and hold on behalf of the Shetland community disturbance receipts which the oil industry has paid for using harbour facilities. The Commission has stated in its decisions of 3 June 2003 (1) relating to two aid schemes financed through the funds of the Charitable Trust that the funds of the trust should be regarded as public funds.

In 1999 SLAP invested in a company named Shetland Seafish Ltd. This company was established on 7 October 1999 as a result of a financial merger between Williamson Ltd and Ronas Ltd, both loss making at the time and considered insolvent. By setting up of Shetland Seafish Ltd it was expected that profits would grow and that the new company by the end of 2002 would be generating profit.

SLAP invested in Shetland Seafish Ltd by acquiring 156 250 shares (62,5 %) of the ordinary shares of GBP 1,00 each and 1 000 000 preference shares of GBP 1,00 each (100 %), investing a total amount of in total GBP 1 562 500.

In June 2000 SLAP invested once more in Shetland Seafish Ltd when the company decided to take over the activities of Whalsay Ltd, a loss making fish processing company also based in Shetland. The funding of this take over by SLAP amounted in SLAP acquiring 2 000 000 additional preference shares in Shetland Seafish Ltd, which were subscribed by SLAP in 2 tranches; in November 2000 SLAP acquired 1 200 000 Preference Shares and on 16 February 2001 another 800 000 Preference Shares.

The preference shares in Shetland Seafish Ltd have the right to a fixed non-cumulative preferential dividend at the rate of 10 % (net of associated tax credit) per annum on the capital for the time being paid up or credit as paid up thereon accruing from the date of subscription therefore and to be paid (to the extent that there are profits available for distribution) annually on 31 January in each year in respect of the 12 months ending on that date; and may be redeemed at par (i.e. at 1 per preference share) plus any unpaid preferential dividend, at the option of the Company at any time after the first anniversary of the date of the allotment of the preference shares.

Public investments are considered to be State aid in the sense of Article 87 of the EC-Treaty if the investments are investments which could not have been decided by a private investor under normal market conditions. With regard to the information submitted to the Commission by the authorities of the United Kingdom on the companies involved, the market situation for fish processing in Shetland, the projections made and the conditions of the investments, the Commission at this stage has serious doubts that the investments in question are in keeping with this private investor principle.

In the area of fisheries it is necessary to examine the measure in the light of the Guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries and aquaculture (2). According to point 2.3, aid that does not fulfil the conditions laid down therein, must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. According to point 1.2. of these Guidelines, State aid which is granted without imposing any obligation on the part of the recipients and which is intended to improve the situation of undertakings and increase their business liquidity and which has the effect of improving the recipient's income is, as operating aid, incompatible with the common market. According to the Guidelines operating aid can only be declared compatible with the common market if such aid is linked to a restructuring plan compatible with the common market. In absence of such a plan, the investments seem to be incompatible with the common market.

In accordance with Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, all unlawful aid can be subject to recovery from the recipient.

TEXT OF LETTER

‘(1)	The Commission wishes to inform the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that, having examined the information supplied by your authorities on the aid/measure referred to above, it has decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

1. PROCEDURE

(2)

In January 2004 the Commission was informed by a citizen of the United Kingdom of investments made with involvement of authorities of the Shetland Islands of the United Kingdom which possibly concerned State aid. By letters of 17 February 2004 and of 1 September 2004 the Commission has requested the United Kingdom authorities to provide information about these investments, to which the United Kingdom authorities responded by letters of 30 April 2004 and of 13 December 2004.

2. DESCRIPTION

(3)	The Shetland Islands Council (SIC), a public authority in Shetland, has set up two trusts, the Shetland Development Trust (Development Trust) and the Shetland Islands Council Charitable Trust (Charitable Trust).

(4)	The Development Trust has been established to be the main means of financing economic development projects in Shetland and makes funding available through loans. The trustees are the councillors of SIC plus two independent trustees.

(5)	The Charitable Trust is the trust fund of the SIC that grants loans for charitable purposes. The trustees of the Charitable Trust are the councillors of SIC plus two independent trustees.

(6)

The funding of both the Charitable Trust and the SDT are both derived from a reserve fund set up by the SIC. This reserve fund itself is funded from an agreement concluded on 12 July 1974 between the SIC and oil companies using the harbour facilities of Sullum Voe. This agreement states that fees are paid by these companies “in respect of the import of crude oil and as compensation for disturbance caused thereby”.

(7)

For commercial and development activities the SIC has set up Shetland Leasing and Property Ltd (SLAP), which is a commercial limited company operating for profit wholly owned by Charitable Trust. The tasks of SLAP are to take equity in local businesses and to make loans to local industry at commercial rates and construct industrial buildings for lease at commercial rents.

(8)	As a commercial limited company wholly owned by the Charitable trust the funding for SLAP's activities is mostly provided by funding from the Charitable Trust and by its own profit. For some specific projects funds are also provided by the SDT.

(9)

In 1999 the board of SLAP decided to invest in a company named Shetland Seafish Ltd. This company was established on 7 October 1999 as a result of a financial merger between Williamson Ltd and Ronas Ltd. Both companies were loss making at the time and considered insolvent. By setting up of Shetland Seafish Ltd and merging both loss making companies it was expected that profits would grow and that the new company would be profit making within a short time. It was projected that by the end of 2002 Shetland Seafish Ltd would be generating a profit in excess of GBP 460 000.

(10)

SLAP invested in Shetland Seafish Ltd by acquiring 156 250 shares (62,5 %) of the ordinary shares of GBP 1 each and 1 000 000 preference shares of GBP 1 each (100 %), investing a total amount of in total GBP 1 562 500. The other shareholders of ordinary shares were the Shetland Seafish Producers Organisation Ltd (43 750 shares), Mr. L.A. Williamson (18 750 shares), Mr. R.A. Carter (18 750 shares) and the Shetland Fisheries Centre Ltd (12 500 shares).

(11)

In June 2000 the board of SLAP decided to invest once more in Shetland Seafish Ltd when the company decided to take over the activities of Whalsay Ltd, a loss making fish processing company based in Shetland. The funding of this take over by SLAP amounted in SLAP acquiring 2 000 000 additional preference shares in Shetland Seafish Ltd, which were subscribed by SLAP in two trenches; in November 2000 SLAP acquired 1 200 000 Preference Shares and on 16 February another 800 000 Preference Shares.

(12)	As from 16 February 2001, the issued shared capital of Shetland Seafish Ltd thus comprised 250 000 Ordinary shares and 3 000 000 Preference shares, held in the same proportions and by the same shareholders as at the initial issuing of shares in 1999.

(13)

According to a special resolution adopted in 17 December 1999 by the board of Shetland Seafish Ltd the preference shares in Shetland Seafish Ltd have “the right to a fixed non-cumulative preferential dividend at the rate of 10 % (net of associated tax credit) per annum on the capital for the time being paid up or credit as paid up thereon accruing from the date of subscription therefore and to be paid (to the extent that there are profits available for distribution) annually on 31 January in each year in respect of the 12 months ending on that date; and may be redeemed at par (i.e. at 1 per preference share) plus any unpaid preferential dividend, at the option of the Company at any time after the first anniversary of the date of the allotment of the preference shares.”

(14)	From the data provided it shows that Shetland Seafish Ltd has been loss making since 1999.

Comments from the United Kingdom

(15)

In its letters from 30 April 2004 and of 13 December 2004 the United Kingdom has stated that the investments should be considered as private investments as SLAP is a private body and at the time of the investments both the SIC and SLAP had legitimate expectations that the monies involved should be considered as private funds.

(16)

Secondly the United Kingdom states that if the monies involved are considered to be public funds, the investments made by SLAP are investments which could have been decided by a normal private operator. To support this statement the United Kingdom has provided 2 reports issued with regard to the investments in question: the Shetland Seafish Merger Report and the Whalsay Report.

Shetland Seafish Merger Report

(17)	The Seafish Merger Report of 27 September 1999 is a report from Mr. M. Goodlad and Mr. S. Gillani to the Directors of SLAP on “A proposed restructure and merger of L Williamson & Sons (Shetland) Limited & Ronas Fisheries Limited”.

(18)	According to the figures and the prognoses in the report, the merger of L Williamson & Sons (Shetland) Limited & Ronas Fisheries Limited, through the establishing of Shetland Seafish would become profit making within 3 years.

Whalsay Report

(19)

The Whalsay Report is a report of Mr. John Inkster, who at that time held the position of Managing Director of Whalsay Fish Processors Ltd, issued in June 2000. This report gives an analysis of the situation of the companies involved, the developments in the market and possible advantages for Shetland Seafish Ltd to acquire Whalsay Ltd.

3. ASSESSMENT

(20)	It must be determined first if the measure can be regarded as State aid and if this is the case, if this aid is compatible with the common market.

Existence of State aid

State resources

(21)	The funds of SLAP which have been used for the investment are derived from funding from the Charitable Trust. The Charitable Trust was created by the SIC to receive and hold on behalf of the Shetland community, disturbance receipts which the oil industry agreed to pay.

(22)

As was already pointed out by the Commission in its decision of 3 June 2003 on loans for the purchase of fishing quotas in the Shetland Islands (United Kingdom) (3), these monies, which are directly related to the disturbances caused to the Shetland Islands population and not to the effective supplying of the service of the harbour facilities, cannot be considered as private funds, but must be regarded as State resources for the purposes of Article 87 of the EC Treaty.

(23)

The investments of SLAP currently under investigation are funded from the same type of funding. With regard to the conclusions of the Commission in its decision mentioned above and the fact that the United Kingdom has not provided any additional arguments to proof that these funds are private funds, the Commission considers that the investments must be regarded as granted through State resources.

(24)

Furthermore, the decision of the Commission mentioned above also pointed out that the trustees of the Charitable Trust are the councillors of the SIC. Although these councillors act as trustees ex officio, the fact that they are nominated by the SIC means that the latter is able to exercise a dominant influence over the trust and SLAP as well as over the funds at their disposal. There is therefore a set of indicators showing that decisions can not be taken without regard for the requirements of the public authority.

Market economy investor principle

(25)	Public investments are regarded State aid if the investments are decided under circumstances which would not be acceptable for a private investor acting under normal market economy principles.

(26)

According to the United Kingdom, SLAP acted like a normal market economy investor in investing in Shetland Seafish Ltd and the take over of Whalsay Ltd by Shetland Seafish Ltd. This would follow from two reports submitted to the board at the time of the investments: the Shetland Seafish Merger Report and the Whalsay Report.

(27)

An investment can be considered to be in line with the market economy investor principle if the investment is made in circumstances that would be acceptable to a private investor operating under normal market economy conditions. An investment would not be considered in line with this principle where the financial position of the company, and particularly the structure and volume of its debt, is such that a normal return cannot be expected within a reasonable time from the investment.

Shetland Seafish Merger Report

(28)

The prognoses of profit laid down in the Seafish Merger Report of 27 September 1999 are based on a number of assumptions, for which insufficient arguments are provided. The report contains a projected profit and loss account, a projected balance sheet and a projected cash flow statement for 2000, 2001 and 2002. The data in these sheets show that Shetland Seafish Ltd would become profitable and that the turnover is expected to increase in comparison to 2000, with more than 16 % in 2001 and with 26 % in 2002. However, the report does not contain sufficient data and arguments to establish the reliability of these projections as the necessary data on supply, prices and production to support these expectations are not contained in the report.

(29)	Without further argumentation for these projections and assumptions, it is impossible to establish their credibility, both for the Commission at this stage, as well as for any normal private investor wishing to invest in such an operation.

(30)

It is mentioned in the report that “the new management organisation and production strategy have been carefully devised to address previous shortfall within the two companies concerned. But the core of the new philosophy is the recognition that only a market led approach will ensure success and continued whitefish processing in Shetland”, which according to the United Kingdom demonstrates that the intent at the time the investments were made was to ensure that the companies were operating in a manner consistent with their market in order to ensure the long term viability if the companies.

(31)

From the figures and data contained in the report the Commission can however not established if these arguments have been correctly applied and in absence of further data leading to the decision to invest, the Commission can not establish that indeed the investment could be considered to be a profitable investment and that SLAP has acted like a normal private investor.

(32)	With regard to this the Commission at this stage has doubts on the prognosis laid down in the report and is of the opinion that the information laid down in the report would be insufficient for a normal investor in the private market to decide on the investment made by SLAP.

Whalsay Report

(33)

The Whalsay report was issued by the managing director of Whalsay Ltd and can not be considered to be an independent report on Whalsay and the possible acquisition of the company by Shetland Seafish Ltd. In the report it is stated that both companies clearly suffer from the restrictive supplies of salmon on the market and that a merger between the two companies “offers not only the best, but maybe the only chance of securing continued and sustainable employment in this industry”.

(34)

The report furthermore concludes that “The decision of the Board of SLAP, should it approve proposals to invest in the merger between Seafish and Whalsay, must therefore be to a background of ensuring that salmon supplies are secured on an enduring basis; the risk of not achieving this must make approval of the merger a highly risky decision and leave both SLAP and Seafish vulnerable.”.

(35)

With regard to the doubts expressed in the report on the profits to follow from the merger between the companies, the reference to securing employment in this industry and the fact that the report does not contain sufficient data to show the profitability of the investment in question, the Commission at this stage has serious doubts in considering the investment of SLAP in the acquisition of Whalsay Ltd a decision that could have been decided by a normal private investor.

State aid

(36)	With regard to the foregoing, the Commission has found insufficient evidence to establish that both investments made by SLAP are normal commercial investments, which could have been decided by any normal private investor.

(37)

From the information available to the Commission it is most certain that the companies involved, Williamson Ltd and Ronas Ltd, merged into Shetland Seafish Ltd, and Whalsay Ltd, would not have been able to continue operating without the investments concerned. In any case, the investments have strengthened their position on the market, which would not have occurred without the investments.

(38)

As the investments are clearly in the benefit of the companies involved and these companies are in direct competition with other fish processing companies both within the United Kingdom as in other Member States, at this stage the Commission is of the opinion that these investments appear to be State aids in the sense of Article 87 of the EC Treaty.

Compatibility with the common market

(39)

State aid can be declared compatible with the common market if it complies with one of the exceptions foreseen in the EC-Treaty. As regards to State aid to the fisheries sector, State aid measures are deemed to be compatible with the common market if they comply with the conditions of Guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries and aquaculture (4). According to point 5.3 of the Guidelines “an unlawful aid” within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 will be appraised in accordance with the guidelines applicable at the time when the administrative act setting up the aid has entered into force.

(40)	As the investments made by SLAP have taken place in 1999 and 2000, the compatibility of the aid shall have to be assessed under the Guidelines for the examination of fisheries and aquaculture of 1997 (5) (further referred to as Guidelines), which were in force at the time.

(41)

According to point 2.3 of the Guidelines aid to investment in the processing and marketing of fishery products may be deemed compatible with the common market provided that the conditions for granting it are comparable to those laid down in Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 and are at least as stringent and provided that the level of the aid does not exceed, in subsidy equivalent, the overall level of the national and Community subsidies permitted under those rules. In addition if the aid concerns investments that are, according to Regulation (EC) No 3699/93, not eligible for community assistance, the Commission has to assess its compatibility with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy on a case-by-case basis. The investments made by SLAP must thus be assessed under these conditions.

(42)

According to Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 Member States may under the conditions of Annex III to that regulation take measures to encourage capital investment in the field of processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products. Point 2.4 of Annex III states that eligible investments for processing and marketing shall in particular relate to the construction and acquisition of buildings and installation, to the acquisition of new equipment and installation needed for the processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products between the time of landing and the end-product stage or to the application of new technologies intended in particular to improve competitiveness and increase value added.

(43)	The investments of SLAP can not be considered as investments related to one of these issues and must thus in accordance with point 2.3 of the Guidelines be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

(44)	As the investments have the effect of improving the general financial situation of Shetland Seafish Ltd, this aid should be assessed as operating aid.

(45)

According to the general principles laid down in point 1 of the Guidelines, aid which is granted without imposing any obligations on the part of recipients and which is intended to improve the situation of undertakings and increase their business liquidity, or is calculated on the quantity produced or marketed, products prices, units produces or the means of production, and which has the effect of reducing the recipients production costs or improving the recipients income is, as operating aid, incompatible with the common market.

(46)	According to point 1 of the Guidelines, the Commission shall assess such operating aid on a case-by-case basis where it is linked to a restructuring plan considered to be compatible with the common market.

(47)

The United Kingdom has not provided any restructuring plan for the Commission to assess. According to the Guidelines operating aid can only be declared compatible with the common market if such aid is linked to a restructuring plan compatible with the common market. Therefore the investments are considered not to comply with the Guidelines.

(48)	With regard to the above and on the basis of the information available to the Commission at this stage, the Commission has doubts on the compatibility of the aid with the EC-Treaty.

4. DECISION

(49)

The Commission observes that there exist, at this stage of the preliminary examination, as provided for by Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 88 of the EC Treaty, serious doubts on the compatibility of this aid scheme with the Guidelines for the examination of State aid to Fisheries and aquaculture and, therefore, with the EC Treaty.

(50)

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission requires the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, within one month of receipt of this letter, to provide all documents, information and data needed for assessment of the compatibility of the aid/measure. Otherwise the Commission will adopt a decision on the basis of the information in its possession. It requests your authorities to forward a copy of this letter to the potential recipient of the aid immediately.

(51)

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, requests the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to submit its comments and to provide all such information as may help to assess the aid scheme, within one month of the date of receipt of this letter. It requests your authorities to forward a copy of this letter to the recipients of the aid immediately.

(52)

The Commission wishes to remind the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty has suspensory effect, and would draw your attention to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, which provides that all unlawful aid may be recovered from the recipient.

(53)

The Commission warns the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that it will inform interested parties by publishing this letter and a meaningful summary of it in the Official Journal of the European Union. It will also inform interested parties in the EFTA countries which are signatories to the EEA Agreement, by publication of a notice in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union and will inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority by sending a copy of this letter. All such interested parties will be invited to submit their comments within one month of the date of such publication.’

(1) Commission Decisions 2003/611/EC and 2003/612/EC of 3 June 2003, OJ L 211, 21.8.2003, p. 49 and 63.

(2) The guidelines of 1997, OJ C 100, 27.3.1997, p. 12, are applicable to the aid scheme in question.

(3) 2003/612/EC, OJ L 211 of 21.8.2003, p. 63.

(4) OJ C 229, 14.9.2004, p. 5.

(5) OJ C 100, 27.3.1997, p. 12.

10.6.2005

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/19

CALL FOR PROPOSALS (No VIII-2006/01)

Budget line 4020 ‘Contributions to European political parties’

(2005/C 141/10)

1. OBJECTIVES

1.1. Background

Article 191 of the Treaty establishing the European Community says the political parties at European level are important factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union. In this context, Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 (1) lays down the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding. The Regulation provides, in particular, for an annual grant from the European Parliament, in the form of an operating subsidy, to political parties which apply and which satisfy the conditions laid down in the Regulation.

1.2. Objective of the call for proposals

Under Article 2 of the European Parliament Bureau Rules of 29 March 2004 laying down the procedures for implementing Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 (2), ‘The European Parliament shall publish each year, before the end of the first half of the year, a call for proposals with a view to the awarding of grants to fund political parties at European level.’ This call for proposals relates to grant applications for the financial year 2006 and covering the period of activity from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006.

2. CRITERIA AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

2.1. Admissibility

Proposals will not be admissible unless they are submitted in writing on the grant application form in Annex 1 of the above EP Bureau Rules of 29 March 2004, sent to the President of the European Parliament by the closing date and meet the conditions for the submission of applications set out below.

2.2. Eligibility

In order to be eligible for a grant, a political party at European level must satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding, i.e.:

(a)	it must have legal personality in the Member State in which its seat is located;

(b)

it must be represented, in at least one quarter of Member States, by Members of the European Parliament or in the national Parliaments or regional Parliaments or in the regional assemblies, or it must have received, in at least one quarter of the Member States, at least three per cent of the votes cast in each of those Member States at the most recent European Parliament elections;

(c)	it must observe, in particular in its programme and in its activities, the principles on which the European Union is founded, namely the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law;

(d)	it must have participated in elections to the European Parliament, or have expressed the intention to do so.

Applicants must also certify that they do not find themselves in any of the circumstances described in Article 93 of the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3).

2.3. Selection criteria

Applicants must provide evidence that they possess the legal and financial viability required to carry out the programme of activities set out in the application for funding and that they have the technical capability and management skills needed to carry out successfully the programme activities for which they are applying for a grant.

2.4. Award criteria

In accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003, the available appropriations for the financial year 2006 will be distributed as follows among the political parties at European level which have obtained a positive decision on their application for funding on the basis of the admissibility, eligibility and selection criteria:

—	15 % will be distributed in equal shares;

—	85 % will be distributed among those which have elected members in the European Parliament, in proportion to the number of elected members.

2.5. Supporting documents

For the purpose of assessing the above criteria, applicants must provide the following supporting documents:

(a)	Letter of application (original not a copy)

(b)	Application form in Annex 1 of the European Parliament Bureau Rules of 29 March 2004 duly completed and signed (including the declaration)

(c)	A copy of the Statutes of the political party

(d)	An official certificate of registration

(e)	Proof of the recent existence of the political party

(f)	A list of the directors/members of the Board (names and first names, offices or functions within the applicant political party)

(g)

Documents certifying that the applicant fulfils the conditions set out in Article 3(b), (c), (d), and Article 10, paragraph 1(b) (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding

(h)	The programme of the political party

(i)	The financial statements for 2005 certified by an external auditor (5)

(j)	The draft operating budget for the period concerned (1.1.2006 to 31.12.2006) indicating the costs eligible for funding from the Community budget.

3. COMMUNITY FUNDING

The budget for the financial year 2006 is a total of EUR 8 594 000.

The maximum amount paid to the beneficiary by Parliament may not exceed 75 % of the eligible operating costs of political parties at European level. The burden of proof shall lie with the political party concerned.

Community funding shall take the form of an operating grant as provided for by the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (6) and the detailed rules for its implementation laid down by Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 (7). The arrangements for paying the grant and the obligations governing its use will be set out in a grant award agreement, a specimen of which appears in Annex 2 to the European Parliament Bureau Rules of 29 March 2004.

4. PROCEDURE

4.1. Closing date and submission of applications

The closing date for receipt of applications is 15 November 2005. Applications received after that date will not be considered.

Proposals must:

—	be made on the grant application form;

—	be signed, without fail, by the applicant or his duly authorised agent;

—

be submitted under double cover; the two envelopes must be sealed. In addition to the address of the recipient department as given in the call for proposals, the inner envelope must bear the following:

‘CALL FOR PROPOSALS — 2006 grants to European political parties

NOT TO BE OPENED BY THE MAIL SERVICE OR BY ANY OTHER UNAUTHORISED PERSON’

If self-adhesive envelopes are used, they must be sealed with adhesive tape with the signature of the sender affixed across it. The signature of the sender shall be deemed to comprise not only his hand-written signature, but also his organisation's stamp;

—

be forwarded at the latest on the closing date laid down in the call for proposals either by registered post, as evidenced by the postmark, or delivered by hand, in return for a dated receipt issued by the Mail Service in the place of work of the European Parliament indicated in the call for proposals. Deliveries by hand must be made at the latest by 12 noon on the closing date.

A proposal sent by private courier firm shall be deemed to have been delivered by hand.

It is the duty of the applicant to ensure that his proposal is delivered to the European Parliament's Mail Service at the address referred to above at the latest by 12 noon on the closing date and that a receipt is issued.

The outer envelope must be addressed to:

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Mail Service

KAD Building 00D008

L-2929 Luxembourg

This envelope must also show the sender's address.

The inner envelope must be addressed to:

President of the European Parliament

via Mr Vanhaeren, Director-General of Finance

KAD 3B001

L 2929 Luxembourg

4.2. Timetable for implementing the programme of activities

The eligible period for cofinancing of operating expenditure of European political parties in 2006 runs from 1 January 2006 until 31 December 2006.

4.3. Award procedure and timetable

The following procedure and timetable will apply to the receipt of applications by the European Parliament and the award of grants to European political parties:

(a)	Receipt and registration by Parliament (no later than 15 November 2005)

(b)	Consideration and selection by Parliament's departments. Only the applications deemed admissible will be examined on the basis of the selection and evaluation criteria set out in the call for proposals.

(c)	Adoption of the final decision by the Bureau of Parliament (envisaged by 15 February 2006) and notification of applicants.

(d)	Signature of grant award agreement (envisaged by 15 March 2006)

(e)	Payment of an advance of 80 % (15 days after signature of the agreement).

4.4. Further information

The following texts are available on the EP Internet site at the following address: http://www.europarl.eu.int/tenders/default.htm:

(a)	Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding;

(b)	European Parliament Bureau decision of 29 March 2004 laying down procedures for implementing Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003;

(c)	Grant application form;

(d)	Specimen agreement.

Any questions relating to this call for proposals with a view to the awarding of grants should be sent by e-mail, quoting the publication reference, to the following address: Hbetz@europarl.eu.int.

(1) OJ L 297, 15.11.2003, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 155, 12.06.2004, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

(4) Including the list of those elected pursuant to Article 3(b), first paragraph and Article 10, paragraph 1(b).

(5) Unless the political party at European level has been set up during the current year.

(6) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(7) OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 1.

		ISSN 1725-2423
Official Journal of the European Union		C 141

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 48 10 June 2005

Notice No	Contents	page
	I Information
	Council
2005/C 141/1	Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 24 May 2005 meeting within the Council on the evaluation of activities conducted in the framework of European cooperation in the youth field	1

2005/C 141/2	Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 24 May 2005 meeting within the Council on implementing the common objective: to increase participation by young people in the system of representative democracy	3

2005/C 141/3	Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 24 May 2005 meeting within the Council on implementing the common objectives for youth information	5

2005/C 141/4	Council Conclusions of 24 May 2005 on new indicators in education and training	7

	Commission
2005/C 141/5	Euro exchange rates	9

2005/C 141/6	Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M. 3852 — Hyundai Motor Company/Hyundai Car UK Ltd) — Candidate case for simplified procedure ( 1 )	10

2005/C 141/7	Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections	11

2005/C 141/8	State aid — United Kingdom — State aid C 13/2005 (ex NN 86/2004) — Investments of Shetland Leasing and Property Developments Ltd — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty ( 1 )	12

2005/C 141/9	Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3811 — Lagardère/France Télévisions/JV) ( 1 )	18

	III Notices
	European Parliament
2005/C 141/0	Call for Proposals (No VIII-2006/01) — Budget line 4020 Contributions to European political parties	19