• Considering the proposal for a joint PRIMET - ECOMET scrutiny of ECOMET practices
• Taking into account the concerns of PRIMET, as a representative of the European private meteorological sector,
• Supporting the process started by the President of the ECOMET GA,
• Stressing the need to separate concerns over the practices of ECOMET from concerns over the practices of individual ECOMET members, and
• Wishing to keep the costs of legal advice within a reasonable predetermined budgetary ceiling,

1. The principle of obtaining legal scrutiny over PRIMET's concerns regarding ECOMET rules and practices,
2. Wait for the draft list of questions from PRIMET,
3. Ask the President of the GA to check the relevance of this draft list, restricting it to the rules and practices of ECOMET, and discussing it with PRIMET if required,
4. Ask the President of the GA to discuss with PRIMET how to proceed with obtaining the legal advice, taking into account the discussion of the 19th GA that legal advice should be sought from only one source, jointly chosen by ECOMET and PRIMET, reimbursement of the cost being offered by ECOMET up to a ceiling,
5. Decide the ceiling of expenses to be EUR 3000 to obtain the legal scrutiny, and to include this amount in the ECOMET budget for 2005,
6. Review the list of legal questions at the 20th GA in July 2005, in order to further progress,
7. Confirm that the results of the legal scrutiny will be made available.

Comment by PRIMET Secretary General

The proposal presented to the ECOMET General Assembly on 9 December 2004 (in the absence of Prof. Anton Eliassen, President of the ECOMET General Assembly due to illness) was based on the agreement reached between the ECOMET and PRIMET delegations at the Oslo meeting on 3 November 2004; this agreement was in turn based on a proposal made at the meeting by Prof. Eliassen which was agreed in full by PRIMET.

However, the agreement reached in Oslo between ECOMET and PRIMET was not accepted by the ECOMET Assembly on 9 December 2004, the most significant deviation being that "legal advice should be sought from one only source, jointly chosen by ECOMET and PRIMET, reimbursement of the cost being offered by ECOMET up to a ceiling". This proposed change was made without consultations with PRIMET.

Furthermore the ceiling of expenses for the legal scrutiny was set at EUR 3000, which would cover only 2-3 days of qualified legal support. In view of the very complicated issues to be covered this is not realistic.