7. Reaffirms the urgent need for Russia to implement fundamental principles of democracy, rule of law, human rights and media freedom as basis for cooperation; calls on Russia to take concrete action to improve its human rights record and to protect journalists, human rights activists and opposition representatives from violence and intimidation; outlines the importance of continuous and sincere dialogue on human rights as part of the EU-Russia Human Rights Consultations and reiterates its call for an improvement in the structure of the well-defined dialogue also taking individual cases into account, in order to enhance their effective ...[+++]ness; underlines the need to maintain close contacts and support programmes for the development of civil society in Russia; expresses strong concern on the status of NGOs and human rights defenders in Russia;

recommends an enhanced role for the heads of the Commission's external delegations in third countries; calls for "country-by-country multiannual strategy documents" to be drawn up under the responsibility of delegation heads, and for the Country Strategy Papers to pay greater attention to the human rights situation, identify the priorities and spell out the means and instruments deployed by the EU to ensure respect for the human rights and democracy clause and raise the level of respect for basic rights; also calls for the wording of such strategies to be reviewed on a regular basis, particularly with the European Parliament, and to be ...[+++] the subject of debates in the latter's relevant delegations and in plenary, particularly with regard to their implementation; recommends that the Commission's Country Strategy Papers and Action Plans should contain clear benchmarks for progress on human rights and a timeframe within which changes should be accomplished;

(b) recommends an enhanced role for the heads of the Commission’s external delegations in third countries; calls for ‘country-by-country multiannual strategy documents’ to be drawn up under the responsibility of delegation heads, and for the Country Strategy Papers to pay greater attention to the human rights situation, identify the priorities and spell out the means and instruments deployed by the EU to ensure respect for the democracy clause and raise the level of respect for basic rights; also calls for the wording of such strategies to be reviewed on a regular basis, particularly with the European Parliament, and to be the subject ...[+++]of debates in the latter’s relevant delegations and in plenary, particularly with regard to their implementation; recommends that the Commission's Country Strategy Papers and Action Plans should contain clear benchmarks for progress on human rights and a timeframe within which changes should be accomplished;

2. The exercise by a customs office or by another duly empowered authority of the powers conferred on them in order to fight against goods infringing an intellectual property right shall not render them liable towards the persons involved in the situations referred to in Article 1(1) or the persons affected by the measures provided for in Article 4 for damages suffered by them as a result of the authority's intervention, except where provided for by the law of the Member State in which the application is made or, in the case of an application under Article 5(4), by the law of the Member State in which loss or damage is incurred.

The new international law of the sea enshrining 200 miles as the exclusive zone for the exploitation of fishing resources by coastal states meant that the Community fleet found itself with excess capacity. This, combined with the increasing scarcity of resources in which the over-exploitation of some fishing grounds has played a part, has brought about a continuous reduction in both the high sea and the small-scale coastal fleet with the consequent loss of jobs, which have declined progressively in almost all countries and areas since the 1980s, as shown in the table annexed.

The European Court of Human Rights has judged that these rights have been violated in the case of Stanford v the United Kingdom, since the plaintiff had been denied knowledge of some of the evidence provided at the trial, in case Boner Maxwell v the United Kingdom, since the plaintiffs had not been allowed legal assistance or representation in presenting their appeals before the High Court of Justiciary, and in case Van de Hurk v Netherlands, since the civil rights of the plaintiff had not been determined by an independent tribunal but by virtue of the law regulating the College vaon Beroep voor het Bedrijsleven (Industrial Appeals Tribu ...[+++]nal), which allows the Crown (the monarch under the responsibility of the competent minister) to decide which judgments of the above court will not be executed in the general interest.