utterance
stringlengths 594
850k
| label
listlengths 11
11
|
|---|---|
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 730/2005
of 13 May 2005
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.
(2)
In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 May 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 May 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2271/2002
of 19 December 2002
prohibiting fishing for mackerel by vessels flying the flag of Denmark
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2846/98(2), and in particular Article 21(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2555/2001 of 18 December 2001 fixing for 2002 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are required(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2256/2002(4), lays down quotas for mackerel for 2002.
(2) In order to ensure compliance with the provisions relating to the quantity limits on catches of stocks subject to quotas, the Commission must fix the date by which catches made by vessels flying the flag of a Member State are deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated.
(3) According to the information received by the Commission, catches of mackerel in the waters of ICES divisions IIa (EC waters), the Skagerrak and Kattegat, IIIb, c and d (EC waters), and the North Sea by vessels flying the flag of Denmark or registered in Denmark have exhausted the quota allocated for 2002. Denmark has prohibited fishing for this stock from 23 November 2002. This date should be adopted in this Regulation also,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Catches of mackerel in the waters of ICES divisions IIa (EC waters), the Skagerrak and Kattegat, IIIb, c and d (EC waters), and the North Sea by vessels flying the flag of Denmark or registered in Denmark are hereby deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated to Denmark for 2002.
Fishing for mackerel in the waters of ICES divisions IIa (EC waters), the Skagerrak and Kattegat, IIIb, c and d (EC waters), and North Sea by vessels flying the flag of Denmark or registered in Denmark is hereby prohibited, as are the retention on board, transhipment and landing of this stock caught by the above vessels after the date of application of this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 23 November 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 December 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3414/91 of 22 November 1991 on the supply of sardines as food aid
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3972/86 of 22 December 1986 on food-aid policy and food-aid management (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1930/90 (2), and in particular Article 6 (1) (c) thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 1420/87 of 21 May 1987 laying down implementing rules for Regulation (EEC) No 3972/86 on food-aid policy and food-aid management (3) lays down the list of countries and organizations eligible for food-aid operations and specifies the general criteria on the transport of food aid beyond the fob stage;
Whereas, following the taking of a number of decisions on the allocation of food aid, the Commission has allocated to certain countries and beneficiary organizations 156 tonnes of sardines;
Whereas it is necessary to make these supplies in accordance with the rules laid down by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2200/87 of 8 July 1987 laying down general rules for the mobilization in the Community of products to be supplied as Community food aid (4), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 790/91 (5); whereas it is necessary to specify the time limits and conditions of supply and the procedure to be followed to determine the resultant costs;
Whereas, notably for logistical reasons, certain supplies are not awarded within the first and second deadlines for submission of tenders; whereas, in order to avoid republication of the notice of invitation to tender, a third deadline for submission of tenders should be opened,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Sardines shall be mobilized in the Community as Community food aid for supply to the recipients listed in the Annex, in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2200/87 and under the conditions set out in the Annex. Supplies shall be awarded by the tendering procedure.
The successful tenderer is deemed to have noted and accepted all the general and specific conditions applicable. Any other condition or reservation included in his tender is deemed unwritten.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 November 1991.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1688/2002
of 25 September 2002
fixing the import duties in the rice sector
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 411/2002(2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1503/96 of 29 July 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 as regards import duties in the rice sector(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1298/2002(4), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 provides that the rates of duty in the Common Customs Tariff are to be charged on import of the products referred to in Article 1 of that Regulation. However, in the case of the products referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article, the import duty is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by a certain percentage according to whether it is husked or milled rice, minus the cif import price provided that duty does not exceed the rate of the Common Customs Tariff duties.
(2) Pursuant to Article 12(3) of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95, the cif import prices are calculated on the basis of the representative prices for the product in question on the world market or on the Community import market for the product.
(3) Regulation (EC) No 1503/96 lays down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 as regards import duties in the rice sector.
(4) The import duties are applicable until new duties are fixed and enter into force. They also remain in force in cases where no quotation is available from the source referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1503/96 during the two weeks preceding the next periodical fixing.
(5) In order to allow the import duty system to function normally, the market rates recorded during a reference period should be used for calculating the duties.
(6) Application of Regulation (EC) No 1503/96 results in import duties being fixed as set out in the Annexes to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The import duties in the rice sector referred to in Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 shall be those fixed in Annex I to this Regulation on the basis of the information given in Annex II.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 26 September 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 September 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1400/2005
of 25 August 2005
fixing the maximum export refund on common wheat in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1059/2005
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1059/2005 (2).
(2)
In accordance with Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), the Commission may, on the basis of the tenders notified, decide to fix a maximum export refund taking account of the criteria referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95. In that case a contract is awarded to any tenderer whose bid is equal to or lower than the maximum refund.
(3)
The application of the abovementioned criteria to the current market situation for the cereal in question results in the maximum export refund being fixed.
(4)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For tenders notified on 19 to 25 August 2005, pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1059/2005, the maximum refund on exportation of common wheat shall be 4,00 EUR/t.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 26 August 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 August 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1097/2006
of 14 July 2006
fixing the minimum selling price for butter for the 45th individual invitation to tender issued under the standing invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 10(c) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Pursuant to Article 21 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999 of 16 December 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards intervention on the market in butter and cream (2), intervention agencies have put up for sale by standing invitation to tender certain quantities of butter held by them.
(2)
In the light of the tenders received in response to each individual invitation to tender a minimum selling price shall be fixed or a decision shall be taken to make no award, in accordance with Article 24a of Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999.
(3)
In the light of the tenders received, a minimum selling price should be fixed.
(4)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For the 45th individual invitation to tender pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 11 July 2006, the minimum selling price for butter is fixed at 250,00 EUR/100 kg.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 15 July 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 July 2006.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION
of 22 June 1995
laying down the rules for the microbiological testing by sampling of fresh beef and veal and pigmeat intended for Finland and Sweden
(95/409/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat (1), and in particular Article 5 (3) (a) and (b) thereof,
Whereas the Commission has approved the operational programmes submitted by Finland and Sweden regarding salmonella controls; whereas those programmes comprise specific measures for fresh beef and veal and pigmeat;
Whereas the implementation of microbiological tests by an establishment constitutes one of the additional guarantees to be given to Finland and Sweden and provides equivalent guarantees to those obtained under the Finnish and Swedish operational programmes, as recognized by the relevant Commission decisions;
Whereas Finland and Sweden must apply to consignments from third countries import requirements at least as stringent as those laid down in this Decision;
Whereas, as far as the sampling methods to be applied are concerned, it is appropriate to make a distinction between carcases and half-carcases, on the one hand, and quarters, cuts and smaller pieces on the other;
Whereas it is appropriate to take into account international methods for the microbiological examination of samples;
Whereas microbiological tests are not to be required for fresh meat from an establishment which is subject to a programme recognized as equivalent to that implemented by Finland or Sweden;
Whereas the provisions of this Decision are without prejudice to any provisions which might be adopted in implementation of Article 5 (2) of Directive 64/433/EEC,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Pursuant to Article 5 (3) (a) of Directive 64/433/EEC, consignments of fresh beef and veal and pigmeat intended for Finland and Sweden shall be subject to the rules laid down in Articles 2, 3 and 4.
Article 2
Fresh beef and veal and pigmeat intended for Finland and Sweden shall be subjected to microbiological testing for salmonella, as provided for in Article 5 (3) (a) of Directive 64/433/EEC, by sampling in the establishment of origin of such meat. These microbiological tests shall be carried out as laid down in the Annex.
Article 3
Fresh beef and veal and pigmeat from an establishment subject to a programme recognized, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 16 of Directive 64/433/EEC, as equivalent to that implemented by Finland or Sweden, shall not be subjected to the microbiological tests laid down in this Decision.
Article 4
The Council, acting on a Commission proposal drawn up in the light of a report established on the basis of the results of the operational programmes implemented by Finland and Sweden and the experience gained in applying this Decision, shall review this Decision before 1 July 1998.
Article 5
This Decision shall apply from 1 July 1995.
Article 6
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 June 1995.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1993/94 of 1 August 1994 amending Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1711/93 as regards the minimum price and compensatory payment to be paid to potato producers, and the premium to be paid to manufacturers of potato starch for the 1994/95 marketing year
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organization of the market in cereals (1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2193/93 (2), and in particular Article 8 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1543/93 of 28 June 1993 fixing the amount of the premium granted to producers of potato starch for the 1993/94, 1994/95 and 1995/96 marketing year (3), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1709/93 (4) adjusts the prices and amounts fixed in ecus in the cereals sector;
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1711/93 (5) lays down detailed rules of application as regards the premium paid to producers of potato starch and the minimum price and compensatory payment to be paid to producers of potatoes intended for the manufacture of starch, on the basis of the starch content of the potatoes; whereas the amounts fixed in that Regulation should be adjusted for the 1994/95 marketing year;
Whereas the premium is paid to offset structural difficulties faced by the potato starch industry; whereas provision should be made to ensure that the minimum price is actually paid to growers in order to prevent any unfair competition which might disturb the starch market as a result of potatoes being supplied at a reduced price; whereas this cannot be achieved during the 1994/95 marketing year by measures designed to control production levels;
Whereas to this end it is appropriate to tighten the sanctions already provided for by making payment of the premium subject to proof that the minimum price has actually been paid for all the raw material applied; whereas the scale of sanctions should be amended accordingly, while observing the principles of proportionality and freedom of choice for operators;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 1711/93 is hereby replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
Article 7 is hereby replaced by the following:
'Article 7
The following payments shall be subject to the requirements set out below:
- in the case of the compensatory payment provided for in Article 8 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 to potato producers and the premium provided for in Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1543/93 payable to potato starch producers in the Community, to the requirement that the starch producers provide proof that the potato starch has been produced in the Community during the marketing year concerned which begins on 1 July and ends on 30 June of the following year,
- in the case of the compensatory payment to potato producers, to the requirement that all the quantities for which payment is applied for have been paid for, at the delivered-to-factory stage, at a price not less than that referred to in Article 8 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 and in accordance with the rates set out in Annex II,
- in the case of the premium paid to potato starch producers, in accordance with the rates set out in Annex II, to the requirement that the latter have pad a price not less than that referred to in Article 8 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 to the potato producer, at the delivered-to-factory stage, for all the quantity of potatoes produced in the Community which they used in the manufacture of the starch.
The proof referred to in the second and third subparagraphs shall be furnished by submission of the summary payment slip provided for in Article 6, accompanied either by certification of payment by the producer or by a voucher issued by the financial undertaking that made the payment on the order of the starch manufacturer and certifying that such payment has been made.'
Article 3
Article 10 (2) is hereby replaced by the following:
'2. Should be competent body establish that the obligations specified iun Article 7 have not been met by the manufacturer, he shall, unless force majeure applies, lose entitlement to premiums, in whole or in part, as follows:
- if the obligations have not been met for a quantity of starch less than 20 % of the total quantity produced during the marketing year in question, the amount of the premium granted shall be reduced by five times the percentage established,
- if the percentage in question is equal to or greater than 20, no premium shall be granted.'
Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 July 1994.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 August 1994.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
OF 19 OCTOBER 1988
ON IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURES IN PORTUGAL PURSUANT TO COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 797/85
( ONLY THE PORTUGUESE TEXT IS AUTHENTIC )
( 88/551/EEC )
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
HAVING REGARD TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY,
HAVING REGARD TO COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 797/85 OF 12 MARCH 1985 ON IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURES ( 1 ), AS LAST AMENDED BY REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1137/88 ( 2 ), AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 25 ( 3 ) THEREOF,
WHEREAS, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 24 ( 4 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 797/85, THE PORTUGUESE GOVERNMENT FORWARDED ON 20 JUNE 1988 THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE FIXING OF REFERENCE INCOME FOR 1988;
WHEREAS, UNDER ARTICLE 25 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 797/85, THE COMMISSION HAS TO DECIDE WHETHER THE CONDITIONS FOR A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION BY THE COMMUNITY ARE SATISFIED IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE SAID PROVISIONS WITH THE ABOVEMENTIONED REGULATION, AND BEARING IN MIND THE OBJECTIVES OF THE LATTER AND THE NEED TO ENSURE THAT THE VARIOUS MEASURES ARE PROPERLY RELATED;
WHEREAS THE FIXATION OF THE REFERENCE INCOME FOR 1988 MEETS THE CONDITIONS ARTICLE 2 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 797/85;
WHEREAS THE MEASURES PROVIDED FOR IN THIS DECISION ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION :
ARTICLE 1
IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS ON THE FIXING OF THE REFERENCE INCOME FOR 1988, THE MEASURES ADOPTED IN PORTUGAL PURSUANT TO REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 797/85 CONTINUE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS FOR A COMMUNITY FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMON MEASURE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 797/85 .
ARTICLE 2
THIS DECISION IS ADDRESSED TO THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC .
DONE AT BRUSSELS, 19 OCTOBER 1988 .
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 22 December 1977 authorizing the United Kingdom to take certain protective measures under Article 108 (3) of the EEC Treaty and repealing Decision 75/487/EEC (Only the English text is authentic) (78/154/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 108 (3) thereof,
Whereas the United Kingdom's economic situation has entailed serious balance of payments difficulties and consequently marked fluctuations in the sterling exchange rate;
Whereas by Decision 75/487/EEC of 23 July 1975 (1) the Commission authorized the United Kingdom, on a temporary basis, to maintain, within the limit of the measures actually in force on the date when the above Decision was notified, restrictions on certain capital movements because this Member State was not in a position to fulfil its obligations under Article 124 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act of Accession;
Whereas by Decision 77/457/EEC of 28 June 1977 (2) the Commission amended Decision 75/487/EEC;
Whereas the United Kingdom's external position is such that a complete relaxation as from 1 January 1978 of the controls on those capital movements covered by Article 124 of the Act of Accession would seriously threaten the United Kingdom with balance of payments difficulties;
Whereas because of the possible threat to the balance of payments, the United Kingdom has informed the Commission that it is not in a position to fulfil the obligations arising from Article 124 (1) (c) of the Act of Accession, and in this connection has asked to be authorized to take certain protective measures;
Whereas the Commission, after investigating the position of the United Kingdom's economy under Article 108 (1), and the measures taken by the United Kingdom, made a recommendation to it on 14 December 1977, under Article 108 (1) of the Treaty;
Whereas, however, the measures recommended to the United Kingdom under Article 108 (1) of the Treaty are not sufficient, since they cannot by themselves make any immediate and sufficient contribution to strengthening the United Kingdom's external position;
Whereas no mutual assistance has been granted under Article 108 (2) of the Treaty;
Whereas the strengthening of its external financial position requires the temporary maintenance by the United Kingdom of the measures in force derogating from Community obligations in respect of the free movement of capital;
Whereas, however, certain changes are now possible in respect of direct investments and in capital movements of a personal nature by United Kingdom residents in other Member States, and in respect of transactions in securities by residents of the United Kingdom;
Whereas it is appropriate to combine together in one Decision any new derogations from Community obligations in respect of the free movement of capital with existing derogation from such obligations;
Whereas the situation of the United Kingdom and the practical effects of the United Kingdom measures should be regularly reviewed, with the aim of eliminating, as soon as possible, restrictions maintained on a temporary basis,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. The United Kingdom is hereby authorized, subject to the conditions contained in paragraph 2, on a temporary basis, to maintain the restrictions on direct investments in Member States by United Kingdom residents and the liquidation of such investments.
2. (a) £ 500 000 or 50 % of the total cost of the investment, whichever is the greater, can be obtained at the official exchange rate, where the (1)OJ No L 211, 9.8.1975, p. 29. (2)OJ No L 179, 19.7.1977, p. 30. investment cost is to be recouped by benefits to the United Kingdom's balance of payments, within the period specified in paragraph 2 (b).
(b) The period referred to in paragraph 2 (a) shall not be less than three years.
Article 2
The United Kingdom is hereby authorized on a temporary basis to maintain the restrictions on the following capital movements of a personal nature: (a) transfers of capital belonging to United Kingdom residents who are emigrating, other than transfers in connection with the free movement of persons under the provisions of Title III of Part two of the EEC Treaty. However for transfers by emigrants not covered by the provisions of Title III of Part two of the EEC Treaty, the initial amount transferable per family unit is increased to £ 80 000 from £ 40 000;
(b) gifts and endowments, dowries, succession duties, and real estate investments, other than those in connection with the freedom of movement of persons under the provisions of Title III of Part two of the EEC Treaty. Restrictions shall, however, be abolished on: (i) cash gifts up to £ 1 500 per donor, per annum, plus £ 1 500 for EEC recipients;
(ii) wedding gifts or dowries from parents (or those in loco parentis) up to £ 7 500 per annum in excess of cash gifts allowance.
Article 3
The United Kingdom is hereby authorized on a temporary basis to maintain the restrictions on the acquisition by residents of foreign securities dealt in on a stock exchange and on the use of the proceeds of liquidation thereof, provided that: - the entire proceeds of liquidation of foreign securities can be sold on the investment currency market,
- the repayment of funds borrowed in foreign currency to buy securities issued by the Communities or by the European Investment Bank and quoted on a stock exchange, can be made : from the proceeds of liquidation, or by purchasing funds on the investment currency market, or, where the repayment is made over a period of five years, by purchasing funds at the official exchange rate.
Article 4
1. The Commission shall keep under close review the development of the economic situation in the United Kingdom. It shall investigate the situation and the effects of the measures authorized herein not later than 31 December 1978.
2. The Commission reserves the right to amend or revoke this Decision if it finds that the conditions on which it was based have changed or that the effects of the Decision are more restrictive than is necessary to achieve its purpose.
Article 5
Decision 75/487/EEC is hereby repealed.
Article 6
This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom.
Done at Brussels, 22 December 1977.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2534/2000
of 17 November 2000
amending Regulation (EC) No 2709/1999 opening Community tariff quotas for 2000 for sheep, goats, sheepmeat and goatmeat falling within CN codes 0104 10 30, 0104 10 80, 0104 20 10, 0104 20 90 and 0204 and derogating from Regulation (EC) No 1439/95 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 as regards the import and export of products in the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector and amending Regulation (EC) No 1439/95
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3066/95 of 22 December 1995 establishing certain concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural products and providing for the adjustment, as an autonomous and transitional measure, of certain agricultural concessions provided for in the Europe Agreements to take account of the Agreement on Agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round Multilateral Trade Negotiations(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2435/98(2), and in particular Article 8 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3491/93 of 13 December 1993 on certain procedures for applying the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part(3), and in particular Article 1 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3296/94 of 19 December 1994 on certain procedures for applying the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Czech Republic, of the other part(4), and in particular Article 1 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3297/94 of 19 December 1994 on certain procedures for applying the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Slovak Republic, of the other part(5), and in particular Article 1 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3382/94 of 19 December 1994 on certain procedures for applying the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania, of the other part(6), and in particular Article 1 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3383/94 of 19 December 1994 on certain procedures for applying the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the other part(7), and in particular Article 1 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1727/2000 of 31 July 2000 establishing certain concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural products and providing for an adjustment, as an autonomous and transitional measure, of certain agricultural concessions provided for in the Europe Agreement with Hungary(8), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2433/2000 of 17 October 2000 establishing certain concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural products and providing for an adjustment, as an autonomous and transitional measure, of certain agricultural concessions provided for in the Europe Agreement with the Czech Republic(9), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2434/2000 of 17 October 2000 establishing certain concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural products and providing for an adjustment, as an autonomous and transitional measure, of certain agricultural concessions provided for in the Europe Agreement with the Slovak Republic(10), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2435/2000 of 17 October 2000 establishing certain concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural products and providing for an adjustment, as an autonomous and transitional measure, of certain agricultural concessions provided for in the Europe Agreement with Romania(11), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2290/2000 of 9 October 2000 establishing certain concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural products and providing for an adjustment, as an autonomous and transitional measure, of certain agricultural concessions provided for in the Europe Agreement with the Republic of Bulgaria(12), and in particular Article 1(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Annex A of Regulation (EC) No 1727/2000 lays down the quantities of certain agricultural products that may be imported from Hungary with a total exemption from customs duty subject to tariff quotas, ceilings or reference quantities from 1 July 2000.
(2) Annex A of Council Regulation (EC) No 2433/2000 lays down the quantities of certain agricultural products that may be imported from the Czech Republic with a total exemption from customs duty subject to tariff quotas, ceilings or reference quantities from 1 July 2000.
(3) Annex A of Council Regulation (EC) No 2434/2000 lays down the quantities of certain agricultural products that may be imported from the Slovak Republic with a total exemption from customs duty subject to tariff quotas, ceilings or reference quantities from 1 July 2000.
(4) Annex A of Council Regulation (EC) No 2435/2000 lays down the quantities of certain agricultural products that may be imported from Romania with a total exemption from customs duty subject to tariff quotas, ceilings or reference quantities from 1 July 2000.
(5) Annex A of Council Regulation (EC) No 2290/2000 lays down the quantities of certain agricultural products that may be imported from the Republic of Bulgaria with a total exemption from customs duty subject to tariff quotas, ceilings or reference quantities from 1 July 2000.
(6) As the imports are managed on a calendar year basis, the quantities foreseen for 2000 are the sum of half of the quantity for the period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000 and half of the quantity for the period 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001.
(7) Accordingly it is necessary to amend Commission Regulation (EC) No 2709/1999 of 17 December 1999 establishing Community tariff quotas for 2000 for sheep, goats, sheepmeat and goatmeat falling within CN codes 0104 10 30, 0104 10 80, 0104 20 10, 0104 20 90 and 0204 and derogating from Regulation (EC) No 1439/95 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 as regards the import and export of products in the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector(13) and to amend Commission Regulation (EC) No 1439/95(14), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2709/1999(15), in order to take account of these concessions.
(8) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for sheepmeat and goatmeat,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1439/95 is replaced by the following:
"1. Licence applications and licences shall bear in Box 8 the name of the country of origin. In the case of products falling within CN codes 0104 10 30, 0104 10 80 and 0104 20 90, and for Poland CN code 0104 20 10, licence applications and licences shall bear in Boxes 17 and 18 particulars of the net mass and where appropriate the number of animals to be imported.
A licence shall make it compulsory to import the products from the country indicated."
Article 2
Regulation (EC) No 2709/1999 is amended as follows:
1. The text of Article 2 is replaced by the following:
"Article 2
The customs duties applicable to imports into the Community of sheep, goats, sheepmeat and goatmeat falling within CN codes 0104 10 30, 0104 10 80, 0104 20 90 and 0204 originating in the countries indicated in the Annexes and of live pure-bred breeding goats falling within CN code 0104 20 10 for Poland, shall be suspended or reduced during the periods, at the levels and within the limits of the tariff quotas laid down in this Regulation."
2. Article 3(2) is replaced by the following:
"2. The quantities of live animals and meat expressed as carcass-weight equivalent, falling within CN codes 0104 10 30, 0104 10 80, 0104 20 90 and 0204 and, in addition, for Poland, falling within CN code 0104 20 10, for which the customs duty, applicable to imports originating in specific supplying countries, is reduced to zero for the period between 1 January and 31 December 2000, shall be those laid down in Annex II."
3. Article 6(1) is replaced by the following:
"1. Title II A shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the import of products falling within CN code 0104 20 10 for Poland."
4. Article 6(2) is deleted.
5. Annex II is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 1 July 2000.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 17 November 2000.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1397/78 of 20 June 1978 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1358/77 laying down general rules for offsetting storage costs for sugar
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3330/74 of 19 December 1974 on the common organization of the market in sugar (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1396/78 (2), and in particular Article 8 (3) (a) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 3330/74 which defines the basic provisions governing the system for offsetting storage costs in the sugar sector extends the application of that system to sucrose syrups produced in the Community after crystallization of sugar and to syrups derived from preferential sugar ; whereas therefore it appears necessary to amend Council Regulation (EEC) No 1358/77 of 20 June 1977 laying down general rules for offsetting storage costs for sugar and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 750/68 (3),
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 1358/77 is amended as follows: 1. In Article 2 (1) the words "at the beginning of the period referred to in Article 4 (2)" are deleted.
2. The following is added at the end of the second indent of Article 3 (1):
"and the syrups referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 8 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3330/74".
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 July 1978.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 20 June 1978.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2951/76 of 3 December 1976 amending for the second time Regulation (EEC) No 2115/76 laying down general rules for the import of wines, grape juice and grape must
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 816/70 of 28 April 1970 laying down additional provisions for the common organization of the market in wine (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1167/76 (2), and in particular Article 28 (4) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1848/76 of 27 July 1976 laying down general rules for the import of wines, grape juice and grape must (3), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2115/76 of 20 August 1976 laying down general rules for the import of wines, grape juice and grape must (4), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2417/76 (5), provides that certain wines dispatched before 1 December 1976 may be accompanied by V.I documents complying with the models used up to 1 September 1976 ; whereas large stocks of documents still exist in non-member countries and experience has shown that the availability in the non-member countries concerned of the V.I documents provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 2115/76 cannot be guaranteed by 1 December 1976 ; whereas this date should therefore be amended to 1 July 1977;
Whereas as part of the policy to simplify the agricultural legislation it seems advisable to exempt, for a transitional period, certain liqueur wines for which a comparable document is already required under Community rules;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 2115/76 is amended as follows: 1. In the second paragraph of Article 1, the date "1 December 1976" is replaced by "1 July 1977".
2. The following subparagraph is added to Article 9 (2):
"(f) imported liqueur wines covered by Regulation (EEC) No 1120/75 of 17 April 1975 laying down conditions for the entry of port, Madeira, sherry, Setubal muscatel and Tokay (Aszu and Szamorodni) wines falling within subheadings 22.05 C III a) 1 and b) 1 and 2 and 22.05 C IV a) 1 and b) 1 and 2 of the Common Customs Tariff (1), Boberg wines for which a certificate of designation of origin is produced, and Samos muscat wines for which a certificate of origin is produced."
3. A footnote as follows is inserted in respect of the new provision set out in the preceding paragraph:
"(1) OJ No L 111, 30.4.1975, p. 19."
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 December 1976.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION
of 17 February 2005
authorising the United Kingdom to apply an exemption from climate change levy for low-value solid fuel in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC
(2005/153/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1), and in particular Article 19(1) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas:
(1)
By letter of 18 June 2004, the authorities of the United Kingdom applied to the Commission for a derogation allowing them to continue to apply an exemption from climate change levy (CCL) for low-value solid fuel in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC.
(2)
The United Kingdom CCL is designed to encourage energy efficiency and low carbon technologies in the non-domestic sector. It applies to gas, coal, electricity and liquefied petroleum gas used for heating by business and the public sector.
(3)
Exemptions from the CCL were introduced in 2001 to encourage good environmental practice. Solid fuels with a value of less than GBP 15 per tonne, such as the mixed sweepings and debris left from coal and coke mining, have been exempted from the levy.
(4)
With the entry into force of Directive 2003/96/EC, Member States which did not tax these fuels have to introduce such taxes.
(5)
A tax exemption would support the use of low-value solid fuel for energy production instead of landfilling it. While energy use is preferable to landfilling from an environmental policy point of view, the polluter-pays principle would lead to the application of a lower rate of tax to such low-value solid fuel, in connection with its energy content. Given the varied quality and energy content of the material and the consequent difficulties to establish an exact tax rate as well as the small amounts concerned, a complete exemption could be acceptable as a temporary measure. The exemption should therefore be time-limited.
(6)
The annual cost to the UK Exchequer of the current relief across the whole sector amounts to approximately GBP 100 000. Insofar as the tax exemption constitutes State aid, the normal rules apply. It appears that the relief is covered by Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (2). Nevertheless, if the benefit to any single undertaking exceeds the ceiling laid down in that Regulation, it should be notified to the Commission in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (3).
(7)
The Commission regularly reviews reductions and exemptions to check that they do not distort competition or hinder the operation of the internal market and are not incompatible with Community policy on protection of the environment, energy and transport,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The United Kingdom is hereby authorised to apply an exemption from excise duties in favour of low-value solid fuel of less than GBP 15 per tonne.
Article 2
This Decision shall expire on 31 December 2009.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Done at Brussels, 17 February 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 30 May 2005
amending Decisions 2004/696/EC and 2004/863/EC on the Community's financial contribution to the TSE eradication and monitoring programmes for 2005
(notified under document number C(2005) 1550)
(2005/413/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 24(5) and (6) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Decision 2004/696/EC of 14 October 2004 on the list of programmes for the eradication and the monitoring of certain TSEs qualifying for a financial contribution from the Community in 2005 (2) sets out the list of such programmes, as well as the proposed rate and amount of the contribution for each programme.
(2)
Commission Decision 2004/863/EC of 30 November 2004 approving the TSE eradication and monitoring programmes of certain Member States for 2005 and fixing the level of the Community’s financial contribution (3).
(3)
On 28 January 2005, a Community expert panel, chaired by the Community Reference laboratory for TSEs (CRL), confirmed the detection of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in a goat slaughtered in France. It was the first case of BSE in a small ruminant under natural conditions.
(4)
In its statement of 28 January 2005, the Scientific Panel on Biological Hazards of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) stressed that the significance of that single case of BSE infection in a goat in France is yet to be assessed. In order to do so, the EFSA indicated that the results of an increased monitoring of TSEs in goats are essential.
(5)
In response to that statement, Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (4), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2005 (5), introduced a new programme for the monitoring of TSE in caprine animals starting from 11 February 2005. Under that new monitoring programme, the numbers of healthy slaughter and dead-on-farm caprine animals to be tested have been substantially increased.
(6)
Due to the particularities of the goat meat sector, the limited value of goats above 18 months of age for slaughter purposes, and in the light of the importance of an effective implementation of the increased monitoring to assess the prevalence of BSE in caprine animals, it is appropriate to increase the amount per test to be reimbursed to the Member States by the Community up to a maximum amount of EUR 30 per rapid test performed in caprine animals.
(7)
In addition, Regulation (EC) 999/2001, as amended Commission Regulation (EC) No 36/2005 (6) sets out the compulsory systematic discriminatory testing to differentiate BSE from scrapie in all TSE cases detected in ovine and caprine animals to apply from 14 January 2005. That measure should be considered as eligible for the Community’s financial contribution to the TSE monitoring and eradication programmes in the Member States.
(8)
In the light of the importance to assess the prevalence of BSE in small ruminants for the achievement of Community objectives in the field of public and animal health it is appropriate to reimburse 100% of the costs paid by the Member States for the primary molecular tests to differentiate BSE from scrapie.
(9)
Therefore, it is necessary to revise the maximum amount of financial participation by the Community for each programme, as set out in Decisions 2004/696/EC and 2004/863/EC.
(10)
Decision 2004/863/EC sets out the conditions for the Community’s financial contribution, including the forwarding of a monthly report to the Commission by the concerned Member States on the progress of the TSE monitoring programmes and the cost paid. The Annex to that sets out the costs to be paid. That Annex should be amended to take account of amendments to Annexes III and X to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 36/2005 and No 214/2005.
(11)
Decisions 2004/696/EC and 2004/863/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.
(12)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Annex I to Decision 2004/696/EC is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Decision.
Article 2
Decision 2004/863/EC is amended as follows:
1.
in Article 1(2), ‘EUR 3 550 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 3 586 000’;
2.
in Article 2(2), ‘EUR 1 700 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 1 736 000’;
3.
in Article 3(2), ‘EUR 2 375 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 2 426 000’;
4.
in Article 4(2), ‘EUR 15 020 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 15 170 000’;
5.
in Article 5(2), ‘EUR 290 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 294 000’;
6.
in Article 6(2), ‘EUR 585 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 1 487 000’;
7.
in Article 7(2), ‘EUR 4 780 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 8 846 000’;
8.
in Article 8(2), ‘EUR 24 045 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 29 755 000’;
9.
in Article 9(2), ‘EUR 6 170 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 6 172 000’;
10.
in Article 10(2), ‘EUR 6 660 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 8 677 000’;
11.
in Article 11(2), ‘EUR 85 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 353 000’;
12.
in Article 12(2), ‘EUR 835 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 836 000’;
13.
in Article 13(2), ‘EUR 145 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 155 000’;
14.
in Article 14(2), ‘EUR 1 085 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 1 184 000’;
15.
in Article 15(2), ‘EUR 35 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 36 000’;
16.
in Article 16(2), ‘EUR 4 270 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 4 510 000’;
17.
in Article 17(2), ‘EUR 1 920 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 2 076 000’;
18.
in Article 18(2), ‘EUR 1 135 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 1 480 000’;
19.
in Article 19(2), ‘EUR 435 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 444 000’;
20.
in Article 20(2), ‘EUR 1 160 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 1 170 000’;
21.
in Article 21(2), ‘EUR 305 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 313 000’;
22.
in Article 22(2), ‘EUR 5 570 000’ is replaced by ‘EUR 5 690 000’;
23.
Article 23 is replaced by the following:
‘Article 23
The Community's financial contribution for the TSE monitoring programmes referred to in Articles 1 to 22 shall be at the rate of 100 % of the cost paid, value added tax excluded, by the concerned Member States for the tests performed, subject to:
(a)
a maximum amount of EUR 8 per test, for tests carried out from 1 January to 31 December 2005 in bovine and ovine animals referred to in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001;
(b)
a maximum amount of EUR 30 per test, for tests carried out from 1 January to 31 December 2005 in caprine animals referred to in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001;
(c)
a maximum amount of EUR 145 per test, for primary molecular discriminatory tests carried out from 14 January 2005 to 31 December 2005 as referred to in Annex X, Chapter C, point 3.2(c)(i) to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.’;
24.
the Annex is replaced by Annex II to this Decision.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 May 2005.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Council Decision
of 19 January 2001
appointing an Italian member of the Economic and Social Committee
(2001/72/EC, Euratom)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 258 thereof,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 166 thereof,
Having regard to the Council Decision of 15 September 1998 appointing the members of the Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 1998 to 20 September 2002(1),
Whereas a member's seat on that Committee has fallen vacant following the resignation of Mr Flavio PASOTTI, of which the Council was informed on 23 June 2000;
Having regard to the nominations submitted by the Italian Government,
Having obtained the opinion of the Commission of the European Communities,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
Mr Mario MINOJA is hereby appointed a member of the Economic and Social Committee in place of Mr Flavio PASOTTI for the remainder of his term of office, which runs until 20 September 2002.
Done at Brussels, 19 January 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
Council Directive
of 21 December 1978
prohibiting the placing on the market and use of plant protection products containing certain active substances
(79/117/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 100 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission [1],
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament [2],
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee [3],
Whereas plant production has a very important place in the European Economic Community;
Whereas the yield from that production is continually being affected by harmful organisms and weeds; whereas it is absolutely essential to protect plants against these risks to prevent a fall in yields and thereby help to ensure the availability of supplies;
Whereas one of the most important methods of protecting plants and plant products and of increasing the productivity of agriculture is to use plant protection products;
Whereas the effects of these plant protection products may not be wholly favourable for plant production; whereas their use may involve risks for man and the environment since, in the main, they are toxic substances or preparations having dangerous effects;
Whereas, in the case of certain plant protection products, these risks are so great that their use can no longer be wholly or partially tolerated;
Whereas the Member States have therefore not only controlled the marketing of plant protection products but have also introduced, for certain plant protection products, restrictions or prohibitions of use covering also their marketing;
Whereas these provisions differ in the various Member States and result in obstacles to trade which directly affect the establishment and functioning of the common market;
Whereas it is therefore desirable to eliminate these obstacles by aligning the relevant provisions laid down in the Member States by law, regulation or administrative provision;
Whereas it therefore seems justified, as a basic principle, to introduce prohibitions of the use of all plant protection products containing active substances which, even when properly used for the purpose intended, give rise or are likely to give rise to harmful effects on human or animal health or to unreasonable adverse effects on the environment;
Whereas for some of these plant protection products national derogations may, however, be permitted to a limited extent for those uses where, for ecological reasons, a particular need exists and where the risk is less than in the case of their other previously sanctioned uses;
Whereas even these derogations should be phased out as soon as less hazardous treatments become available;
Whereas, on the other hand, it is necessary to grant Member States a limited right to suspend temporarily, on their own authority, prohibitions of use in the event of an unforeseeable danger threatening plant production which cannot be contained by other means;
Whereas the Directive excludes plant protection products intended for research and analytical purposes;
Whereas, moreover, it is not appropriate to apply Community provisions to plant protection products intended for export to third countries, since in general these countries have their own regulations;
Whereas the implementation of this Directive and the adaptation of its Annex to the development of technical and scientific knowledge necessitates a close cooperation between the Commission and Member States; whereas the procedure - for the present, limited in time - of the Standing Committee on Plant Health and involvement of the Scientific Committee for Pesticides offers a suitable basis for this,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
This Directive concerns prohibition of the placing on the market and use of plant protection products containing certain active substances.
Article 2
For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:
1. Plant protection products
Active substances and preparations containing one or more active substances intended:
1.1. to destroy organisms harmful to plants or plant products or to protect them from such organisms, in so far as such substances or preparations are not defined in the following provisions;
1.2. to, influence the life processes of plants, other than as a nutrient;
1.3. to preserve plant products, in so far as such substances or products are not subject to special Council or Commission provisions on preservatives;
1.4. to destroy undesired plants; or
1.5. to destroy parts of plants or to prevent undesired growth of plants.
2. Substances
Chemical elements and their compounds, as they occur naturally or by manufacture.
3. Preparations
Mixtures or solutions composed of two or more substances, or of micro-organisms or viruses used as plant protection products.
4. Active substances
Substances, micro-organisms and viruses, having general or specific action:
4.1. against harmful organisms; or
4.2. on plants, parts of plants or plant products.
5. Plants
Live plants and live parts of plants, including fresh fruit and seed.
6. Plant products
Products, in the unprocessed state or having undergone only simple preparation such as milling, drying or pressing, derived from plants, but excluding plants themselves as defined in point 5.
7. Harmful organisms
Pests of plants or of plant products, which belong to the animal or plant kingdoms, or which are viruses, mycoplasmas or other pathogens.
8. Animals
Animals belonging to species normally nourished and kept or consumed by man.
9. Placing on the market
Any transfer of possession, whether in return for payment or free of charge.
10. Environment
The relationship of human beings with water, air, land and all biological forms.
Article 3
Member States shall ensure that plant protection products containing one or more of the active substances listed in the Annex may be neither placed on the market nor used.
The first paragraph shall not apply to plant protection products which contain negligible impurities because of the nature of their manufacturing process, provided that they have no harmful effects on human beings, animals or the environment.
Article 4
1. By way of derogation from Article 3, Member States shall be temporarily authorized to permit the placing on the market or the use within their territory of plant protection products containing certain of the active substances listed in the first column of the Annex in the cases set out in the second column.
2. Member States shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of any cases in which paragraph 1 is applied and, if the Commission so requests, shall provide it with details of the extent to which each such active substance is used.
Article 5
The Directive shall not apply to plant protection products intended for:
(a) purposes of research or analysis; or
(b) export to third countries.
Article 6
1. After consultation by the Commission of the Scientific Committee on Pesticides set up under Decision 78/436/EEC [4] the following shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 8:
(a) any amendments necessary within groups A (mercury compounds) and B (persistent organochlorine compounds) of the substances in column 1 of the Annex;
(b) any amendments necessary to column 2 of the Annex. If a derogation is to be cancelled, prior consultation of the Scientific Committee shall not be necessary, provided that all Member States have informed the Commission that they do not intend or no longer intend to avail themselves of that derogation. This information may be supplied to the Standing Committee on Plant Health set up under Decision 76/894/EEC [5].
2. Paragraph 1 shall apply for a period of five years as from 1 January 1981.
The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, may decide to extend the, period of validity of paragraph 1 or to remove any limit on its application.
3. Any amendments to the Annex which are not provided for in paragraph 1 shall be adopted by the Council acting on a proposal from the Commission.
4. The Commission shall examine at least every two years whether and to what extent the second column of the Annex should be amended.
5. All amendments to the Annex shall be made by reason of the development of scientific and technical knowledge.
6. An active substance shall be included in the Annex if, even when properly applied for the purpose intended, its use gives rise or is likely to give rise to:
(a) harmful effects on human or animal health;
(b) unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.
Article 7
1. If it appears necessary, because of an unforeseeable danger threatening plant production which cannot be contained by other means, to use in a Member State a plant protection product containing one or more of the active substances listed in the Annex, the Member State in question may permit the placing on the market and the use of such product for a maximum period of 120 days. It shall immediately inform the other Member States and the Commission of its action.
2. It shall be established without delay in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 8 whether and, if so, under what conditions the action taken by the Member State pursuant to paragraph 1 may be continued or repeated.
Article 8
1. Where the procedure laid down in this Article is to be followed, matters shall be referred without delay by the chairman, either on his own initiative or at the request of a Member State, to the Standing Committee on Plant Health, hereinafter called "the Committee".
2. Within the Committee the votes of the Member States shall be weighted as provided for in Article 148 (2) of the Treaty. The chairman shall not vote.
3. The Commission representative shall submit a draft of the measures to be adopted. The Committee shall deliver its opinion on such measures within a time limit set by the chairman having regard to the urgency of the matter. Opinions shall be adopted by a majority of 41 votes.
4. The Commission shall adopt the measures and implement them forthwith where they are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee. Where they are not in accordance with the opinion of the Committee, or if no opinion is delivered, the Commission shall without delay propose to the Council the measures to be adopted. The Council shall adopt the measures by a qualified majority.
If the Council has not adopted any measures within three months of the proposal being submitted to it, the Commission shall adopt the proposed measures and implement them forthwith.
Article 9
The Member States shall, not later than 1 January 1981, bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.
Article 10
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 December 1978.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 27 December 2004
setting out the arrangements for Community comparative trials and tests on propagating material of ornamental plants of certain species under Council Directive 98/56/EC for the years 2005 and 2006
(notified under document number C(2004) 5288)
(2005/2/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 98/56/EC of 20 July 1998 on the marketing of propagating material of ornamental plants (1), and in particular Article 14(4), (5) and (6) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Directive 98/56/EC provides for the necessary arrangements to be made by the Commission for Community comparative trials and tests of propagating material.
(2)
The technical arrangements for the carrying out of the trials and tests have been made within the Standing Committee for Propagating Material of Ornamental Plants.
(3)
A call for projects for the carrying out of those trials and tests was published on 21 June 2004 on the Internet site of the Community institutions (2).
(4)
The proposals have been assessed according to the selection and awarding criteria set out in the call for projects. The projects, the bodies responsible for the carrying out of tests and trials and the eligible costs as well as the maximum Community financial contribution corresponding to 80 % of the eligible costs should be established.
(5)
Community comparative trials and tests should be carried out in the years 2005 and 2006 on propagating material harvested in 2004, and the details of such trials and tests, the eligible costs as well as the maximum Community financial contribution should also be set out yearly by an agreement signed by the authorising officer of the Commission and the body responsible for carrying out of trials.
(6)
For Community comparative trials and tests lasting more than one year, the parts of the trials and tests following the first year should be authorised by the Commission without further reference to the Standing Committee on Propagating Material of Ornamental Plants, on condition that the necessary appropriations are available.
(7)
Adequate representation of the samples included in the trials and tests should be ensured, at least for certain selected plants.
(8)
Member States should participate in the Community comparative trials and tests, in so far as propagating material of the plants concerned are usually reproduced or marketed in their territories, in order to ensure that proper conclusions may be drawn there from.
(9)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee for Propagating Material of Ornamental Plants,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
Community comparative trials and tests shall be carried out in the years 2005 and 2006 on propagating material of the plants listed in the Annex.
The eligible costs as well as the maximum Community financial contribution for the trials and tests for 2005 shall be as set out in the Annex.
The details of the trials and tests are set out in the Annex.
Article 2
In so far as propagating and planting material of the plants listed in the Annex is usually reproduced or marketed in their territories, the Member States shall take samples of this material and make them available to the Commission.
Article 3
Subject to budgetary availability, the Commission may decide to continue the trials and tests set out in the Annex in 2006.
The maximum Community financial contribution corresponding to 80 % of the eligible costs of a trial or test continued on this basis shall not exceed the amount specified in the Annex.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 December 2004.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 18 December 1990 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Argentina on trade in textile products (91/63/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas the Agreement negotiated between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Argentina on trade in textile products initialled in Brussels on 30 September 1986 and applied on a provisional basis by Decision 87/299/EEC (1), as from 1 January 1987, should be approved,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Agreement between the European Economic
Community and the Republic of Argentina on trade in textile products is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.
The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
Article 2
The President of the Council shall give the notification provided for in Article 18 of the Agreement.
Done at Brussels, 18 December 1990.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 19 March 2007
on a survey for chronic wasting disease in cervids
(notified under document number C(2007) 860)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2007/182/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Chronic wasting disease is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) affecting cervids, which is widespread in North America but which has never been reported to date in the Community.
(2)
On 3 June 2004, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published an opinion recommending that a targeted surveillance should be undertaken of cervids in the Community. The aim of such surveillance would be to detect the possible presence of TSEs in cervids. Accordingly, provision should be made for Member States to carry out surveys in line with that opinion.
(3)
Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 lays down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of TSEs in animals. That Regulation, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1923/2006 lays down provision for monitoring programmes for TSEs in cervids. Accordingly, it is now possible to provide for surveys for TSEs in cervids to be carried out by Member States in this Decision.
(4)
Those surveys should include wild and farmed deer species. Since wild deer should primarily be sampled during the hunting season which is of limited duration, in order to allow Member States sufficient time to achieve target numbers of samples, this Decision should therefore apply following the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1923/2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.
(5)
Member States should submit an annual report of the results of those surveys on cervids. The detection of a positive finding of TSE in cervids must be immediately reported to the Commission.
(6)
Member States should ensure that cervids tested for TSEs do not enter the commercial food chain until a negative result has been obtained.
(7)
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
Scope
This Decision lays down rules for a survey to detect the presence of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in animals of the deer family, namely cervids (the survey).
Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Decision the definitions set out in Annex I shall apply.
Article 3
Scope of the survey
1. Member States shall carry out a survey to detect the presence of CWD in cervids in accordance with the minimum requirements in Annex II.
2. Member States shall complete their survey no later than the end of the 2007 hunting season.
Article 4
Measures to be taken by Member States following testing for CWD
Member States shall carry out the measures set out in Annex III following testing for CWD.
Article 5
Reports to be provided to the Commission by the Member States
Member States shall submit to the Commission the following reports:
(a)
a report immediately following the discovery of a positive or inconclusive finding for transmissible spongiform encephalopathy in a cervid;
(b)
an annual report of the results of surveys as set out in Annex IV.
Article 6
Summary of reports by the Commission to the Member States
The Commission shall present to the Member States a summary of the reports provided for in Article 5.
Article 7
Addressees
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 March 2007.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1355/2008
of 18 December 2008
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the ‘basic Regulation’) and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES
(1)
On 20 October 2007 the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Community of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (2). On 4 July 2008, the Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 642/2008 (3) (the ‘provisional Regulation’) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in the PRC.
(2)
The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 6 September 2007 by the Spanish National Federation of Associations of Processed Fruit and Vegetables (FNACV) (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing 100 % of the total Community production of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins etc.). The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the product concerned and of material injury resulting there from, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.
(3)
As set out in recital 12 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007 (IP). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 October 2002 to the end of the investigation period (period considered).
(4)
On 9 November 2007, the Commission made imports of the same product originating in the PRC subject to registration by Regulation (EC) No 1295/2007 (4).
(5)
It is recalled that safeguard measures were in force against the same product until 8 November 2007. The Commission imposed provisional safeguard measures against imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) by Regulation (EC) No 1964/2003 (5). Definitive safeguard measures followed by Regulation (EC) No 658/2004 (the ‘safeguard Regulation’) (6). Both the provisional and definitive safeguard measures consisted of a tariff rate quota i.e. a duty was only due once the volume of duty free imports had been exhausted.
B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE
(6)
Following the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC; several interested parties submitted comments in writing. The parties who so requested were also granted the opportunity to be heard.
(7)
The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings. In particular, the Commission completed the investigation with regard to Community interest aspects. In this respect, verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following unrelated importers in the Community:
-
Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft International (GmbH & Co KG), Hamburg, Germany,
-
Hüpeden & Co (GmbH & Co), Hamburg, Germany,
-
I. Schroeder KG. (GmbH & Co), Hamburg, Germany,
-
Zumdieck GmbH, Paderborn, Germany,
-
Gaston spol. s r.o., Zlin, Czech Republic.
(8)
All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty. They were also granted a period of time within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.
(9)
Some importers proposed a joint meeting of all interested parties, pursuant to Article 6(6) of the basic Regulation; however the request was refused by one of them.
(10)
The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.
C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
(11)
Two unrelated EC importers argued that certain types of mandarins should be excluded from the definition of the product concerned either because of their sweetness level or because of their packing when exported. In this respect, it is noted that these claims were not accompanied with any type of verifiable information and data proving that these types have characteristics that differentiate them from the product concerned. It is also noted that differences in packing cannot be considered as a critical element when defining product concerned, especially when formats of packing were already taken into account when defining the product concerned as set out in recital 16 of the provisional Regulation. These arguments are therefore rejected.
D. SAMPLING
1. Sampling for exporting producers in the PRC
(12)
Two unrelated EC importers disputed that the Chinese exporting producers selected for the sample represented 60 % of the total exports to the Community. Nevertheless, they were not able to provide any verifiable information that could undermine the accuracy of the sampling information submitted by the cooperating Chinese exporting producers and largely confirmed in the course of the further investigation. This argument is therefore rejected.
(13)
Three Chinese cooperating exporting producers submitted representations claimed that their related companies were exporting producers of the product concerned and should therefore be included in the Annex of cooperating exporting producers. These claims were considered warranted and it was decided to revise the relevant Annex accordingly. One unrelated EC importer argued that exports made to the EC through traders should automatically be allowed to benefit from the measures applicable to the Chinese exporting producers. In this respect, it is noted that anti-dumping measures are imposed on products manufactured by exporting producers in the country under investigation that are exported to the EC (irrespective of which company trades them) and not to business entities engaged only in trading activities. The claim was therefore rejected.
E. DUMPING
1. Market economy treatment (MET)
(14)
Following the imposition of provisional measures, no comments were submitted by the Chinese cooperating exporting producer with respect to the MET findings. In the absence of any relevant comments, recitals 29 to 33 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
2. Individual treatment
(15)
In the absence of any relevant comments, recitals 34 to 37 of the provisional Regulation concerning individual treatment are hereby confirmed.
3. Normal value
(16)
It is recalled that the normal value determination was based on the data provided by the Community Industry. This data was verified at the premises of the cooperating Community producers.
(17)
Following the imposition of provisional measures, all three Chinese sampled cooperating exporting producers and two unrelated EC importers questioned the use of Community Industry prices for the calculation of normal value. It was submitted that normal value should have been calculated on the basis of the PRC production costs account taken of any appropriate adjustments relating to the differences between the EC and the PRC markets. In this respect it is noted that the use of information from a non-market economy country and in particular from companies which have not been granted MET would be contrary to the provisions of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation. This argument is therefore rejected. It was also argued that data on prices from all other importing countries or relevant published information could have been used as a reasonable solution account taken of the lack of analogue country cooperation. However, such general information, in contrast to the data used by the Commission, could not have been verified and cross checked with regard to their accuracy in line with the provisions of Article 6(8) of the basic Regulation. This argument is therefore rejected. No other argument was submitted that could cast doubt on the fact that the methodology used by the Commission is in line with the provisions of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation and, in particular, the fact that it constitutes in this particular case the only remaining reasonable basis for calculation of normal value.
(18)
In the absence of any other comments, recitals 38 to 45 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
4. Export price
(19)
Following the imposition of provisional measures, one Chinese sampled cooperating exporting producer submitted that its export price should be adjusted in order to take into account certain cost elements (in particular ocean freight). In this respect it is noted that this issue was dealt with during the on-the-spot verification both with regard to this company as well with regard to the other companies in the sample. On that occasion, each company submitted information with regard to the costs in question. The amount claimed now by the company is considerably higher than the amount originally reported. It is noted that this new claim is based simply on a declaration by a freight forwarder and does not reflect data relating to a real transaction. None of the other sampled exporting producers questioned the figures used with respect to ocean freight. Moreover, given the late submission, this claim can not be verified. In particular, the adjustment requested does not relate to any data already on the file. Following this claim the Commission has nevertheless reviewed the amount of the cost in question account taken of the importance of this particular cost to the EC export transactions reported by the company. As a consequence, the Commission came to the conclusion that it is more appropriate to use the average ocean freight cost verified on-the-spot for all the sampled Chinese companies. Consequently, the company’s export price was adjusted accordingly.
(20)
One other Chinese sampled cooperating exporting producer highlighted two computation errors on the calculation of its export price related to its submitted export listings. The claim was considered warranted and the producer’s relevant export price was revised accordingly.
(21)
In the absence of any other comments in this respect, recital 46 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
5. Comparison
(22)
In the absence of any comments in this respect, recitals 47 and 48 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
6. Dumping margins
(23)
In light of the above, the definitive dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Community frontier price duty unpaid, are the following:
-
Yichang Rosen Foods Co., Ltd, Yichang, Zhejiang 139,4 %,
-
Huangyan No 1 Canned Food Factory, Huangyan, Zhejiang 86,5 %,
-
Zhejiang Xinshiji Foods Co., Ltd, Sanmen, Zhejiang and its related producer Hubei Xinshiji Foods Co., Ltd, Dangyang City, Hubei Province 136,3 %,
-
Cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample 131 %.
All other companies 139,4 %.
F. INJURY
1. Community production and Community industry
(24)
In the absence of substantiated comments, the findings set out in recitals 52 to 54 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
2. Community consumption
(25)
One of the exporting parties argued that there is a discrepancy between the level of the consumption set out in the safeguard Regulation No 658/2004 and the level set in the provisional Regulation. It is underlined that the difference in the level of consumption was basically due to the different product scope in the current investigation and to the different number of Member States in those two investigations. No further and substantiated information was received in this respect. The findings set out in recitals 55 to 57 of the provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed. As a corollary, the subsequent parts of the analysis which draw on consumption are also confirmed in this respect.
3. Imports from the country concerned
(a) Volume and market share of imports of the product concerned
(26)
In respect of the market share some interested parties opposed the Commission statement set out in recital 58 that indicated an increase of the market share of the dumped imports. They argued that contrary to the Commission findings the market share of imports from China decreased. The evaluation of imports from the PRC in volume and market share was verified. As set out in recital 58 of the provisional Regulation there was only one year where the market share of the Chinese imports decreased. For the rest of the period examined the market share of imports from China remained consistently high. Therefore the findings presented at the provisional stage are confirmed.
(27)
Some parties argued that post-IP volumes should also be examined to assess whether Chinese imports are increasing. It is to be noted that trends on imports from China were evaluated for the period 2002/2003 to 2006/2007 and a clear increase was observed. In accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, post-IP events are not taken into account, except in exceptional circumstances. In any event, as stated below in recital 48 the level of imports post-IP was examined and was found to be significant.
(b) Price undercutting
(28)
Three cooperating exporting producers contested the Commission’s findings on undercutting. One contested the methodology used to calculate undercutting and requested an adjustment to reflect costs borne by traders for their indirect sales. Where justified, calculations were adapted. The revised comparison showed that, during the IP, imports of the product concerned were sold in the Community at prices which undercut the Community industry’s prices by a range of 18,4 % to 35,2 % based on the data submitted by the sampled cooperating exporting producers.
4. Situation of the Community industry
(29)
Two importers and the importers’ association contested the duration of the packing season indicated in recital 79 of the provisional Regulation. They argued that the packing season in Spain lasts only three months instead of four to five as indicated in the provisional Regulation. However this allegation is linked to the crop (variable by nature) and to the quantity produced and in any case has no impact on the injury factors as analysed by the Commission services.
(30)
In the absence of any other substantiated information or argument concerning the situation of the Community industry, recitals 63 to 86 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
5. Conclusion on injury
(31)
Following disclosure of the provisional Regulation, some importers and some exporting producers claimed, with reference to recitals 83 to 86 of the provisional Regulation, that data used by the Commission to establish the injury level was neither correct nor objectively evaluated. They argued that almost all injury-related indicators showed positive trends and that therefore no evidence of injury can be found.
(32)
In this regard, it is noted that even if some indicators show small improvements, the situation of the Community industry has to be evaluated as a whole and in consideration of the fact that safeguard measures were in place until the end of the investigation period. This matter was explored at length in recitals 51 to 86 of the provisional Regulation. The deep restructuring process which these measures allowed for, resulting in a large reduction in production and capacity, would have under normal circumstances led to a significant improvement in the Community producers’ overall situation, including production, capacity utilisation, sales, and price/cost differentials. Instead, volume indicators have remained weak, stocks have increased substantially and financial indicators have continued to be in the red - some even worsening.
(33)
On this basis, it is considered that the conclusions regarding the material injury suffered by the Community industry as set out in the provisional Regulation are not altered. In the absence of any other substantiated information or arguments, they are therefore definitively confirmed.
G. CAUSATION
1. Effect of the dumped imports
(34)
Some parties argued that the volume of the Chinese imports had been stable since 1982 and that therefore they could not have caused injury as explained in the provisional Regulation (see recital 58). Indeed, as explained above in recital 26, imports from China during the period examined have increased significantly to the detriment of the EU industry market share. Moreover, the argument refers to the trend in imports that exceed well above the period in question therefore the argument is rejected.
(35)
As mentioned in recital 28 above, it is definitively concluded that during the IP, the prices of imports from the sampled Chinese exporting producers undercut the average Community industry prices by percentages ranging from 18,4 % to 35,2 %. The revision of the undercutting margin leaves unaffected the conclusions on the effect of the dumped imports set out in recitals 100 and 101 of the provisional Regulation.
2. Exchange rate fluctuations
(36)
After the imposition of the provisional duties some importers further argued the negative influence of the exchange rate on the price level. They argued that the exchange rate level is the main factor that caused injury. Nevertheless, the Commission’s assessment refers merely to a difference between price levels with no requirement to analyse the factors affecting the level of those prices. As a consequence a clear causal link between the high dumping level and the injury suffered by the Community industry was found and therefore recital 95 of the provisional Regulation can be confirmed.
3. Supply and price of raw materials
(37)
Some interested parties argued that injury is not caused by dumped imports but rather by the scarce supply of fresh fruit i.e. the raw material for canned mandarins.
(38)
However, official data from the Spanish Ministry for Agriculture confirm that the quantity available for the canning industry is more than sufficient to cover all the production capacity of the Spanish producers.
(39)
Producers compete to a certain extent for fresh fruit with the direct fresh produce consumer market. However, this competition does not break the causal link. A clear, significant reason for the Community industry’s relatively low production, sales and market share is rather to the pressure of the massive imports from China at very low prices. In this situation, and considering that the market price is dictated by the imports covering more than 70 % of the market, which engage in price undercutting, suppression and depression, it would be uneconomic to produce more without reasonable expectations for selling the product at prices allowing for a normal profit. Therefore the Spanish industry could reasonably provide significantly higher quantities under the condition that the market price would not penalise their economic results.
(40)
Another fact confirming this analysis is the consistent existence of a significant amount of stocks by Community producers, underlining that the Community industry’s injurious situation occurred not because of insufficient production, but due to production that cannot be sold due to the pressure of Chinese imports.
(41)
As an agricultural product, the price of the raw material is subject to seasonal fluctuations due to its agricultural nature. Nevertheless, in the five-year period analysed, which included harvests with lower and higher prices, the Commission observes that injury (e.g. in the form of financial losses) occurs irrespectively of these fluctuations and therefore the economic results of the Community industry are not directly correlated to such seasonal fluctuations.
4. Quality differences
(42)
Some parties claimed that the Chinese product was of a higher quality than the Community production. However, any price differences resulting therefrom were not sufficiently substantiated, and there is no evidence that the alleged consumer preference for Chinese products would be so intense as to be the cause of the deteriorated situation for the Community industry. In any case such alleged price differences would favour the Chinese product, increasing the undercutting/underselling level. In the absence of any further new and substantiated information or argument, recital 99 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
5. Cost increases
(43)
Some parties argued that extraordinary cost increases by some producers were at the root of the injury. These allegations were not sufficiently substantiated. The Commission analysis did not detect any such events which could reverse the assessment of causation or affect the calculation of the injury elimination level.
(44)
Some parties submitted comments on the increased costs of production and inability of the Community industry to reduce them. Certain cost items (such as energy) have increased, but their impact is not such as to break the causal link in a context where a very significant amount of dumped Chinese exports are depressing sales and production (thereby increasing the Community industry’s unit costs) and suppressing and depressing Community industry prices.
6. Aid schemes
(45)
It was alleged that the EC aid schemes caused artificial growth of processing in the EC and then encouraged reduced levels of raw material supply for the product concerned. This allegation was of a general nature and was not sufficiently substantiated. In any event, the schemes in question were modified in 1996 when the aid was allowed to the farmers instead than to the processors of the product concerned. The Commission’s analysis has not detected any residual effects during the investigation period which could break the causal link. Regarding supply, reference is made to recitals 40 and 41 above.
7. Conclusion on causation
(46)
In the absence of any further new and substantiated information or arguments, recitals 87 to 101 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
(47)
In the light of the above, the provisional finding of the existence of a causal link between the material injury suffered by the Community industry and the dumped Chinese imports is confirmed.
H. COMMUNITY INTEREST
1. Developments after the investigation period
(48)
As from 9 November 2007 imports from the PRC were subject to registration pursuant to the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1295/2007 of 5 November 2007 making imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (‘Registration Regulation’) (7). This was done with a view to the possible retroactive imposition of anti-dumping duties. Consequently and exceptionally, developments after the IP have also been analysed. Eurostat data confirms that imports from China remain significant and this has been corroborated by certain importers. The volume for the last 10 months after the IP reached a level of 74 000 tonnes at stable low prices.
2. Ability of Community producers to supply the Community market
(49)
A number of parties commented on the low level of the Spanish production, which they claimed is unable to fully supply the community market. While it is correct to state that in the present situation the Community industry does not supply the overall EU market, it should be noted that this fact is linked to the effect of injurious imports, as explained above. In any event, the intended effect of the measures is not to close the Community market to Chinese imports, but to remove the effects of injurious dumping. Given, inter alia, the existence of only two sources of supply of these products, it is considered that in the event definitive measures are imposed, Chinese products would continue to enjoy a significant demand in the Community.
3. Interest of the Community industry and suppliers
(50)
One importers’ association alleged that any anti-dumping measures without any limitation of quantities would not help protect the Spanish industry but would automatically trigger illegal trading activities. This is an argument which rather points to the need for the institutions to ensure proper monitoring of the enforcement of measures, rather than against the benefit measures could have for Community producers.
(51)
Another importer argued that imposition of anti-dumping measures would not improve the situation of the Spanish producers, due to the existence of large stocks built by the importers in the EU, which would be able to satisfy the market demand in the nearest future. The size of the stocks and the phenomenon of stockpiling were supported by another importer. These comments confirm the Commission analysis in the provisional Regulation and elsewhere in this Regulation. However, it is recalled that measures are intended to provide relief from injurious dumping over a period of five years - not only one.
(52)
In the absence of any other new and substantiated information or argument in this respect, the conclusion made in recitals 103 to 106 and 115 of the provisional Regulation regarding the interest of the Community industry are hereby confirmed.
4. Interest of unrelated importers/traders in the Community
(53)
Cooperating importers expressed a general interest in maintaining two sources of supply of the product concerned, namely Spain and China, in order to maintain the security of supply at competitive prices.
(54)
Nevertheless the majority of the importers, should definitive measures be imposed, would prefer a measure which contains also quantitative elements. This is not considered adequate, as explained below in recital 68.
(55)
Data from the sampled cooperating importers were verified and confirmed that the canned mandarins sector represents less than 6 % of their total turnover and that they achieved, on average, a level of profitability exceeding 10 % during both the investigation period and the period of 2004-2008.
(56)
The foregoing underlines that, on balance, the potential impact of measures on importers/traders would not be disproportional to the positive effects emanating therefrom.
5. Interest of users/retailers
(57)
One user, representing less than 1 % of consumption, submitted generic comments on the reduced availability of mandarins in the EU and on the superior quality of the Chinese product. He was invited to further cooperate providing individual data but declined and did not substantiate his allegations. Another retailer, a member of the main importer’s association, generally opposed a price increase. No other submission concerning the interest of users/retailers was received in the course of the investigation. In this situation and in absence of any substantiated comments from users/retailers, the conclusions made in recitals 109 to 112 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
6. Interest of consumers
(58)
Contrary to what was claimed by one importer, the interest of consumers was taken into consideration at the provisional stage. The Commission’s findings were outlined in recitals 113 and 114 of the provisional Regulation. Other parties suggested that the impact on consumers would be significant. However, no information was provided that could cast doubt on the findings in the aforementioned recitals. Even if duties were to lead to an increase in consumer prices, no party has disputed the fact that this product is a very small part of household food expenditure. Therefore in the absence of any comments from consumers and of any further new and substantiated information these recitals are confirmed.
7. Conclusion on Community interest
(59)
The additional analysis above concerning the interests at stake has not altered the provisional conclusions in this respect. Data of the sampled cooperating importers were verified and confirmed that the canned mandarins sector represents for them less than 6 % of their total turnover and that they achieved, in average terms a comfortable result during both the investigation period and the period of 2004-2008 examined, so the impact of the measures on importers will be minimal. It has been also ascertained that the financial impact on the final consumer would be negligible, considering that marginal quantities per capita are bought in the consumer countries. It is considered that the conclusions regarding the Community interest as set out in the provisional Regulation have not changed. In the absence of any other comments, these conclusions set out in the provisional Regulation are therefore definitively confirmed.
I. DEFINITIVE MEASURES
1. Injury elimination level
(60)
One importer claimed that the profit margin at the level 6,8 % used as reference at the provisional stage is overestimated. In this respect it should be noted that the same level was used and accepted for safeguard measures as the actual profit achieved by the Community industry in the period 1998/99 to 2001/02. It refers to profits of the Community producers in a normal trading situation before the increase in imports which led to injury in the industry. The argument is therefore rejected.
(61)
Community producers claimed that provisional duties did not take into account the peculiar situation of the canned mandarins market, where the production is concentrated in only one country and the vast majority of sales and of imports are concentrated in another European country. For that it was requested that final calculations take into account the transport cost from the producer country to the consumer country. The claim was justified and warranted and calculations were adapted accordingly to reflect the concentration of sales in the relevant areas of the Community.
(62)
One party made comments on the undercutting and underselling calculation. Where warranted adjustments were made at definitive stage.
(63)
The resulting injury margins, taking into account, when warranted, the requests from interested parties, expressed as a percentage of the total cif import value of each sampled Chinese exporter were less than dumping margins found, as follows:
-
Yichang Rosen Foods Co., Ltd, Yichang, Zhejiang 100,1 %,
-
Huangyan No 1 Canned Food Factory, Huangyan, Zhejiang 48,4 %,
-
Zhejiang Xinshiji Food Co., Ltd, and related producer Hubei Xinshji Foods Co., Ltd, Sanmen 92,0 %,
-
Cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample 90,6 %.
All other companies 100,1 %.
2. Retroactivity
(64)
As specified in recital 4, on 9 November 2007 the Commission made imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC subject to registration on the basis of a request by the Community industry. This request has been withdrawn and therefore the matter has not been further examined.
3. Definitive measures
(65)
In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation and Community interest, and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, a definitive anti-dumping duty should be imposed at the level of the lowest of the dumping and injury margins found, in accordance with the lesser duty rule. In this case, the duty rate should accordingly be set at the level of the injury found.
(66)
On the basis of the above and in line with the corrigendum published in the Official Journal L 258 (8) the definitive duty should amount as follows:
-
Yichang Rosen Foods Co., Ltd, Yichang, Zhejiang 531,2 EUR/tonne,
-
Huangyan No 1 Canned Food Factory Huangyan, Zhejiang, 361,4 EUR/tonne,
-
Zhejiang Xinshiji Foods Co., Ltd, Sanmen, Zhejiang and its related producer HubeiXinshiji Foods Co., Ltd, Dangyang City, Hubei Province 490,7 EUR/tonne,
-
Cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample 499,6 EUR/tonne.
All other companies 531,2 EUR/tonne.
4. Form of the measures
(67)
A number of parties requested measures which combined price and quantity elements, whereby for an initial import volume no duty or a reduced duty would be paid. In certain cases, this was linked to a license system.
(68)
This option was considered but rejected for, in particular, the following reasons. Anti-dumping duties are imposed because the export price is lower than the normal value. The amounts exported to the Community are relevant for the analysis whether dumped imports cause injury. However, these amounts are, normally, irrelevant for the level of the duty that should be imposed. In other words, if it is found that dumped imports cause injury, the dumping may be offset by a duty which applies as of the first shipment imported after the entry into force of the duty. Finally, to the extent that it would be found that it is in the Community’s interest that during a certain period, products may be imported without imposing anti-dumping duties, Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation allows for suspension under certain conditions.
(69)
Some parties have alleged that any form of measures without a quantitative limitation will lead to duty avoidance. Parties made reference again to the stockpiling which occurred in the wake of the enlargement of the European Union on 1 May 2004. The Commission services’ analysis has confirmed that this was a clear attempt to avoid the duties. Given these statements and the facts described in the provisional Regulation in recitals 123 and 125, the Commission will monitor developments in order to take the necessary actions to ensure proper enforcement of measures.
(70)
Other parties have argued that measures should exclude volumes already subject to existing sales contracts. This would in practice amount to an exemption of duties which would undermine the remedial effect of measures, and is therefore rejected. Reference is also made to recitals 51 and 52 above.
(71)
The provisional Regulation imposed an anti-dumping duty in the form of a specific duty for each company resulting from the application of the injury elimination margin to the export prices used in the calculation of the dumping during the IP. This methodology is confirmed at the level of definitive measures.
5. Undertakings
(72)
At a late stage in the investigation several exporting producers in the PRC offered price undertakings. These were not considered to be acceptable given the significant price volatility of this product, the risk of duty avoidance and circumvention for this product (see recitals 124 and 125 of the provisional Regulation), and the fact that, no guarantees were contained in the offers on the part of the Chinese authorities to allow for adequate monitoring in a context of companies not having been granted market economy treatment.
J. DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE PROVISIONAL DUTY
(73)
In view of the magnitude of the dumping margin found and given the level of the injury caused to the Community industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty imposed by the provisional Regulation should be definitively collected to the extent of the amount of provisional duties imposed. As for the exporting producers for whom the definitive duty is slightly higher than the provisional duty, amounts provisionally secured should be collected at the level determined in the provisional Regulation, in accordance with Article 10(3) of the basic Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of prepared or preserved mandarins (including tangerines and satsumas), clementines, wilkings and other similar citrus hybrids, not containing added spirit, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, and as defined under CN heading 2008, originating in the People’s Republic of China, falling within CN codes 2008 30 55, 2008 30 75 and ex 2008 30 90 (TARIC codes 2008309061, 2008309063, 2008309065, 2008309067, 2008309069).
2. The amount of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable for products described in paragraph 1 produced by the companies below shall be as follows:
Company
EUR/tonne
net product weight
TARIC additional code
Yichang Rosen Foods Co., Ltd, Yichang, Zhejiang
531,2
A886
Huangyan No 1 Canned Food Factory, Huangyan, Zhejiang
361,4
A887
Zhejiang Xinshiji Foods Co., Ltd, Sanmen, Zhejiang and its related producer Hubei Xinshiji Foods Co., Ltd, Dangyang City, Hubei Province
490,7
A888
Cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample as set out in the Annex
499,6
A889
All other companies
531,2
A999
Article 2
1. In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (9) the amount of anti-dumping duty, calculated on the basis of Article 1 above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable.
2. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
Article 3
1. Amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 642/2008 shall be definitively collected at the rate of the provisional duty.
2. For the cooperating exporting producers that were erroneously not listed under the Annex of cooperating exporting producers to Regulation (EC) No 642/2008, namely Ningbo Pointer Canned Foods Co., Ltd, Xiangshan, Ningbo, Ninghai Dongda Foodstuff Co., Ltd, Ningbo, Zhejiang and Toyoshima Share Yidu Foods Co., Ltd, Yidu, Hubei, the amounts secured in excess of the provisional duty applicable to cooperating producers not included to the sample shall be released.
Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 December 2008.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION
of 22 December 2004
appointing a Greek member of the Economic and Social Committee
(2005/21/EC, Euratom)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 259 thereof,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 167 thereof,
Having regard to the Council Decision 2002/758/EC, Euratom of 17 September 2002 appointing the members of the Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2002 to 20 September 2006 (1),
Having regard to the nomination submitted by the Greek Government,
Having obtained the opinion of the Commission of the European Union,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
Mr Konstantinos POUPAKIS is hereby appointed a member of the Economic and Social Committee in place of Mr Ioannis MANOLIS for the remainder of the latter's term of office, which runs until 20 September 2006.
Done at Brussels, 22 December 2004.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 3 May 1990
amending Commission Decision 89/288/EEC establishing an initial list of declining industrial areas concerned by Objective 2 as defined by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88
(90/400/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (1), and in particular Article 9 (3) thereof,
Whereas, by Decision 89/288/EEC (2) adopted pursuant to Article 9 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88, the Commission adopted an initial list of declining industrial areas concerned by Objective 2 as defined by the said Regulation;
Whereas Article 9 (1) of the aforementioned Regulation states that the declining industrial areas concerned by Objective 2 are to comprise regions, frontier regions or parts of regions (including employment areas and urban communities);
Whereas Article 9 (2) of the aforementioned Regulation specifies the criteria to be used to define the declining industrial areas concerned by Objective 2;
Whereas Article 9 (4) of the aforementioned Regulation states that in establishing the list the Commission must seek to ensure that assistance is genuinely concentrated on the areas most seriously affected, at the most appropriate geographical level, taking into account the particular situation of the areas concerned;
Whereas on 17 December 1989 the Commission decided to establish a Community initiative concerning the economic conversion of coal-mining areas (hereafter called 'Rechar') within the meaning of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (3) and Article 3 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the European Regional Development Fund (4),
Whereas the Commission has sent the Member States a notice laying down guidelines for operational programmes in the framework of Rechar with they are invited to establish (1),
Whereas certain areas which could be eligible under Rechar fall outside the scope of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF);
Whereas Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 specifies the procedure to be followed in respect of committees to assist the Commission in implementing the Regulation;
Whereas Article 27 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 sets up an Advisory Committee on the Development and Conversion of Regions and states that the said Committee is to deliver an opinion on the list of areas eligible in connection with Objective 2;
Whereas that Committee has given its opinion,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The Annex to Decision 89/288/EEC is hereby amended as follows:
the following areas are added to the initial list of areas eligible under Objective 2:
GERMANY
1.2.3,4 // // // // No (NUTS III) // Level III region // Eligible areas 1.2.3.4 // // // The whole level III region, with the exception of // Only the following areas are eligible within the level III region // // // //
'Areas suffering from decline in vital industrial sectors
1.2.3.4 // // // // // // // // "Gemeinden": // 1 // Recklinghausen // // Datteln // // // // Dorsten // // // // Marl // // // // Oer-Erkenschwick // // // // Waltrop // 2 // Unna // // Kamen // // // // Selm // // // // Werne // 3 // Warendorf // // Ahlen // // // // Drensteinfurt // 4 // Wesel // // Huenxe // // // // Rheinberg // // // // Voerde // 5 // Neunkirchen // // Eppelborn // // // // Illingen // // // // Merchweiler // // // // Schiffweiler // // // // Spiesen-Elversberg // 6 // Saarbruecken // // Grossrosseln // // //
(1) OJ No C 20, 27. 1. 1990, p. 3.
FRANCE
1.2.3,4 // // // // No (NUTS III) // Level III region // Eligible areas 1.2.3.4 // // // The whole level III region, with the exception of // Only the following areas are eligible within the level III region // // // //
'Areas suffering from decline in vital industrial sectors
1.2.3.4 // // // // // // // // "Communes": // 1 // Pas-de-Calais // // Ablain-Saint-Nazaire // // // // Arleux-en-Gohelle // // // // Aumerval // // // // Bailleul-Sir-Berthoult // // // // Brébières // // // // Carency // // // // Corbehem // // // // Dieval // // // // Enquin-les-Mines // // // // Farbus // // // // Fléchin // // // // Floringhem // // // // Fresnoy-en-Gohelle // // // // Izel-lès-Equerchin // // // // Nedon // // // // Nedonchel // // // // Neuville-Saint-Vaast // // // // Neuvireuil // // // // Oppy // // // // Thelus // // // // Willerval // 2 // Moselle // // "Cantons" de Sarreguemines // // // // (ville et campagne)' // // // //
UNITED KINGDOM
1.2.3,4 // // // // No (NUTS III) // Level III region // Eligible areas 1.2.3.4 // // // The whole level III region, with the exception of // Only the following areas are eligible within the level III region // // // //
'Areas suffering from decline in vital industrial sectors
1.2.3.4 // // // // // // // // Administrative area: // 1 // Nottinghamshire // // Ashfield District // 2 // Derbyshire // // Parts of NE Derbyshire District // // // // and of Bolsover District // // // // in Alfreton and Ashfield TTWA // 3 // Warwickshire // // Non objective 2 part of // // // // North Warwickshire // 4 // Lothian // // Midlothian LAD and part of East // // // // Lothian LAD (Wards of East, // // // // Central West and South // // // // Musselburgh, Tranent North, // // // // Tranent Ormiston, Carberry, West // // // // and East Prestonpans and // // // // Cockenzie)' // // // //
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 May 1990.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 9 November 1981 on the implementation of the reform of agricultural structures in France pursuant to Council Directives 72/159/EEC and 75/268/EEC (Only the French text is authentic) (81/932/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 72/159/EEC of 17 April 1972 on the modernization of farms (1), as last amended by Directive 81/528/EEC (2), and in particular Article 18 (3) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 75/268/EEC of 28 April 1975 on mountain and hill farming and farming in certain less-favoured areas (3), as last amended by Directive 80/666/EEC (4), and in particular Article 13 thereof,
Whereas the French Government forwarded, pursuant to Article 17 (4) of Directive 72/159/EEC, the following provisions: - Ministerial Order of 2 February 1981 concerning the application conditions of Decree No 74-129 of 20 February 1974 and a modification of the ceilings for the modernization of farms,
- Ministerial Order of 11 February 1981 concerning the application conditions of Decree No 74-129 of 20 February 1974 and a modification of the amounts of aid granted to certain types of farming groups,
- Decree No 81-168 of 20 February 1981 relating to medium-term loans and special stock-farming loans granted by the agricultural credit banks,
- Ministerial Order of 20 February 1981 concerning medium-term loans and special stock-farming loans granted by the agricultural credit banks,
- Ministerial Order of 5 March 1981 concerning compensatory allowance agreed for sheep farming for certain categories of farmers in the other lessfavoured areas.
Whereas Article 18 (3) of Directive 72/159/EEC and Article 13 of Directive 75/268/EEC requires the Commission to determine whether, having regard to the abovementioned submission, the existing provisions in France for the implementation of Directives 72/159/EEC and 75/268/EEC continue to satisfy the conditions for financial contribution by the Community;
Whereas the abovementioned Decree No 81-168 of 20 February 1981 and the Ministerial Orders of 2, 11 and 20 February and 5 March 1981 meet the requirements of Directives 72/159/EEC and 75/268/EEC;
Whereas the EAGGF Committee has been consulted on the financial aspects;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Agricultural Structure,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Having regard to the provisions set out in the recitals, the existing provisions for the implementation of Directives 72/159/EEC and 75/268/EEC in France continue to satisfy the conditions for financial contribution by the Community to common measures within the meaning of Article 15 of Directive 72/159/EEC and Article 13 of Directive 75/268/EEC.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the French Republic.
Done at Brussels, 9 November 1981.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 421/2008
of 14 May 2008
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (1), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.
(2)
In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 15 May 2008.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 May 2008.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2001
of 4 May 2001
fixing the maximum subsidy on exports of husked long grain rice to Réunion pursuant to the invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2285/2000
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1667/2000(2), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2692/89 of 6 September 1989 laying down detailed rules for exports of rice to Réunion(3) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1453/1999(4), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2285/2000(5) opens an invitation to tender for the subsidy on rice exported to Réunion.
(2) Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2692/89 allows the Commission to fix, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 and on the basis of the tenders submitted, a maximum subsidy.
(3) The criteria laid down in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2692/89 should be taken into account when fixing this maximum subsidy. Successful tenderers shall be those whose bids are at or below the level of the maximum subsidy.
(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
A maximum subsidy on exports to Réunion of husked long grain rice falling within CN code 1006 20 98 is hereby set on the basis of the tenders lodged from 30 April to 3 May 2001 at 330,00 EUR/t pursuant to the invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2285/2000.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 5 May 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 4 May 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 20 February 1978 instituting a consultation procedure and setting up a committee in the field of transport infrastructure (78/174/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 75 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (2),
Whereas the implementation of the common transport policy involves the establishment of Community measures aimed at the coordinated development of links within the Community;
Whereas these measures must be based on information concerning plans and programmes for developing transport infrastructures and also concerning projects of Community interest ; whereas such measures must take into account all the factors relevant to the assessment of infrastructure requirements;
Whereas it is desirable that projects of Community interest should be subject to a consultation procedure;
Whereas a clear definition of "infrastructure plans and programmes" and of "project of Community interest" should be established;
Whereas an organizational framework should be created to guarantee the effectiveness, consistency and continuity of these measures;
Whereas a report should be compiled at regular intervals on the various aspects of these measures and guidelines should be determined for the guidance of the Member States,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
For the purposes of this Decision: 1. plans and programmes for the development of transport infrastructures are defined as any overall framework for major future work in the field of transport infrastructure serving as a guide for action by the Governments of the Member States;
2. a project of Community interest is defined as any major project which is designed to: - create new transport links,
- remove a bottleneck, or
- appreciably increase the capacity of existing transport links,
and which belongs to one of the following categories: (a) projects concerning cross-frontier routes;
(b) projects of a Member State having a significant effect on traffic between Member States or with third countries; (1)OJ No C 183, 1.8.1977, p. 10. (2)OJ No C 56, 5.3.1977, p. 83.
(c) projects affecting a Community policy and in particular the regional policy;
(d) projects which make use of new transport technologies which could be used for long-distance interurban transport.
Article 2
1. The Member States shall notify the Commission of projects of Community interest prior to their implementation, and of the plans and programmes which they have drawn up for developing transport infrastructures.
2. This notification may concern both projects which have been given construction approval by the competent authorities and, if Member States consider it appropriate, draft projects concerning the implementation of which only declarations of intent have been made.
3. Information concerning a project notified at a preliminary preparation stage shall be given in further reports as and when the project progresses.
Article 3
Where it considers such action appropriate, or where requested to do so by a Member State, the Commission shall enter into consultation with the Member States as provided for under Article 5 (1) on a project or projects of Community interest of which it has been notified in accordance with Article 2. It shall inform the Member States of the outcome of the consultations.
Article 4
A Committee on Transport Infrastructures, hereinafter called "the Committee", shall be set up under the auspices of the Commission, consisting of representatives of the Member States and chaired by a Commission representative.
The Commission shall provide the Committee's secretariat and prepare its proceedings.
At the request of a Member State, any information supplied, the Committee's deliberations, and the outcome of the discussions shall be treated as confidential.
Article 5
In order to contribute to the harmonious development of a transport network of interest to the Community the Committee shall undertake the following tasks: 1. it shall provide a forum for the consultation referred to in Article 3 on a project or projects of interest to the Community;
2. at the request of the Commission, it shall organize, taking into account any views in relation to its tasks expressed by other Community bodies: (a) exchanges of information on the notifications of the plans and programmes referred to in Article 2;
(b) examination of any question concerning the development of a transport network of interest to the Community;
3. it shall be consulted on the report referred to in Article 6.
Article 6
Subject to the third subparagraph of Article 4, the Commission shall forward at least every three years to the Council and to the European Parliament a report on the information it has received in accordance with this Decision and on the Committee's activities. Where appropriate, this report shall include observations aimed at informing the Member States of the Community's transport infrastructure requirements.
Article 7
Council Decision 66/161/EEC of 28 February 1966 instituting a procedure for consultation in respect of transport infrastructure investment (1) is hereby repealed.
Article 8
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 February 1978.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1755/2002
of 1 October 2002
on the issuing of system B export licences for fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001 of 8 October 2001 on detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds on fruit and vegetables(1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1176/2002(2), and in particular Article 6(7) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1110/2002(3) fixed the indicative quantities laid down for the issue of export licences in the fruit and vegetable sector other than those requested in the context of food aid.
(2) In the light of information now available to the Commission, the indicative quantities have been exceeded in the case of oranges, table grapes and peaches.
(3) Those overruns are without prejudice to compliance with the limits resulting from the agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty. The rate of refund for all products covered by licences applied for under system B between 1 July and 16 September 2002 should be the indicative rate,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. The percentages for the issuing of system B export licences, as referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001, and applied for between 1 July and 16 September 2002, by which the quantities applied for and the rates of refund applicable must be multiplied, are as fixed in the Annex hereto.
2. Paragraph 1 does not apply to licences applied for in connection with food-aid operations as provided for in Article 10(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 2 October 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 October 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1789/2006
of 5 December 2006
opening and providing for the administration of the tariff quota for the import of bananas falling under CN code 0803 00 19 originating in ACP countries for the period 1 January to 31 December 2007
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 of 29 November 2005 on the tariff rates for bananas (1), and in particular Article 2 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 provides that each year from 1 January, an autonomous tariff quota of 775 000 tonnes net weight subject to a zero-duty rate is to be opened for imports of bananas under CN code 0803 00 19 originating in ACP countries.
(2)
The tariff quota provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 for 2007 should therefore be opened and the provisions for its administration laid down for the period until 31 December 2007.
(3)
As is the case for non preferential imports, a method of administering the tariff quota should be adopted so as to favour international trade and smoother trade flows. The most appropriate method for this purpose would be that using the quota by chronological order of acceptance of the declarations of release for free circulation (the ‘first come, first served’ method). Nevertheless, in order to ensure continuity of trade with ACP countries and, therefore, satisfactory supplies for the Community market while avoiding disturbances in trade flows, Commission Regulation (EC) No 219/2006 (2) reserved, on a transitional basis, part of the tariff quota for operators who supplied the Community with ACP bananas in the framework of the import regime previously in force. Taking into account the transitional nature of that provision, it appears appropriate to progressively eliminate it and hence ensuring for 2007 a substantial increase in the part of the tariff quota managed by the first come, first served method, by increasing the proportion of imports carried out under that system from 60 % to 81 %.
(4)
Provision should therefore be made for a total quantity of 146 848 tonnes of the tariff quota to be reserved for the operators who actually imported bananas originating in ACP countries into the Community during 2006 That proportion of the tariff quota should be administered by means of import licences issued to each operator in proportion to the quantities imported on the basis of licences received by these operators under Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 219/2006.
(5)
In view of the quantities available, a ceiling should be set for the licence application which each operator may lodge for the period until 31 December 2007.
(6)
Access to the rest of the tariff quota should be open to all operators established in the Community on a ‘first come, first served’ basis in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).
(7)
This Regulation should enter into force immediately in order to enable licence applications to be lodged in time.
(8)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Bananas,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1
Subject
The zero-duty tariff quota for the import of bananas falling under CN code 0803 00 19 originating in ACP countries provided for in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 is hereby opened for the period 1 January to 31 December 2007.
Article 2
Available quantities
The quantities available under the tariff quota are set at 775 000 tonnes, of which:
(a)
146 848 tonnes is to be administered in accordance with Chapter II and have the serial number 09.4164.
(b)
628 152 tonnes is to be administered in accordance with Chapter III and have the order numbers: 09.1634, 09.1638, 09.1639, 09.1640, 09.1642, 09.1644.
CHAPTER II
IMPORTS OF THE QUANTITIES PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 2(A)
Article 3
Import licences
1. All imports under the quantity fixed in Article 2(a) shall be subject to the lodging of an import licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.
2. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 (4) shall be applicable, with the exception of Article 8(4) and (5), subject to the provisions of this Regulation.
Article 4
Lodging licence applications
1. Economic operators established in the Community who actually imported bananas originating in ACP countries into the Community in 2006, on the basis of licences issued under Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 219/2006, shall be entitled to lodge import licence applications.
2. The quantities applied for by each operator may not exceed 110 % of the quantity imported on the basis of licences allocated to him under chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 219/2006.
3. Import licence applications must be lodged by each operator on 8 and 9 January 2007 with the competent authorities of the Member State which issued him in 2006 with the import licences for the quantities referred to in paragraph 2.
The competent authorities in each Member State shall be as listed in the Annex. That list shall be amended by the Commission at the request of the Member States concerned.
4. Licence applications shall be accompanied by a copy of the licence(s) used in 2006 to import bananas originating in ACP countries, duly endorsed, and the documents proving the ACP origin of the quantities under those licences, and the proof of lodging of a security in accordance with Title III of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 (5). The security shall be EUR 150 per tonne.
5. Applications not lodged in accordance with this Article shall not be admissible.
6. Box 20 of licence applications and licences shall contain the entry ‘licence under Chapter II of Regulation (EC) No 1789/2006’.
Article 5
Issuing of licences
1. Member States shall notify the Commission not later than 15 January 2007 of the total quantity for which admissible licence applications have been lodged.
2. If the quantities applied for exceed the quantity referred to in Article 2(a) the Commission shall, not later than 18 January 2007, set an allocation coefficient to be applied to each application.
3. The competent authorities shall issue the import licences from 22 January 2007, where appropriate applying the allocation coefficient referred to in paragraph 2.
4. Where, if an allocation coefficient is applied, a licence is issued for a quantity less than that applied for, the security referred to in Article 4(4) shall be released without delay for the quantity not awarded.
Article 6
Period of validity of licences and Member State notifications
1. The import licences issued in accordance with Article 5(3) shall be valid until 31 December 2007.
2. From February 2007 to January 2008 inclusive, Member States shall notify the Commission, not later than the 15th of each month, of the quantities of bananas released into free circulation during the previous month on the basis of licences issued in accordance with Article 5(3).
The information referred to in the first subparagraph shall be sent via by the electronic system indicated by the Commission.
3. Member States shall transmit to the Commission, not later than 26 January 2007, the list of operators operating under this Regulation.
The Commission may communicate these lists to the other Member States.
Article 7
Formalities for release for free circulation
1. The customs offices at which the import declarations are lodged with a view to the release into free circulation of bananas shall:
(a)
keep a copy of each import licence and extract therefrom endorsed on acceptance of a declaration of release into free circulation; and
(b)
forward at the end of each fortnight a second copy of each import licence and extract endorsed to their Member State authorities listed in the Annex.
2. The authorities referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall, at the end of each fortnight, forward a copy of the licences and extracts received to the competent authorities of the Member States listed which issued those documents.
3. Where there is doubt as to the authenticity of the licence, the extract, or any information in or signatures on the documents presented, or as to the identity of the operators completing the formalities for release into free circulation or for the account of whom those formalities are completed, and where irregularities are suspected, the customs offices at which those documents were presented shall immediately inform the competent authorities of their Member State thereof. The latter shall immediately forward that information to the competent authorities of the Member State which issued the documents and to the Commission, for the purposes of a thorough check.
4. On the basis of the information received under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, the Member States' competent authorities listed in the Annex shall carry out the additional checks needed to ensure the proper administration of the tariff quota arrangements, in particular verification of the quantities imported under those arrangements, by means of a precise comparison of the licences and extracts issued with the licences and extracts used. To that end, they shall verify in particular the authenticity and conformity of the documents used and that the documents have been used by operators.
CHAPTER III
IMPORTS OF THE QUANTITIES PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 2(B)
Article 8
Administration
1. The quantity provided for in Article 2(b) shall be divided into six tranches, each of 104 692 tonnes, as follows:
Order number
Quota period
09.1634
1 January to 28 February
09.1638
1 March to 30 April
09.1639
1 May to 30 June
09.1640
1 July to 31 August
09.1642
1 September to 31 October
09.1644
1 November to 31 December
2. The tranches provided for in paragraph 1 shall be administered in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.
CHAPTER IV
FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 9
Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 5 December 2006.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 24 April 1997 on the approval of the single programming document for Community structural assistance in industrial South Wales concerned by Objective 2 in the United Kingdom (Only the English text is authentic) (97/691/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3193/94 (2), and in particular Article 10 (1) last subparagraph thereof,
After consultation of the Advisory Committee on the Development and Conversion of Regions and the Committee pursuant to Article 124 of the Treaty,
Whereas the programming procedure for structural assistance under Objective 2 is defined in Article 9 (6) to 9 (10) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3193/94; whereas however the last subparagraph of Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 foresees that in order to simplify and to speed up programming procedures, Member States may submit in a single programming document the information required for the regional and social conversion plan referred to in Article 9 (8) of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 and the information required at Article 14 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88; whereas Article 10 (1) last subparagraph of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 foresees that in that case the Commission adopt a single decision in a single document covering the points referred to in Article 8 (3) and the assistance from the Funds referred to in the last subparagraph of Article 14 (3);
Whereas the Commission has established, by Decision 96/472/EC (4), the list of declining industrial areas concerned by Objective 2 for the programming period from 1997 to 1999;
Whereas the global maximum allocation foreseen for the assistance of the Structural Funds for the present single programming document is composed of resources coming from the indicative allocation of Structural Fund commitment appropriations for the period 1997 to 1999 under Objective 2 resulting from Commission Decision 96/468/EC (5) and from unused appropriations of ECU 39,62 million of the corresponding single programming document covering the period 1994 to 1996, pursuant to Commission Decision C (96) 3643 of 13 December 1996;
Whereas the United Kingdom Government has submitted to the Commission on 5 August 1996 the single programming document as referred to in Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 for industrial South Wales; whereas this document contains the elements referred to in Article 9 (8) of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 and in Article 14 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88; whereas expenditure under this single programming document is eligible as from that date;
Whereas the single programming document submitted by this Member State includes a description of the conversion priorities selected and the applications for assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) as well as an indication of the planned use of the assistance available from the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the other financial instruments in implementing the single programming document;
Whereas, in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, the Commission is charged with ensuring, within the framework of the partnership, coordination and consistency between assistance from the Funds and assistance provided by the EIB and the other financial instruments;
Whereas the EIB has been involved in the drawing up of the single programming document in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, applicable by analogy in the establishment of the single programming document; whereas it has declared itself prepared to contribute to the implementation of this document in conformity with its statutory provisions; whereas, however, it has not yet been possible to evaluate precisely the amounts of Community loans corresponding to the financial needs;
Whereas Article 2 second subparagraph of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1866/90 of 2 July 1990 on arrangements for using the ecu for the purpose of the budgetary management of the Structural Funds (6), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2745/94 (7), stipulates that in the Commission decisions approving a single programming document, the Community assistance available for the entire period and the annual breakdown thereof shall be set out in ecus at prices for the year in which each decision is taken and shall be subject to indexation; whereas this annual breakdown must be compatible with the progressive increase in the commitment appropriations shown in Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88; whereas indexation is based on a single rate per year, corresponding to the rates applied annually to budget appropriations on the basis of the mechanism for the technical adjustment of the financial perspectives;
Whereas Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the European Regional Development Fund (8), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93 (9), defines the measures for which the ERDF may provide financial support;
Whereas Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4255/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the European Social Fund (10), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2084/93 (11), defines the measures for which the ESF may provide financial support;
Whereas the single programming document has been established in agreement with the Member State concerned through the partnership defined in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88;
Whereas the single programming document satisfies the conditions and includes the information required by Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88;
Whereas the present assistance satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, and so should be implemented by means of an integrated approach involving finance from more than one Fund;
Whereas Article 1 of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (12), as last amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2335/95 (13), states that the legal commitments entered into for measures extending over more than one financial year must contain a time limit for implementation which must be specified to the recipient in due form when the aid is granted;
Whereas it is appropriate to mention that this Decision is ruled by the provisions on the eligibility of expenditure laid down in the Annex to Commission Decision C(97) 1035/7 of 23 April 1997 modifying the decisions approving the Community support frameworks, the single programming documents and the Community initiative programmes in respect of the United Kingdom;
Whereas all the other conditions laid down for the grant of aid from the ERDF and the ESF have been complied with,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The single programming document for Community structural assistance in industrial South Wales concerned by Objective 2 in in the United Kingdom, covering the period 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1999, is hereby approved.
Article 2
The single programming document includes the following essential elements:
(a) a statement of the main priorities for joint action, their specific quantified objectives, an appraisal of their expected impact and their consistency with economic, social and regional policies in the United Kingdom;
the main priorities are:
1. community economic regeneration,
2. investment in the valleys,
3. developing indigenous SME potential,
4. increasing the innovative capacity of SMEs,
5. action for tourism;
(b) the assistance from the Structural Funds as referred to in Article 4;
(c) the detailed provisions for implementing the single programming document comprising:
- the procedures for monitoring and evaluation,
- the provisions on financial implementation,
- the rules for compliance with Community policies;
(d) the procedures for verifying additionality and an initial evaluation of the latter;
(e) the arrangements for associating the environmental authorities with the implementation of the single programming document;
(f) the means available for technical assistance necessary for the preparation, implementation or adaptation of the measures concerned.
Article 3
1. For the purpose of indexation, the annual breakdown of the global maximum allocation foreseen for the assistance from the Structural Funds is as follows:
TABLE
2. To this global maximum allocation is added an amount of ECU 39,62 million not subject to indexation, resulting from unused appropriations of the corresponding single programming document covering the period 1994 to 1996.
Article 4
The assistance from the Structural Funds granted to the single programming document amounts to a maximum of ECU 254,385 million.
The procedure for granting the financial assistance, including the financial contribution from the Funds to the various priorities and measures, is set out in the financing plan and the detailed implementing provisions which form an integral part of the single programming document.
The national financial contribution envisaged, which is approximately ECU 325,6 million for the public sector and ECU 49,4 million for the private sector, may be met in part by Community loans, in particular from the EIB.
Article 5
1. The breakdown among the Structural Funds of the total Community assistance available is as follows:
- ERDF: ECU 200,796 million,
- ESF: ECU 53,589 million.
2. The budgetary commitments for the first instalment are as follows:
- ERDF: ECU 40,159 million,
- ESF: ECU 17,148 million.
Commitments of subsequent instalments will be based on the financing plan for the single programming document and on progress in its implementation.
Article 6
The breakdown among the Structural Funds and the procedure for the grant of the assistance may be altered subsequently, subject to the availability of funds and the budgetary rules, in the light of adjustments decided according to the procedure laid down in Article 25 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88.
Article 7
The Community aid concerns expenditure on operations under the single programming document which, in the Member State concerned, are the subject of legally binding commitments and for which the requisite finance has been specifically allocated no later than 31 December 1999. The final date for taking account of expenditure on these measures is 31 December 2001.
Article 8
The single programming document shall be implemented in accordance with Community law, and in particular Articles 6, 30, 48, 52 and 59 of the Treaty and the Community Directives on the coordination of procedures for the award of contracts.
Article 9
This Decision is ruled by the provisions laid down in the Annex to Decision C(97) 1035/7.
Article 10
This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom.
Done at Brussels, 24 April 1997.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 22 July 1997 concerning the list referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 and in Article 1 (1) (a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 35/97 (97/602/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 of 4 November 1991 prohibiting the use of leghold traps in the Community and the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries which catch them by means of leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet international humane trapping standards (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 3 (1) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 35/97 of 10 January 1997 laying down provisions on the certification of pelts and goods covered by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 (2), and in particular Article 1 (1) (a) thereof, is applicable only with respect to the importation of pelts of animals not born and bred in captivity from countries appearing on the list in the Annex to this Decision;
Whereas the said list has been established on the basis of information requested by the Commission from countries within the known distribution area of the species referred to in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91;
Whereas an International Agreement on Humane Trapping Standards has been sent to the Council for approval; whereas it is appropriate to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and the purpose of the Agreement; whereas the list includes therefore the countries which have initialled the Agreement;
Whereas, inter alia, pending accession to the International Agreement on Humane Trapping Standards by additional third countries or any other situation covered by Article 3 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91, this Decision can be only of a transitional nature; whereas the aforementioned list should be amended immediately according to the new situations, in order not to hinder the trade in furs and fur-related products;
Whereas the Committee referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 and consulted by written procedure on 20 December 1996 has not delivered a favourable opinion on the draft Commission decision identifying the list of authorized countries,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The list of countries which meet at least one of the conditions set out in the first subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 and referred to in Article 1 (1) (a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 35/97 is contained in the Annex to this Decision, together with the species concerned.
Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 July 1997.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1612/98 of 24 July 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 fixing the procedure and conditions for the taking over of cereals by intervention agencies
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 923/96 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1424/98 (4), lays down the conditions for taking over cereals into intervention;
Whereas implementation from the 1993/94 marketing year of the reform of the common agricultural policy in the cereals sector may lead to difficulties for producers of certain cereals in certain areas of the Community; whereas, to lessen the impact of these mechanisms on the income of the said producers, provision should be made for exemptions from certain provisions relating to quality once again in the 1998/99 marketing year, as was done in 1997/98;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The text of Article 2(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 is replaced by the following:
'4. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, and for the 1998/99 marketing year:
- at the request of the Member State, a decision shall be taken in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, to fix the maximum moisture content at 15 % for cereals offered for intervention with the exception of maize and sorghum,
- the reduction provided for in the case of barley of a specific weight less than 64 kg/hl referred to in Annex II, Table III shall not apply.`
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 1 July 1998.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 July 1998.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2087/2002
of 25 November 2002
fixing Community producer and import prices for carnations and roses with a view to the application of the arrangements governing imports of certain floricultural products originating in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87 of 21 December 1987 fixing conditions for the application of preferential customs duties on imports of certain flowers originating in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1300/97(2), and in particular Article 5(2)(a) thereof,
Whereas:
Pursuant to Article 2(2) and Article 3 of abovementioned Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87, Community import and producer prices are fixed each fortnight for uniflorous (bloom) carnations, multiflorous (spray) carnations, large-flowered roses and small-flowered roses and apply for two-weekly periods. Pursuant to Article 1b of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 700/88 of 17 March 1988 laying down detailed rules for the application of the arrangements for the import into the Community of certain floricultural products originating in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2062/97(4), those prices are determined for fortnightly periods on the basis of weighted prices provided by the Member States. Those prices should be fixed immediately so the customs duties applicable can be determined. To that end, provision should be made for this Regulation to enter into force immediately,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The Community producer and import prices for uniflorous (bloom) carnations, multiflorous (spray) carnations, large-flowered roses and small-flowered roses as referred to in Article 1b of Regulation (EEC) No 700/88 for a fortnightly period shall be as set out in the Annex.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 26 November 2002.
It shall apply from 27 November to 10 December 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 November 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 576/2005
of 14 April 2005
fixing the maximum export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 582/2004
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds for skimmed milk powder (2) provides for a permanent tender.
(2)
Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 12 April 2005.
(3)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For the permanent tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 582/2004, for the tendering period ending on 12 April 2005, the maximum amount of refund for the product and destinations referred to in Article 1(1) of that Regulation shall be 31,00 EUR/100 kg.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 15 April 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 April 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1931/2003
of 31 October 2003
fixing the minimum selling prices for butter for the 129th individual invitation to tender under the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2571/97
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1787/2003(2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The intervention agencies are, pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 of 15 December 1997 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 635/2000(4), to sell by invitation to tender certain quantities of butter from intervention stocks that they hold and to grant aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter. Article 18 of that Regulation stipulates that in the light of the tenders received in response to each individual invitation to tender a minimum selling price shall be fixed for butter and maximum aid shall be fixed for cream, butter and concentrated butter. It is further stipulated that the price or aid may vary according to the intended use of the butter, its fat content and the incorporation procedure, and that a decision may also be taken to make no award in response to the tenders submitted. The amount(s) of the processing securities must be fixed accordingly.
(2) The Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The minimum selling prices of butter from intervention stocks and processing securities applying for the 129th individual invitation to tender, under the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2571/97, shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
No award shall be made as regards the sale of concentrated butter from intervention stocks.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 November 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 31 October 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 691/91 of 20 March 1991 on the supply of various consignments of cereals as food aid
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3972/86 of 22 December 1986 on food-aid policy and food-aid management (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1930/90 (2), and in particular Article 6 (1) (c) thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 1420/87 of 21 May 1987 laying down implementing rules for Regulation (EEC) No 3972/86 on food-aid policy and food-aid management (3) lays down the list of countries and organizations eligible for food-aid operations and specifies the general criteria on the transport of food aid beyond the fob stage;
Whereas, following the taking of a number of decisions on the allocation of food aid, the Commission has allocated to certain countries and beneficiary organizations 23 500 tonnes of cereals;
Whereas it is necessary to provide for the carrying-out of this measure in accordance with the rules laid down by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2200/87 of 8 July 1987 laying down general rules for the mobilization in the Community of products to be supplied as Community food aid (4); whereas it is necessary to specify the time limits and conditions of supply and the procedure to be followed to determine the resultant costs,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Cereals shall be mobilized in the Community as Community food aid for supply to the recipients listed in the Annexes in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2200/87 and under the conditions set out in the Annexes. Supplies shall be awarded by the tendering procedure.
The successful tenderer is deemed to have noted and accepted all the general and specific conditions applicable. Any other condition or reservation included in his tender is deemed unwritten.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 March 1991.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 26 July 2000
on the aid scheme implemented by Spain for the purchase of commercial vehicles via the Cooperation Agreement of 26 February 1997 between the Ministry of Industry and Energy and the Official Credit Institute
(notified under document number C(2000) 2465)
(Only the Spanish text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2001/605/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) thereof,
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,
Having given notice to the parties concerned to submit their comments pursuant to the abovementioned Articles(1),
Whereas:
I. PROCEDURE
(1) By letter dated 26 February 1997, registered at the Secretariat-General on 12 March 1997, Spain notified the Commission of the Cooperation Agreement (hereinafter the Agreement) dated 26 February 1997 between the Ministry of Industry and Energy and the Official Credit Institute (Instituto de Crédito Oficial, hereinafter the ICO). The notification concerned a special credit line for the purchase of commercial vehicles and was registered under N 171/97.
(2) However, the notification was submitted to the Commission on the day the Agreement entered into force. Moreover, the Agreement applied retroactively as from 1 January 1997. Consequently, the Commission was only able to examine a measure already in force. Accordingly, the aid scheme in question was deemed unnotified and thus re-registered under NN 115/98.
(3) A request for further information was addressed to Spain on 3 April 1997. By letters of 30 April, 3 June, 3 July, 10 September and 9 October 1997, the Spanish authorities asked the Commission for additional time to forward the information requested. After the final deadline expired on 10 November 1997, no other communication was received from Spain. Consequently, the Commission began a preliminary investigation on the compatibility of the Agreement with the common market on the basis of the information available to it.
(4) By letter dated 20 November 1997, the Commission informed Spain of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty in respect of the aid.
(5) The Commission's decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(2). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the scheme.
(6) The Spanish Government provided the Commission with its comments and observations on the opening of the formal investigation procedure by letter dated 22 February 1999. The Commission has, however, not received any comments from interested third parties.
II. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID SCHEME
(7) The Agreement concluded on 26 February 1997 between the Spanish Ministry of Industry and Energy and the ICO establishes an aid scheme for the purchase of commercial vehicles. The scheme is intended to encourage self-employed individuals and SMEs to replace their older commercial vehicles with new ones. Accordingly, and in line with the earlier Spanish "Plan Renove Industrial" aid scheme, the main purpose of the current scheme is to support the renewal of the commercial vehicle fleet in Spain.
(8) For this purpose, the ICO will open a credit line of ESP 35 billion (EUR 210 million) for the funding of loans for the purchase of new vehicles. The Ministry of Industry and Energy will in turn compensate the ICO, up to a maximum of 4,5 percentage points, for the difference between the interest rate applied to these loans and the rate normally applied for financial transactions. The overall amount of State intervention involved is estimated at ESP 3 billion (EUR 18 million). Under the Agreement, the aid scheme will be implemented by way of mediation contracts between the ICO and public and private financial bodies. The latter will then grant loans to the beneficiaries of the scheme with resources supplied by ICO. In addition, the Agreement allows ICO to enter into agreements with other financial bodies for granting loans on the same conditions as described above, but without providing any resources to the lenders other than compensation for the difference in interest rates. In their letter of 22 January 1999, the Spanish authorities clarified that "other financial bodies" refers to financing arrangements with vehicle makers.
(9) Reimbursement of the principal, payment of interest and guarantees will be negotiated for each loan between the borrowers and the financial body concerned. However, the Agreement itself sets a standard duration for the loans of four years without any grace period and a maximum coverage of 70 % of the eligible costs. In this light, the Agreement estimated the State subsidy for each loan at ESP 85000 (EUR 511) per ESP million lent (EUR 6010).
(10) Beneficiaries of the aid scheme are natural persons registered for Spanish tax on economic activities and companies meeting the Community definition of SMEs which purchase a new commercial vehicle or lease it with the intention to purchase. Potential beneficiaries must in addition present a document issued by the Directorate-General for Traffic certifying that another commercial vehicle, registered at least ten years (seven years for tractor units) before the application for subsidy under the scheme, has been irrevocably withdrawn for scrapping. In addition, the vehicle to be purchased has to replace a vehicle of equal or higher loading capacity.
(11) To this end, the Agreement distinguishes between six categories of vehicles: (A) tractor units and lorries with a maximum authorised weight of over 30 tonnes; (B) lorries with a maximum authorised weight between 12 and 30 tonnes; (C) lorries with a maximum authorised weight between 3,5 and 12 tonnes; (D) car-based vehicles, vans and lorries with a maximum authorised weight of up to 3,5 tonnes; (E) buses and coaches; (F) trailers and semi-trailers. The following table shows the link between vehicles purchased and withdrawn:
TABLE
Related cases
(12) In Commission Decision 98/693/EC of 1 July 1998 concerning the Spanish "Plan Renove Industrial" system of aid for the purchase of commercial vehicles (August 1994 to December 1996)(3), the Commission examined an aid scheme substantially identical to the scheme now under examination. In that Decision, the Commission concluded, inter alia, that aid granted to natural persons or SMEs engaged in a business other than transport on a solely local or regional level for the purchase of Category D commercial vehicles did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty whereas all other aid under the scheme was deemed illegal and incompatible with the common market.
III. COMMENTS FROM SPAIN
(13) Following the Commission's decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty, the Spanish Government, by letter dated 22 January 1999, provided the Commission with its comments and observations. These can be summarised as follows.
(14) The Agreement was notified before it entered into force. Although the Agreement states that it may cover credits granted from 1 January 1997, this possibility was included solely for the formal purpose of the Ministry of Industry and Energy's budget, which must cover the full financial year. No credits were or could have been granted before the Agreement was signed, since the financial mechanism of the scheme is based on the Agreement itself.
(15) The sole purpose of the Agreement is to support the renewal of the commercial vehicle fleet, irrespective of the owner or the use of the vehicle purchased. A fundamental restriction imposed by the Agreement is that the vehicle to be scrapped must have a loading capacity equal to or greater than that of the vehicle purchased. Accordingly, the Agreement can be considered a financial support scheme to renew the commercial vehicle fleet without increasing capacity.
(16) Moreover, it cannot be assumed, as the Commission does, that the beneficiaries will be undertakings providing professional transport services and that the Agreement would therefore only favour certain undertakings. The benefits conferred by the Agreement are open to all European Union citizens who deregister a vehicle. Although the Agreement requires the scrapping of a vehicle registered in Spain, there is no requirement that the vehicle submitted for scrapping be owned by the person purchasing the new vehicle. The scheme is not discriminatory, therefore, as it applies equally to all potential recipients. The Spanish Government thus asserts that the scheme introduced by the Agreement is not aimed at certain undertakings, but is a general measure open to natural persons and SMEs from all sectors.
(17) The Spanish Government further contends that the aid scheme neither distorts competition nor affects trade between Member States to a substantial degree. Around 40 % of the vehicles renewed under the scheme are in the low tonnage range (up to 3,5 tonnes). This category includes vehicles that have no significant economic impact from a transport point of view.
(18) The Spanish Government contests the view that it is only the purchase of Category D vehicles by persons or entities engaged in a business other than transport on a local or regional level that will have little economic significance while all other purchases will have an appreciable effect on competition. If a distinction has to be drawn, it should be between light vehicles and all other vehicles. Under Spanish licensing regulations, all haulage licenses for light vehicles (maximum authorised weight under 6 tonnes, or over 6 tons but with a payload of not more than 3,5 tonnes) are national. Consequently, the Commission's recognition that local own-account services with Category D vehicles are insignificant should be extended, at least, to all light vehicles granted only national licenses. These include all Category D vehicles and some Category C vehicles. In addition, vehicles replaced under the Agreement account for less than 2 % of the Spanish licensed fleet and approximately 0,03 % of the commercial fleet in the 12 Member States. Consequently, subsidised purchases under the scheme have a negligible impact on competition.
(19) The Spanish Government claims that the Community's de minimis rule(4) clearly applies to the Agreement, which means Article 87(1) does not apply. The measures under the Agreement are aimed not at undertakings providing professional transport services on their own account or for hire-or-reward, but at natural persons and SMEs from any sector. Moreover, and as the Commission has recognised, the maximum amount is ESP 85000 per million loaned.
(20) Finally, the Spanish Government claims that the aid in question may qualify for exemption under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, since the measures under the Agreement facilitate commercial vehicle traffic without adversely affecting trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. They encourage investment in new commercial vehicles with the objective of restructuring and modernising the fleet without increasing capacity. Assuming, therefore, that new vehicles are technologically superior to older vehicles in terms of both emission levels and safety, the measures will improve road safety and protect the environment.
IV. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID
Article 87(1)
(21) Article 87(1) of the Treaty stipulates that any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods will, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.
(22) The Commission considers, in the case under examination, that the aid for the purchase of commercial vehicles in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Agreement is granted from State resources since the subsidies come from the budget of the Spanish Ministry of Industry and Energy.
(23) The Spanish Government claims the aid scheme is not covered by Article 87(1) of the Treaty as it is a general measure and not aimed at certain undertakings. This position, however, cannot be accepted. It may be admitted that the aid scheme under examination formally applies regardless of the sector in which the potential recipients operate and that it applies equally to all undertakings or natural persons that can benefit from it. However, it is clear that the scheme applies only to the purchase of certain commercial vehicles identified by the Agreement, i.e. tractor units, lorries with a maximum authorised weight above 3,5 tonnes, car-based vehicles, vans and lorries with an authorised weight below 3,5 tonnes, buses, coaches, trailers and semi-trailers. Taking into account the character of the vehicles that may be subsidised under the Agreement, the Commission finds it reasonable to assume that the potential beneficiaries will de facto be natural persons and undertakings engaged in transport operations, either on own-account or for hire or reward. In any case, the aid scheme will only benefit undertakings or individuals that have one of the abovementioned vehicles.
(24) Moreover, the aid in question takes the form of purchasing aid, which means it will benefit the purchasers of commercial vehicles by lowering the cost of such vehicles. It is intended to benefit natural persons and SMEs, reducing their normal business expenses and thus giving them an advantage over their competitors. The aid therefore strengthens the financial position of recipient undertakings, giving them greater scope for action and a competitive advantage in relation to large companies, which are not eligible for the aid scheme in question. Consequently, the Commission finds that the aid scheme under examination will, in practice, indeed favour certain undertakings.
(25) The liberalisation of road transport(5) has led to intra-Community competition both in international transport and in the cabotage sector. Accordingly, recipients of the aid, whether transport is their main or auxiliary business, are liable to compete with transport companies from other Member States. It is thus reasonable to conclude that granting subsidies for purchasing commercial vehicles under the Agreement affects trade between Member States and distorts or threatens to distort competition between carriers established in Spain and those who operate in Spain but are established in another Member State(6). In any event, the aid scheme distorts or threatens to distort competition because it puts recipients of the subsidy in a privileged position compared with those not eligible for the aid.
(26) The Spanish Government has argued also that the Community's de minimis rule applies to the scheme in question and that, consequently, the scheme falls outside the scope of Article 87(1). This assertion derives from the Spanish argument that the scheme is aimed not at undertakings providing transport services but at natural persons and SMEs from any sector.
(27) Under the de minimis rule, certain amounts provided by Member States are, due to their low thresholds, considered not to threaten to distort competition and trade between Member States to a perceptible degree and, therefore, not to fall within the scope of Article 87(1). However, the transport sector is explicitly excluded from the scope of the de minimis rule, being a sector with a large number of small companies(7) in which even relatively small amounts can have an impact on competition and trade between Member States.
(28) As pointed out in recital 23, the Commission considers that the scheme is de facto aimed at undertakings providing transport services either on own-account or for hire or reward. Accordingly, the Spanish Government's argument that the de minimis rule is applicable to the scheme cannot be accepted.
(29) However, as the Commission found in its Decision 98/693/EC(8), it can be assumed that where the recipient of the aid is engaged in business other than transport services at a solely local or regional level and is subsidised only for purchasing a small commercial vehicle (Category D), typically used for very short journeys in such an environment, such aid does not affect trade between Member States. Such business activities are considered only to affect the undertaking's respective local market. In addition, the effect of such own-account services on the transport service market is negligible because entrusting a transport company with the provision of the service in question is not a viable option in economic terms.
(30) In this respect, Spain claims that, in addition, Category C vehicles (those with a maximum authorised weight under 6 tonnes, or over 6 tonnes but with a payload of not more than 3,5 tonnes), should also fall outside the scope of Article 87 since such vehicles are only granted national licenses under the Spanish licensing system.
(31) The fact that some commercial vehicles are only authorised to operate at national level does not exclude the risk of competition being distorted. Furthermore, due to the liberalisation of access to cabotage, Spanish operators providing only national services are liable to compete with non-resident carriers performing cabotage in Spain, hence affecting trade between Member States. Under these circumstances, the Commission finds it reasonable to exclude such distorting effects only in own-account transport operations on a local or regional level, typically performed by Category D vehicles. The Commission therefore finds no reason, in this respect, to deviate from the conclusions it reached in Decision 98/693/EC.
(32) Accordingly, the Commission considers that aid granted for the purchase of commercial vehicles by self-employed individuals or SMEs in accordance with the Agreement (except for purchases of Category D commercial vehicles by own-account operators providing services only on a local or regional level) constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty. Consequently, the aid is, in principle, incompatible with the common market unless it is considered to qualify for any of the exemptions provided for by the Treaty or by secondary legislation.
Article 87(3)(c)
(33) Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty stipulates that aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas may be deemed compatible with the common market where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. Case-law requires, inter alia, that aid be restricted to those cases where it is necessary to achieve objectives which market forces alone cannot achieve (judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 September 1980 in Case 730/79, Philip Morris Holland BV v Commission(9). Moreover, Article 6 of the Treaty, read in conjunction with Article 3(g), requires that environmental protection requirements be integrated into the Commission's policy on competition, including State aid, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development. Accordingly, competition policy and environment policy are not mutually antagonistic, but ought to complement each other so as to provide a high level of environmental protection.
(34) The Spanish Government contends that the scheme in question encourages investment in new commercial vehicles with the objective of restructuring and modernising the fleet without increasing capacity. Assuming, therefore, that new vehicles are technologically superior to older vehicles in terms of both emission levels and safety, the measures will improve road safety and protect the environment. Consequently, the aid scheme in question will qualify for exemption under Article 87(3)(c).
(35) The Commission acknowledges that financial incentives may help to withdraw from the market commercial vehicles with low technical standards in terms of safety or the environment. However, although the replacement of old vehicles with new ones may to some extent produce environmental and safety benefits, it should be recalled that, to qualify for exemption under Article 87(3)(c) on environmental or safety grounds, aid to purchase vehicles must be strictly confined to the extra investment costs necessary to meet standards higher than those already required by law or to comply with new mandatory environmental standards(10).
(36) In the present case, however, the Agreement contains no provisions to ensure that a higher environmental and safety performance will be attained. On the contrary, the aid system introduced by the Agreement provides a subsidy that is proportional only to the price of the new vehicle and is therefore intended simply to encourage the replacement of older commercial vehicles, without taking into account any environmental or safety objectives.
(37) The fact that the subsidy is available only if a new vehicle of equal or smaller loading capacity is purchased implies that the scheme will not lead to an increase in overall capacity. However, it should be recalled that in a market with overcapacity, as in the road transport sector, aid for the purchase of tonnage is, in principle, contrary to the common interest even if its purpose is only to replace existing tonnage.
(38) In addition, aid intended to relieve an undertaking of expenses it would normally have to bear under normal business conditions for its usual activities is not considered to serve the common interest and does not therefore fall within the scope of Article 87(3)(c)(11). As noted in recital 24, the Commission considers that the aid provided under the current scheme benefits natural persons and SMEs by reducing their normal business expenses.
(39) In view of the above, the Commission finds that the exemption provided for in Article 87(3)(c) cannot be applied in this case. Furthermore, the Spanish authorities have neither argued nor shown that the aid in question qualifies for any of the cited exemptions provided for in the Treaty or in secondary legislation.
(40) The Commission therefore finds that the aid to natural persons and SMEs for the purchase of commercial vehicles, except for the financing of purchases of Category D commercial vehicles by own-account operators providing services only on a local or regional level (which is not an aid within the meaning of Article 87), is incompatible with the common market in accordance with Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Article 88(3)
(41) Article 88(3) of the Treaty requires that the Commission be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. It further stipulates that the Member State concerned must not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) has resulted in a final decision.
(42) The Commission was informed of the current aid scheme on the day it entered into force, namely 26 February 1997. Consequently, the Commission was not given sufficient time to examine the measure in question. It should also be noted that the Spanish authorities have, in breach of Article 88(3) of the Treaty, implemented the scheme without awaiting the relevant Commission decision.
V. CONCLUSION
(43) The Commission finds that Spain has implemented the aid scheme unlawfully, in breach of Article 88(3), and that all aid which is deemed incompatible with the common market and which has been granted under the scheme must, in accordance with Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty(12), be recovered,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Financial aid granted under the Cooperation Agreement of 26 February 1997 to natural persons registered for Spanish tax on economic activities or SMEs engaged in a business other than transport and operating on a solely local or regional level for the purchase of a commercial vehicle covered by Category D in the Agreement does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Article 2
All other financial aid granted under the Cooperation Agreement of 26 February 1997 to natural persons registered for Spanish tax on economic activities or to SMEs is incompatible with the common market.
Article 3
Spain shall confirm to the Commission that no aid has been granted under the scheme in question since its expiry on 31 December 1997 and that the aid measure has ceased to apply.
Article 4
1. Spain shall take all necessary measures to recover from the recipients the aid referred to in Article 2 made available to them unlawfully.
2. Recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law, provided that these allow immediate and effective execution of this Decision. The aid to be recovered shall include interest from the date on which it was at the disposal of the beneficiaries until the date of its recovery. Interest shall be calculated at the reference rate used for calculating the grant-equivalent of regional aid.
Article 5
Spain shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
Article 6
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.
Done at Brussels, 26 July 2000.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1884/86
of 18 June 1986
re-establishing the levying of customs duties applicable to third countries on certain products originating in Yugoslavia
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1), and in particular Protocol 1 thereto,
Having regard to Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3138/85 of 22 October 1985 establishing ceilings and Community supervision for imports of certain goods originating in Yugoslavia (1986) (2),
Whereas Article 1 of the abovementioned Protocol provides that the products listed below, imported under reduced duty rates according to Article 15 of the Cooperation Agreement are subject to the annual ceiling indicated below, above which the customs duties applicable to third countries may be re-established:
(tonnes)
1.2.3 // // // // CCT heading No // Description // Ceiling // // // // 76.03 // Wrought plates, sheets and strip, of aluminium // 2 808 // // //
Whereas imports into the Community of those products, originating in Yugoslavia, have reached that ceiling; whereas the situation on the Community market requires that customs duties applicable to third countries on the products in question be re-established,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
From 22 June to 31 December 1986, the levying of customs duties applicable to third countries shall be re-established on imports into the Community of the following products:
1.2.3 // // // // CCT heading No // Description // Origin // // // // 76.03 // Wrought plates, sheets and strip, of aluminium // Yugoslavia // // //
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 June 1986.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 513/92 of 28 February 1992 re-establishing the levying of customs duties on products falling within CN codes 6401, 6402, 6404 and 6405 90 10, originating in Thailand, to which the preferential tariff arrangements set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3831/90 apply
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3831/90 of 20 December 1990 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1991 in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries (1), extended into 1992 by Regulation (EEC) No 3587/91 (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 282/92 (3), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Whereas, pursuant to Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 3831/90, suspension of customs duties shall be accorded to each of the countries or territories listed in Annex III other than those listed in column 4 of Annex I within the framework of the preferential tariff ceilings fixed in column 6 of Annex I;
Whereas, as provided for in Article 7 of that Regulation, as soon as the individual ceilings in question are reached at Community level, the levying of customs duties on imports of the products in question originating in each of the countries and territories concerned may at any time be re-established;
Whereas, in the case of products falling within CN codes 6401, 6402, 6404 and 6405 90 10, originating in Thailand, the individual ceilings were fixed respectively at ECU 1 213 000 and 3 126 000; whereas, on 5 February 1992, imports of these products into the Community originating in Thailand reached the ceilings in question after being charged thereagainst; whereas, it is appropriate to re-establish the levying of customs duties in respect of the products in question against Thailand,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
As from 3 March 1992 the levying of customs duties, suspended for 1992 pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 3831/90, shall be re-established on imports into the Community of the following products originating in Thailand:
Order No CN code Description 10.0660 6401 Waterproof footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or of plastics, the uppers of which are neither fixed to the sole nor assembled by stitching, riveting, nailing, screwing, plugging or similar processes 6402 Other footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics 10.0680 6404 Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather, and uppers of textiles materials 6405 90 10 Other footwear, with outer soles of rubber, of plastics, of leather or of composition leather
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 February 1992.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1276/95 of 29 May 1995 on certain procedures for applying the Agreement on free trade and trade related matters between the European Community, the European Atomic Energy Community and the European Coal and Steel Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Latvia, of the other part
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas an Agreement on free trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, the European Atomic Energy Community and the European Coal and Steel Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Latvia of the other part (1) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Agreement`) was signed in Brussels on 18 July 1994 and entered into force on 1 January 1995;
Whereas certain detailed rules should be introduced in order to implement the provisions of the Agreement concerning the agricultural products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Provisions for the application of Article 14 (2) and (3) of the Agreement concerning agricultural products falling within Annex II of the Treaty and subject, in the framework of the common market organization, to a system of levies or of import duties shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (2) by the Commission applying the relevant provisions provided for in the Regulations establishing the common organization of the market for the agricultural product concerned. Where the application of the Agreement calls for close cooperation with Latvia, the Commission may take any measure necessary to ensure such cooperation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 January 1995.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 May 1995.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 525/2002
of 22 March 2002
derogating from Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 laying down special detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 as regards export licences and export refunds in the case of milk and milk products
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1670/2000(2), and in particular Article 30(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 20a of Commission Regulation (EC) No 174/1999(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 156/2002(4), lays down the rules for administering the milk powder quota for exports to the Dominican Republic under the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and the Dominican Republic, approved by Council Decision 98/486/EC(5). As a result of difficulties with the application of that Memorandum that could make amendments to the existing arrangements necessary, the application period for the quota for the period from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003 should be postponed.
(2) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
By way of derogation from Article 20a(7) of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999, for the period from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003, licence applications shall be lodged from 1 to 10 May 2002.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 March 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Council Decision
of 13 June 2002
adopting an action programme for administrative cooperation in the fields of external borders, visas, asylum and immigration (ARGO programme)
(2002/463/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 66 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee,
Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions,
Whereas:
(1) Administrative cooperation between the Member States in the areas covered by Articles 62 and 63 of the Treaty is part of the Community's objective of progressively establishing an area of freedom, security and justice.
(2) Joint Action 98/244/JHA of 19 March 1998 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on the European Union, introducing a programme of training, exchanges and cooperation in the field of asylum, immigration and crossing of external borders (Odysseus programme)(3) has come to an end now that the budget allocation has been exhausted in 2001.
(3) Responsibility for controls at the EU's external borders will become all the more important now that a significant enlargement of the Union is scheduled to take place during the period in which the administrative cooperation in the fields of external borders, visas, asylum and immigration (ARGO) will be operational. Accordingly, ARGO should be seen simply as a modest forerunner of more extensive activities in this field.
(4) In accordance with the conclusions of the European Council in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999, the Commission has defined in its communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the biannual update of the scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union (first half of 2001) an ambitious legislative programme that should lead to a new body of Community rules in the area of justice and home affairs that will have to be implemented by the Member States.
(5) Uniformity between the practices of the Member States when applying Community law can be obtained by strengthening cooperation and collaboration among their national agencies, and between them and the Commission.
(6) Individual action by each administration is incapable of achieving such results. A Community framework is therefore necessary for improving mutual understanding between the competent national agencies and the way they implement the relevant Community legislation, and for defining the priority areas of administrative cooperation required.
(7) A high level of training of equivalent quality throughout the Community is needed to guarantee the success of this action programme, taking advantage of the experience gained with the Odysseus programme.
(8) The implementation of a Community action programme constitutes one of the most effective ways of achieving these objectives and will provide a basis to the Commission for assessing whether establishing a common training institution would be a suitable way of improving the training in Community law given to the staff of the Member States.
(9) The measures necessary for the implementation of this Decision should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(4).
(10) Action under this programme is to be complementary to and coordinated with other cooperation and training activities financed by the Community budget.
(11) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark is not participating in the adoption of this Decision, and is therefore not bound by it or subject to its application.
(12) In accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, the United Kingdom gave notice, by letter of 29 January 2002, of its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Decision.
(13) In accordance with Article 1 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland annexed to the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Ireland is not participating in the adoption of this Decision. As a result, and without prejudice to Article 4 of the said Protocol, the provisions of this Decision do not apply to Ireland.
(14) A financial reference amount within the meaning of point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 6 May 1999 on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure(5) is included in this Decision for the entire duration of the programme, without thereby affecting the powers of the budgetary authority as they are defined in the Treaty,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS
Article 1
Subject-matter and duration
This Decision establishes a Community action programme to be called the "ARGO programme" to support and complement the actions undertaken by the Community and the Member States in the implementation of Community legislation founded on Articles 62, 63 and 66 of the Treaty.
The ARGO programme shall cover the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2006.
Article 2
Definition
For the purposes of this Decision "national agencies" means the administrative and judicial authorities of the Member States or other bodies delegated by those authorities to implement Community legislation founded on Articles 62 and 63 of the Treaty and on Article 66 of the Treaty in so far as it concerns cooperation between national agencies in the areas covered by the said Articles 62 and 63.
Article 3
General objectives
The ARGO programme shall contribute to the following objectives:
(a) to promote cooperation between national agencies in implementing Community rules with special attention to the pooling of resources and coordinated and homogeneous practices;
(b) to promote uniform application of Community law in order to harmonise decisions taken by the national agencies of Member States, thereby avoiding malfunctioning likely to prejudice the progressive establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice;
(c) to improve the overall efficiency of national agencies in the carrying out of their tasks when implementing Community rules;
(d) to ensure that proper account is taken of the Community dimension in the organisation of national agencies contributing to the implementation of Community rules;
(e) to encourage transparency of actions taken by national agencies by strengthening their relations with the relevant national and international governmental and non-governmental organisations.
CHAPTER II
ACTIVITIES COVERED BY ARGO
Article 4
Activities in the area of external borders
In order to achieve the objectives set out in Article 3, the ARGO programme shall support the activities of the Member States in the area of external borders intended:
(a) to ensure that Member States carry out border controls in compliance with the common principles and implementing rules laid down by Community legislation;
(b) to provide an equivalent level of effective protection and surveillance at external borders;
(c) to reinforce the effectiveness of controls at border crossing points and surveillance between crossing points.
Article 5
Activities in the area of visas
In order to achieve the objectives set out in Article 3, the ARGO programme shall support the activities of the Member States in the area of visas intended:
(a) to ensure that Member States issue visas in compliance with the common principles and implementing rules laid down by Community legislation;
(b) to promote an equivalent level of control and security when issuing visas;
(c) to promote harmonisation in the examination of visa applications and in particular supporting documents regarding purpose of journey, means of subsistence and accommodation;
(d) to promote harmonisation of exceptions applied by Member States to certain categories of applicants for visas to facilitate controls at the external borders and freedom of movement between Member States;
(e) generally to enhance consular cooperation between Member States.
Article 6
Activities in the area of asylum
In order to achieve the objectives set out in Article 3, the ARGO programme shall support the activities of the Member States in the area of asylum intended:
(a) to promote the establishment and operation of the common European asylum system by supporting measures and standards leading to a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for those granted asylum valid throughout the Community;
(b) to facilitate the determination of the State responsible for examining an asylum application;
(c) to support the approximation of rules on the recognition and content of refugee status, complemented with measures on subsidiary forms of protection offering an appropriate status to any person in need of such protection;
(d) to reinforce the efficiency and fairness of asylum procedure and to increase convergence in decisions dealing with asylum applications;
(e) to develop resettlement and entry facilities, and legal means for admission into Member States on humanitarian grounds.
Article 7
Activities in the area of immigration
In order to achieve the objectives set out in Article 3, the ARGO programme shall support the activities of the Member States in the area of immigration intended:
(a) to ensure that Member States issue residence and work permits in compliance with the common principles and implementing rules laid down by Community legislation;
(b) to promote the knowledge of the rules of residence and work permits for third-country nationals;
(c) to encourage verification of the effects and the perception of Community immigration policy in migrants' countries of origin;
(d) to ensure effective, efficient and homogeneous application of the relevant common rules and policies in relation to irregular migratory flows and illegal immigration while safeguarding a sufficient level of access to international protection;
(e) to enhance cooperation in the field of the return of nationals of third countries and stateless persons without residence permits and refused asylum applicants, including transit through other Member States and third countries;
(f) to strengthen the fight against illegal immigration networks and prevention of illegal flows of immigrants.
Article 8
Types of actions
With a view to pursuing the objectives set out in Article 3 and the activities laid down in Articles 4, 5, 6 or 7, the ARGO programme may support the following types of actions:
(a) training actions including, in particular, the elaboration of harmonised curricula and common core-training programmes to be organised by national agencies and complementary actions aimed at making national agencies receptive to the best working methods and techniques developed in other Member States;
(b) staff exchange ensuring that seconded staff participate effectively in the work of the host national agencies;
(c) actions promoting, on the one hand, the use of computerised handling of files and procedures, including use of the most up-to-date techniques for electronic data exchange and, on the other hand, the collection, analysis, distribution and exploitation of information making the fullest use of information technology, in particular, the establishment of information points and websites;
(d) evaluation of the impact of common rules and procedures based on Articles 62 and 63 of the Treaty;
(e) actions intended to promote the development of best practices with a view to improving working methods and equipment, simplifying procedures and shortening deadlines;
(f) operational activities which might include the setting up of common operative centres and of teams composed of staff drawn from two or more Member States;
(g) studies, research, conferences and seminars involving staff of the Member States and the Commission and, where appropriate, staff of the relevant national and international governmental and non-governmental organisations;
(h) mechanisms for consulting and associating the relevant national and international governmental and non-governmental organisations;
(i) Member States' activities in third countries, in particular fact-finding missions in countries of origin and transit;
(j) the fight against document fraud.
Article 9
Specific actions
Other modalities of cooperation between national agencies in the policy areas covered by Articles 62 and 63 of the Treaty, in particular urgent joint operations and actions with a limited scope and duration arising from situations which require an immediate reaction, may be included in the framework of the ARGO programme. The annual work programme referred to in Article 12 shall set out a framework for the financing of these specific actions including objectives and evaluation criteria.
CHAPTER III
FINANCIAL PROVISIONS, MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING
Article 10
Eligibility
1. To be eligible for co-financing under the ARGO programme, actions referred to in Article 8 and proposed by a national agency of one Member State must:
(a) involve:
- at least two other Member States, or
- another Member State and a candidate country, where the aim is to prepare for its accession, or
- another Member State and a third country, where this would be beneficial for the purpose of the action proposed;
(b) pursue one of the general objectives referred to in Article 3;
(c) implement one of the activities in the respective policy area referred to in Articles 4, 5, 6 or 7.
2. Actions referred to in Article 8 may associate participants of the national agencies of any Member State not bound by this decision.
3. Actions proposed by the Commission will promote and facilitate administrative cooperation pursuing the general objectives referred to in Article 3 and support activities in the respective policy areas referred to in Articles 4, 5, 6 or 7.
Article 11
Financing
1. The financial reference amount for implementing the ARGO programme shall be EUR 25 million.
2. The annual appropriations shall be authorised by the budgetary authority within the limits of the financial perspective.
3. Actions referred to in Article 10(1) on the one hand and actions referred to in Article 10(3) on the other shall receive an equitable share of the annual amount.
4. The co-financing of an action referred to in Article 10(1) by the ARGO programme shall be exclusive of any other financing by another programme financed by the budget of the European Communities.
5. Financing decisions concerning actions referred to in Article 10(1) shall be subject to grant agreements between the Commission and the national agencies proposing the actions. The financing decisions and contracts arising therefrom shall be subject to financial control by the Commission and to audits by the Court of Auditors.
6. The proportion of financial support from the budget of the European Communities for actions referred to in Article 10(1) shall generally not exceed 60 % of the cost of the action. However, in exceptional circumstances this proportion may be raised up to 80 %.
Article 12
Implementation
1. The Commission shall be responsible for the management and implementation of the ARGO programme, in partnership with the Member States.
2. The Commission shall manage the ARGO programme in accordance with the Financial Regulation.
3. To implement the ARGO programme, the Commission shall, within the scope of the general objectives set out in Article 3:
(a) prepare an annual work programme comprising specific objectives, thematic priorities, a description of the actions referred to in Article 10(3) which the Commission intends to undertake and, if necessary, a list of other actions;
(b) evaluate and select the actions proposed by national agencies.
4. The annual work programme and the specific actions provided for in Article 9 as well as actions proposed by the Commission shall be adopted according to the procedure referred to in Article 13(2). The list of selected actions shall be adopted according to the procedure referred to in Article 13(3).
5. The Commission shall evaluate and select actions proposed by the national agencies on the basis of the following criteria:
(a) conformity with the annual work programme, the general objectives set out in Article 3 and the activities in the respective policy area set out in Articles 4, 5, 6 or 7;
(b) the European dimension of the proposed action and/or scope for participation by the candidate countries;
(c) compatibility with the work undertaken or planned within the framework of the Community's political priorities in the areas covered by Articles 62 and 63;
(d) complementarity to other past, present or future administrative cooperation actions;
(e) the ability of national agencies to implement the proposed action;
(f) the inherent quality of the proposed action in terms of its conception, organisation, presentation and expected results;
(g) amount of the support requested under the ARGO programme and proportionality with the expected results;
(h) impact of the expected results on the general objectives set out in Article 3 and on the activities in the respective policy area set out in Articles 4, 5, 6 or 7.
CHAPTER IV
GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 13
Committee
1. The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee, hereinafter referred to as "the ARGO Committee".
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 4 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply.
The period provided for in Article 4(3) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months.
3. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 3 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply.
4. The ARGO Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure.
5. The Commission may invite representatives from the candidate countries to information meetings after the ARGO Committee's meetings.
Article 14
Monitoring and evaluation
1. The Commission and the Member States shall monitor and evaluate the implementation of the ARGO programme on a continuous basis.
2. Each year the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the ARGO programme.
The report shall analyse all the progress achieved and shall be accompanied where necessary by any proposals for ensuring homogeneous application in the Member States of Community legislation based on Articles 62 and 63 of the Treaty. The Commission shall submit the first report by 31 December 2003 at the latest and the final report by 31 December 2007 at the latest.
Article 15
Applicability
This Decision shall apply from the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 16
Addressees
This Decision is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community.
Done at Luxembourg, 13 June 2002.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2423/1999
of 15 November 1999
introducing safeguard measures in respect of sugar falling within CN code 1701 and mixtures of sugar and cocoa falling within CN codes 1806 10 30 and 1806 10 90 originating in the overseas countries and territories
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community(1), as last amended by Decision 97/803/EC(2), hereinafter referred to as the "OCT Decision", and in particular Article 109 thereof,
Following consultation with the Committee set up under Article 1(2) of Annex IV to that Decision,
Whereas:
(1) In recent months difficulties have arisen which may result in a serious deterioration of the Community's sugar sector. These difficulties have been caused by increasing quantities of sugar imported from 1997 onwards under the EC/OCT cumulation of origin procedure and in the form of mixtures of sugar and cocoa falling within CN codes 1806 10 30 and 1806 10 90 originating in the overseas countries and territories. These products are imported into the Community free of import duties in accordance with Article 101(1) of the OCT Decision.
(2) These imports may result in a serious deterioration in the operation of the common organisation of the market in the sugar sector and have highly detrimental effects on Community sugar operators.
(3) The operation of the market organisation may be profoundly destabilised: sugar consumption is constant on the Community market, and accordingly any import of sugar into the Community at prices below the intervention price throws onto the export market a corresponding quantity of Community sugar which it cannot absorb. Refunds paid on such sugar are charged to the Community budget (currently at around EUR 520/tonne). Such exports are limited in volume by the GATT agreements, and the imports thus reduce the scope for exporting sugar within quotas. To cope with this problem, consideration should be given to reducing Community production quotas.
(4) Community sugar operators also risk damage as a result of these higher imports. The features of the common market organisation in sugar are the principle of self-financing by the Community's sugar producers, disposal of surplus sugar produced in the Community (particularly through export refunds), and a minimum price which Community sugar manufacturers must pay for their raw material (beet). Such increased imports of sugar, either as such or in the form of products with a high sugar content, at prices below those at which Community producers can sell comparable products, have a profoundly destabilising impact on the activity of Community undertakings which, owing to the common agricultural policy's constraints in favour of farmers, cannot compete with the imported products.
(5) An increase in the volume of exports attracting refunds may also entail the risk of a rise in the unit costs of exporting sugar within quotas and consequently in the production levy on Community sugar producers.
(6) There is therefore an ongoing risk that a sector of Community activity will deteriorate. In view of this risk it is necessary, in accordance with Article 109 of the OCT Decision, to apply safeguard measures in respect of imports into the Community of sugar falling within CN code 1701 and mixtures of sugar and cocoa with a sugar content over 65 % falling within CN codes 1806 10 30 and 1806 10 90 originating in the overseas countries and territories.
(7) Under Article 100 of the OCT Decision, its object is to promote trade between the overseas countries and territories and the Community, taking account of their respective levels of development. In accordance with Article 109(2) of the OCT Decision, priority must be given to such measures as would least disturb the functioning of the association and the Community; these measures must not exceed the limits of what is strictly necessary to remedy the difficulties that have arisen.
(8) To this end, sugar falling within CN code 1701 should be released for free circulation in the Community free of import duties only if the import price cif, as shown by supporting documents, of unpacked sugar of the standard quality defined by Community rules delivered to European ports in the Community is not less than the intervention price of the products in question. This measure should ensure that imported sugar is not sold at prices below those on the Community market and avoid the destabilising effects of these imports while ensuring an adequate unit profit for the OCT operators concerned and compliance with the order of preferences introduced in favour of Community products and of products originating in the OCT by the EC Treaty.
(9) In the case of mixtures of sugar and cocoa falling within CN codes 1806 10 30 and 1806 10 90, imports should be subject to Community surveillance. This will allow the Commission to monitor the development of such imports closely, as regards quantities and prices, without generating any additional administrative burden for operators.
(10) The specific checks on the value of the imported goods covered by the measures laid down by this Regulation, and the checks applicable in trade with third countries established under the Community rules on release for free circulation and customs value laid down by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code(3), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1662/1999(4), should ensure compliance with the provisions introduced in this Regulation.
(11) In view of the trend with respect to quantities already supplied during the 1998/1999 marketing year, these temporary measures should be applied until the end of the period of application of the OCT Decision,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Products with EC-OCT cumulation of origin falling within CN code 1701 shall be released for free circulation in the Community free of import duties only if the import price cif of unpacked goods of standard quality as laid down by Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/72(5) fixing the standard quality for white sugar, is not less than the intervention price of the products in question.
2. When carrying out the formalities of release for free circulation for the products referred to in paragraph 1, importers shall produce any document showing the sales price and the transport and insurance costs for the imported goods. To this end, the import price shall be the price of the unpacked goods.
3. The Member States shall communicate each week to the Commission, by any form of written telecommunication, the quantities of the products referred to in paragraph 1 for which import licences have been issued, indicating the date of issue and the exporting country.
This information must be sent separately from details of other applications for import licences in the sugar sector.
Article 2
Products originating in the overseas countries and territories falling within CN codes 1806 10 30 and 1806 10 90 shall be released for free circulation in the Community free of import duties subject to Community surveillance in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93(6) laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply until 29 February 2000.
However, Article 1 shall not apply to imports for which import licences were issued before the entry into force of this Regulation.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 November 1999.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1189/2002
of 2 July 2002
determining the world market price for unginned cotton
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Protocol 4 on cotton, annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1050/2001(1),
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 of 22 May 2001 on production aid for cotton(2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) In accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001, a world market price for unginned cotton is to be determined periodically from the price for ginned cotton recorded on the world market and by reference to the historical relationship between the price recorded for ginned cotton and that calculated for unginned cotton. That historical relationship has been established in Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001 of 2 August 2001(3). Where the world market price cannot be determined in this way, it is to be based on the most recent price determined.
(2) In accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001, the world market price for unginned cotton is to be determined in respect of a product of specific characteristics and by reference to the most favourable offers and quotations on the world market among those considered representative of the real market trend. To that end, an average is to be calculated of offers and quotations recorded on one or more European exchanges for a product delivered cif to a port in the Community and coming from the various supplier countries considered the most representative in terms of international trade. However, there is provision for adjusting the criteria for determining the world market price for ginned cotton to reflect differences justified by the quality of the product delivered and the offers and quotations concerned. Those adjustments are specified in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001.
(3) The application of the above criteria gives the world market price for unginned cotton determined hereinafter,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The world price for unginned cotton as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 is hereby determined as equalling EUR 22,563/kg.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 3 July 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 July 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 19 April 2006
setting up a group of experts to provide policy advice to the Commission on fighting violent radicalisation
(2006/299/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 2 of the Treaty establishing the European Union requires that the Union shall maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice.
(2)
The Union shall provide citizens with a high level of safety within the area of freedom, security and justice. That objective shall be achieved by combating terrorism, including the external dimension of the threat, and by addressing the factors contributing to violent radicalisation.
(3)
The Commission, in its Communication on Prevention, preparedness and response to terrorist attacks (1) declared that opposing violent radicalisation within our societies and disrupting the conditions facilitating the recruitment of terrorists must be fundamental priorities in a strategy to prevent terrorism.
(4)
The Commission, in its Communication Terrorist recruitment: addressing the factors contributing to violent radicalisation (2), recognised the need to call upon the expertise of specialists in developing further its policy in the field.
(5)
The group shall be made up of specialists from various disciplines with experience in analysing and researching the field of violent radicalisation or fields directly related to it.
(6)
The ‘Expert Group on Violent Radicalisation’ therefore has to be set up and its terms of reference and structures detailed,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
1. A policy advisory group of experts, to be known as the ‘Expert Group on Violent Radicalisation’, hereinafter referred to as ‘the group’ is hereby set up by the Commission.
2. The group shall be made up of qualified individuals competent to consider matters relating to violent radicalisation and terrorism.
Article 2
Task
The Commission may consult the group on any matter relating to violent radicalisation and terrorism.
The group’s task is to:
-
bring together the expertise of its members in order to give policy advice to the Commission. Such advice may be given either upon the group’s own initiative or upon a specific request from the Commission,
-
help the Commission identify new research areas required into the phenomenon of violent radicalisation and terrorism,
-
exchange expertise with networks, institutes or other bodies of the EU, in Member States, third countries and international organisations working in the same field,
-
in particular, prepare a synthesis report by June 2006 on the state of play of research in the field of violent radicalisation.
The group’s Chair may indicate to the Commission when it would be advisable to consult the group on a specific question.
Article 3
Composition - Appointment
1. The members of the group shall be appointed by the Director-General of Directorate General Justice, Freedom and Security of the European Commission from among specialists with competence in the areas of violent radicalisation and terrorism. Such competence must include experience deriving from academic research and published work.
2. The group shall be composed of a maximum of 20 members.
3. The following provisions shall apply:
-
the members are appointed in a personal capacity and are required to advise the Commission independently of any outside influence,
-
members of the group are appointed for a one year mandate which may be renewed by the Commission. They shall remain in office until such time as they resign, are replaced or their mandate ends,
-
members who are no longer able to contribute effectively to the group’s deliberations, who resign or who do not respect the conditions set out in the first or second indent of this paragraph or Article 287 of the Treaty establishing the European Community may be replaced for the remaining period of their mandate,
-
members shall each year sign an undertaking to act in the public interest and a declaration indicating the absence or existence of any interest which may undermine their objectivity.
Article 4
Operation
1. The Director-General of DG JLS appoints the Chair of the group.
The group shall submit its opinions and reports to the Commission. The content of such reports and opinions is not binding on the Commission or any other EU Institution. The Commission may fix a deadline by which the opinion or report shall be delivered.
When an opinion or report is adopted unanimously by the group, the latter shall establish common conclusions and attach them to the minutes. If the group fails to reach unanimous agreement on an opinion or report, it shall inform the Commission of the dissenting views expressed.
2. In agreement with the Commission, sub-groups may be set up to examine specific questions under terms of reference established by the group; they shall be disbanded as soon as these have been fulfilled. Reports compiled by such sub-groups must be approved by the group and the same provisions in the above paragraph apply in cases where unanimous agreement is not reached.
3. The Commission’s representative may ask other experts or observers with specific competence on a subject on the agenda to participate in the group’s or sub-group’s deliberations if this is useful and/or necessary.
4. Information obtained by participating in the group’s or sub-group’s deliberations must be considered as confidential and may only be divulged if the Commission expressly says so. At the termination of their appointment each member of the group and/or its sub-groups remains bound by the rules of confidentiality.
5. The group and its sub-groups normally meet on Commission premises in accordance with the procedures and schedule established by it. The Commission will provide secretarial services. Commission officials with an interest in the proceedings may attend these meetings.
6. The group shall adopt its rules of procedure on the basis of the standard rules of procedure adopted by the Commission.
7. The Commission may publish on the Internet, in the original language of the document concerned, any résumé, conclusion, or partial conclusion or working document of the group that is not confidential in nature. The documents presented by the group will be subject to the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (3).
Article 5
Meeting expenses
The Commission shall reimburse travel and, where appropriate, subsistence expenses for members, other experts and observers in connection with the group’s activities in accordance with the Commission’s internal rules on the compensation of external experts.
The members, or other experts and observers that might be invited from time to time, shall not be remunerated for their activities and duties.
Article 6
Entry into force
The decision shall take effect on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. It is applicable until 19 March 2007. The Commission shall decide on a possible extension before that date.
Done at Brussels, 19 April 2006.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1010/2002
of 12 June 2002
fixing the export refunds on olive oil
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1513/2001(2), and in particular Article 3(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 3 of Regulation No 136/66/EEC provides that, where prices within the Community are higher than world market prices, the difference between these prices may be covered by a refund when olive oil is exported to third countries.
(2) The detailed rules for fixing and granting export refunds on olive oil are contained in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 616/72(3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2962/77(4).
(3) Article 3(3) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC provides that the refund must be the same for the whole Community.
(4) In accordance with Article 3(4) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC, the refund for olive oil must be fixed in the light of the existing situation and outlook in relation to olive oil prices and availability on the Community market and olive oil prices on the world market. However, where the world market situation is such that the most favourable olive oil prices cannot be determined, account may be taken of the price of the main competing vegetable oils on the world market and the difference recorded between that price and the price of olive oil during a representative period. The amount of the refund may not exceed the difference between the price of olive oil in the Community and that on the world market, adjusted, where appropriate, to take account of export costs for the products on the world market.
(5) In accordance with Article 3(3) third indent, point (b) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC, it may be decided that the refund shall be fixed by tender. The tendering procedure should cover the amount of the refund and may be limited to certain countries of destination, quantities, qualities and presentations.
(6) The second indent of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC provides that the refund on olive oil may be varied according to destination where the world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets make this necessary.
(7) The refund must be fixed at least once every month. It may, if necessary, be altered in the intervening period.
(8) It follows from applying these detailed rules to the present situation on the market in olive oil and in particular to olive oil prices within the Community and on the markets of third countries that the refund should be as set out in the Annex hereto.
(9) The Management Committee for Oils and Fats has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1(2)(c) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 June 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 June 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 20 December 1991 on the multiannual guidance programme for aquaculture (1992 to 1996) submitted by Ireland pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 (Only the English text is authentic) (92/68/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 of 18 December 1986 on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3944/90 (2), and in particular Articles 2 and 4 thereof,
Whereas the structural policies implemented by the Community in the aquaculture sector must have development objectives which are compatible with all Community policies and must contribute to the establishment of the common economic area;
Whereas those objectives must ensure more far-reaching economic and social cohesion while allowing market rules to apply;
Whereas it is more important to create the conditions favourable to development than to make provision for specific measures only;
Whereas steps should be taken to coordinate, in a comprehensive and coherent framework, the operations of the financial instruments both in the Community and in the Member States;
Whereas, in areas where it is being developed, aquaculture interacts with the natural environment; whereas, in certain circumstances, aquaculture may in some cases affect the environment positively and in others negatively;
Whereas Council Directives 91/67/EEC (3), 91/492/EEC (4) and 91/493/EEC (5) harmonize the rules governing animal health and public health as applied to fish farms;
Whereas pressure on space and in particular intense competition regarding the use of the coastline are a major constraint on the development of aquaculture; whereas it is essential, therefore, that preference be given to a policy of identifying sites which are suitable for the development of aquaculture as an integral part of the landscape and to coastline development projects;
Whereas the future of aquaculture will be determined also by the ability of the industry to increase the range of production by operating experimental farms and pilot projects arising from research;
Whereas on 30 April 1991 the Irish Government forwarded to the Commission a multiannual guidance programme for aquaculture, hereinafter called 'the programme'; whereas on 16 September 1991 it forwarded the latest additional information concerning the programme;
Whereas the aim of the programme is to increase Irish aquaculture production and to rationalize and modernize existing installations; whereas the Member State considers that approximately ECU 51 million are necessary for the completion of the programme; whereas the approval of the programme is without prejudice to any later selection of individual investment projects;
Whereas the programme concerns all the structural policies implemented in the aquaculture sector of the Member State concerned;
Whereas the aquaculture sector is developing within a commercial framework, a feature of which is the growth of international competition; whereas the development of the market in aquaculture species could entail the need to adjust the objectives for the production of certain species;
Whereas flexible planning is required based on routine monitoring of the factors of production and market conditions; whereas a close watch needs to be kept on the programme, therefore, and this can only be done if reliable figures are available which are regularly updated and which apply to the national territory as a whole;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee for the Fishing Industry,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The multiannual guidance programme for aquaculture (1992 to 1996), as forwarded by the Irish Government on 30 April 1991 and as last supplemented on 16 September 1991, the essential contents of which are set out in the Annex hereto, is hereby approved subject to the conditions laid down in this Decision.
Article 2
1. The planning of the measures for the development and rationalization of aquaculture production corresponding to the investments provided for in the Annex hereto shall be carried out with due regard for the priorities set by the various Regulations governing the Community structural policies.
2. Special attention must be given during the implementation of the programme to the interaction between the development of the aquaculture sector and the environment and to the health conditions of fish farms and their products.
3. Preference shall be given to investment projects to which the Member State applies rules favourable to the development of aquaculture.
4. Preference shall be given to innovative projects based on adequate research work and ensuring in the long term the diversification of production.
5. The production objectives of the programme must be checked at regular intervals and adjusted, if necessary, in line with the development of the market for fishery and aquaculture products.
Article 3
The Commission shall inform the Member State, if necessary, within six months following 1 April each year, of the failure to comply with the conditions to which approval of the programme was made subject, on the basis of an examination of the periodic summary reports provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86, or in the absence thereof.
Article 4
The Commission draws attention to the fact that the investment estimates contained in this programme are without prejudice to any financial aid the Community may grant.
Article 5
This Decision is addressed to Ireland. Done at Brussels, 20 December 1991.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1634/91 of 13 June 1991 modifying the buying-in arrangements for butter and skimmed-milk powder laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 777/87
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulaiton (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk amd milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1630/91 (2), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7a (1) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (3),
Whereas Article 7a of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 enables the Commission, until the end of the eighth 12-month period of application of the additional levy arrangements set out in Article 5c of that Regulation, to modify the intervention arrangements for butter and skimmed-milk powder on the basis of criteria to be adopted by the Council;
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 777/87 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3577/90 (5), sets out the circumstances in which the buying in of butter and skimmed-milk powder can be suspended and subsequently resumed and, where suspension takes place, the alternative measures that may be taken;
Whereas experience has shown that the conditions in which permanent intervention must be resumed for butter under the arrangements thus introduced can create serious difficulties for the management of the market and that such arrangements, furthermore, do not make it possible to attain to the extent desired the objectives pursued regarding market regulation; whereas, consequently, the Commission should no longer be required to resume permanent intervention in certain circumstances and the conditions in which buying-in takes place or not under a tendering procedure should be modified,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 777/87 is hereby amended as follows:
1. In Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 777/87, paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be replaced by the following:
'3. Should paragraph 1, when applied, bring about a fall in the market prices of butter such that these prices are, in one or more Member States, at a level lower than 92 % of the intervention price for a representative period, buying-in by the intervention agencies shall be carried out in the Member State(s) concerned under an open invitation to tender on the basis of specifications to be determined. Where market prices in the Member State(s) concerned are at a level equal to, or higher than, 92 % of the intervention price for a representative period, buying-in under a tendering procedure shall be suspended.
The buying-in price fixed by the Commission shall not be less than 90 % of the intervention price.
4. If paragraph 2 is applied, buying-in by the intervention agencies may be carried out under an open standing invitation to tender on the basis of specifications to be determined.
5. If paragraphs 3 or 4 are applied:
(a) other measures may be taken to maintain market stability, and in particular to avert erratic price changes;
(b) account shall be taken of the situation arising from the existence in Spain and Portugal of a level of prices different from the level of common prices.'
2. In Article 2, the terms 'until the end of the eighth 12-month period of application of the arrangements' shall be replaced by 'until the end of the arrangements'.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from the beginning of the 1991/92 milk year.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 13 June 1991.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1770/95 of 24 July 1995 amending Regulation (EC) No 360/95 opening individual sales by invitation to tender for the export of vinous alcohol held by intervention agencies
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3877/88 of 12 December 1988 laying down general rules on the disposal of alcohol obtained from the distillation operations referred to in Articles 35, 36 and 39 of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 and held by intervention agencies (1),
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 377/93 (2), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3152/94 (3), lays down the detailed rules for the disposal of alcohol obtained from the distillation operations referred to in Articles 35, 36 and 39 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1544/95 (5), and held by intervention agencies;
Whereas it is in the interests of the Community that sales of alcohol under Commission Regulation (EC) No 360/95 (6) opening individual sales by invitations to tender Nos 170/94 EC and 171/94 EC should take place in compliance with the conditions provided for, in particular with regard to use and processing; whereas, in these circumstances, the successful bidder should be allowed to postpone payment for the alcohol concerned until 26 September 1995;
Whereas, however, it should also be ensured that traders are equally treated and whereas, therefore, the date initially set for accepting responsibility for the cost of storage of the alcohol should be maintained;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Article 6 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 360/95 shall be replaced by the following:
'2. The successful tenderer shall pay for the alcohol and accept responsibility for the risk of theft, loss and destruction of the alcohol covered by the invitations to tender referred to in this Regulation not later than 26 September 1995. The successful tenderer shall take responsibility for the costs of storage of the alcohol not later than 26 June 1995.`
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 26 June 1995.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 July 1995.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 22 September 2003
on genetically modified food and feed
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 37, 95 and Article 152(4)(b) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee(2),
Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions(3),
Acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty(4),
Whereas:
(1) The free movement of safe and wholesome food and feed is an essential aspect of the internal market and contributes significantly to the health and well-being of citizens, and to their social and economic interests.
(2) A high level of protection of human life and health should be ensured in the pursuit of Community policies.
(3) In order to protect human and animal health, food and feed consisting of, containing or produced from genetically modified organisms (hereinafter referred to as genetically modified food and feed) should undergo a safety assessment through a Community procedure before being placed on the market within the Community.
(4) Differences between national laws, regulations and administrative provisions concerning the assessment and authorisation of genetically modified food and feed may hinder their free movement, creating conditions of unequal and unfair competition.
(5) An authorisation procedure involving Member States and the Commission has been established for genetically modified foods in Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients(5). This procedure should be streamlined and made more transparent.
(6) Regulation (EC) No 258/97 also provides for a notification procedure for novel foods which are substantially equivalent to existing foods. Whilst substantial equivalence is a key step in the procedure for assessment of the safety of genetically modified foods, it is not a safety assessment in itself. In order to ensure clarity, transparency and a harmonised framework for authorisation of genetically modified food, this notification procedure should be abandoned in respect of genetically modified foods.
(7) Feed consisting of or containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has so far been authorised, subject to the authorisation procedure provided by Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990(6) and Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms(7); no authorisation procedure exists for feed produced from GMOs; a single, efficient and transparent Community authorisation procedure for feed consisting of, containing or produced from GMOs should be established.
(8) The provisions of this Regulation should also apply to feed intended for animals which are not destined for food production.
(9) The new authorisation procedures for genetically modified food and feed should include the new principles introduced in Directive 2001/18/EC. They should also make use of the new framework for risk assessment in matters of food safety set up by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority, and laying down procedures in matters of food safety(8). Thus, genetically modified food and feed should only be authorised for placing on the Community market after a scientific evaluation of the highest possible standard, to be undertaken under the responsibility of the European Food Safety Authority (Authority), of any risks which they present for human and animal health and, as the case may be, for the environment. This scientific evaluation should be followed by a risk management decision by the Community, under a regulatory procedure ensuring close cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.
(10) Experience has shown that authorisation should not be granted for a single use, when a product is likely to be used both for food and feed purposes; therefore such products should only be authorised when fulfilling authorisation criteria for both food and feed.
(11) Under this Regulation, authorisation may be granted either to a GMO to be used as a source material for production of food or feed and products for food and/or feed use which contain, consist of or are produced from it, or to foods or feed produced from a GMO. Thus, where a GMO used in the production of food and/or feed has been authorised under this Regulation, foods and/or feed containing, consisting of or produced from that GMO will not need an authorisation under this Regulation, but will be subject to the requirements referred to in the authorisation granted in respect of the GMO. Furthermore, foods covered by an authorisation granted under this Regulation will be exempted from the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, except where they fall under one or more of the categories referred to in Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 in respect of a characteristic which has not been considered for the purpose of the authorisation granted under this Regulation.
(12) Council Directive 89/107/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws of the Member States concerning food additives authorised for use in foodstuffs intended for human consumption(9) provides for authorisation of additives used in foodstuffs. In addition to this authorisation procedure, food additives containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs should fall also within the scope of this Regulation for the safety assessment of the genetic modification, while the final authorisation should be granted under the procedure referred to in Directive 89/107/EEC.
(13) Flavourings falling within the scope of Council Directive 88/388/EEC of 22 June 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to flavourings for use in foodstuffs and to source materials for their production(10) which contain, consist of or are produced from GMOs should also fall within the scope of this Regulation for the safety assessment of the genetic modification.
(14) Council Directive 82/471/EEC of 30 June 1982 concerning certain products used in animal nutrition(11) provides for an approval procedure for feed materials produced using different technologies that may pose risk to human or animal health and the environment. These feed materials containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs should fall instead within the scope of this Regulation.
(15) Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs(12), provides for an authorisation procedure for placing on the market additives used in feedingstuffs. In addition to this authorisation procedure, feed additives containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs should also fall within the scope of this Regulation.
(16) This Regulation should cover food and feed produced "from" a GMO but not food and feed "with" a GMO. The determining criterion is whether or not material derived from the genetically modified source material is present in the food or in the feed. Processing aids which are only used during the food or feed production process are not covered by the definition of food or feed and, therefore, are not included in the scope of this Regulation. Nor are food and feed which are manufactured with the help of a genetically modified processing aid included in the scope of this Regulation. Thus, products obtained from animals fed with genetically modified feed or treated with genetically modified medicinal products will be subject neither to the authorisation requirements nor to the labelling requirements referred to in this Regulation.
(17) In accordance with Article 153 of the Treaty, the Community is to contribute to promoting the right of consumers to information. In addition to other types of information to the public provided for in this Regulation, the labelling of products enables the consumer to make an informed choice and facilitates fairness of transactions between seller and purchaser.
(18) Article 2 of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs(13) provides that labelling must not mislead the purchaser as to the characteristics of the foodstuff and among other things, in particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition, method of production and manufacturing.
(19) Additional requirements for the labelling of genetically modified foods are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 258/97, in Council Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 of 26 May 1998 concerning the compulsory indication, on the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms, of particulars other than those provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC(14) and in Commission Regulation (EC) No 50/2000 of 10 January 2000 on the labelling of foodstuffs and food ingredients containing additives and flavourings that have been genetically modified or have been produced from genetically modified organisms(15).
(20) Harmonised labelling requirements should be laid down for genetically modified feed to provide final users, in particular livestock farmers, with accurate information on the composition and properties of feed, thereby enabling the user to make an informed choice.
(21) The labelling should include objective information to the effect that a food or feed consists of, contains or is produced from GMOs. Clear labelling, irrespective of the detectability of DNA or protein resulting from the genetic modification in the final product, meets the demands expressed in numerous surveys by a large majority of consumers, facilitates informed choice and precludes potential misleading of consumers as regards methods of manufacture or production.
(22) In addition, the labelling should give information about any characteristic or property which renders a food or feed different from its conventional counterpart with respect to composition, nutritional value or nutritional effects, intended use of the food or feed and health implications for certain sections of the population, as well as any characteristic or property which gives rise to ethical or religious concerns.
(23) Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC(16) ensures that relevant information concerning any genetic modification is available at each stage of the placing on the market of GMOs and food and feed produced therefrom and should thereby facilitate accurate labelling.
(24) Despite the fact that some operators avoid using genetically modified food and feed, such material may be present in minute traces in conventional food and feed as a result of adventitious or technically unavoidable presence during seed production, cultivation, harvest, transport or processing. In such cases, this food or feed should not be subject to the labelling requirements of this Regulation. In order to achieve this objective, a threshold should be established for the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified material in foods or feed, both when the marketing of such material is authorised in the Community and when this presence is tolerated by virtue of this Regulation.
(25) It is appropriate to provide that, when the combined level of adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified materials in a food or feed or in one of its components is higher than the set threshold, such presence should be indicated in accordance with this Regulation and that detailed provisions should be adopted for its implementation. The possibility of establishing lower thresholds, in particular for foods and feed containing or consisting of GMOs or in order to take into account advances in science and technology, should be provided for.
(26) It is indispensable that operators strive to avoid any accidental presence of genetically modified material not authorised under Community legislation in food or feed. However, in order to ensure the practicability and feasibility of this Regulation, a specific threshold, with the possibility of establishing lower levels in particular for GMOs sold directly to the final consumer, should be established as a transitional measure for minute traces in food or feed of this genetically modified material, where the presence of such material is adventitious or technically unavoidable and provided that all specific conditions set in this Regulation are met. Directive 2001/18/EC should be amended accordingly. The application of this measure should be reviewed in the context of the general review of the implementation of this Regulation.
(27) In order to establish that the presence of this material is adventitious or technically unavoidable, operators must be in a position to demonstrate to the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of the genetically modified food or feed.
(28) Operators should avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. The Commission should gather information and develop on this basis guidelines on the coexistence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops. Moreover, the Commission is invited to bring forward, as soon as possible, any further necessary proposal.
(29) The traceability and labelling of GMOs at all stages of placing on the market, including the possibility of establishing thresholds, is ensured by Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003.
(30) It is necessary to establish harmonised procedures for risk assessment and authorisation that are efficient, time-limited and transparent, and criteria for evaluation of the potential risks arising from genetically modified foods and feed.
(31) In order to ensure a harmonised scientific assessment of genetically modified foods and feed, such assessments should be carried out by the Authority. However, as specific acts or omissions on the part of the Authority under this Regulation could produce direct legal effects on applicants, it is appropriate to provide for the possibility of an administrative review of such acts or omissions.
(32) It is recognised that, in some cases, scientific risk assessment alone cannot provide all the information on which a risk management decision should be based, and that other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration may be taken into account.
(33) Where the application concerns products containing or consisting of a genetically modified organism, the applicant should have the choice of either supplying an authorisation for the deliberate release into the environment already obtained under part C of Directive 2001/18/EC, without prejudice to the conditions set by that authorisation, or of applying for the environmental risk assessment to be carried out at the same time as the safety assessment under this Regulation. In the latter case, it is necessary for the evaluation of the environmental risk to comply with the requirements referred to in Directive 2001/18/EC and for the national competent authorities designated by Member States for this purpose to be consulted by the Authority. In addition, it is appropriate to give the Authority the possibility of asking one of these competent authorities to carry out the environmental risk assessment. It is also appropriate, in accordance with Article 12(4) of Directive 2001/18/EC, for the national competent authorities designated under the said Directive in all cases concerning GMOs and food and/or feed containing or consisting of a GMO to be consulted by the Authority before it finalises the environmental risk assessment.
(34) In the case of GMOs to be used as seeds or other plant-propagating materials falling within the scope of this Regulation, the Authority should be under an obligation to delegate the environmental risk assessment to a national competent authority. Nonetheless, authorisations under this Regulation should be without prejudice to the provisions of Directives 68/193/EEC(17), 2002/53/EC(18) and 2002/55/EC(19), which provide in particular for the rules and the criteria for the acceptance of varieties and their official acceptance for inclusion in common catalogues; nor should they affect the provisions of Directives 66/401/EEC(20), 66/402/EEC(21), 68/193/EEC, 92/33/EEC(22), 92/34/EEC(23), 2002/54/EC(24), 2002/55/EC, 2002/56/EC(25) or 2002/57/EC(26) which regulate in particular the certification and the marketing of seeds and other plant-propagating materials.
(35) It is necessary to introduce, where appropriate and on the basis of the conclusions of the risk assessment, post-market monitoring requirements for the use of genetically modified foods for human consumption and for the use of genetically modified feed for animal consumption. In the case of GMOs, a monitoring plan concerning environmental effects is compulsory under Directive 2001/18/EC.
(36) To facilitate controls on genetically modified food and feed, applicants for authorisation should propose appropriate methods for sampling, identification and detection, and deposit samples of the genetically modified food and feed with the Authority; methods of sampling and detection should be validated, where appropriate, by the Community reference laboratory.
(37) Technological progress and scientific developments should be taken into account when implementing this Regulation.
(38) Food and feed falling within the scope of this Regulation which have been lawfully placed on the Community market before the date of application of this Regulation should continue to be allowed on the market, subject to the transmission to the Commission by the operators of information concerning the risk assessment, methods for sampling, identification and detection as appropriate, including the transmission of samples of the food and feed and their control samples within six months after the date of application of this Regulation.
(39) A register of genetically modified food and feed authorised under this Regulation should be established, including product specific information, studies which demonstrate the safety of the product, including, where available, references to independent and peer-reviewed studies, and to methods for sampling, identification and detection. Non-confidential data should be made available to the public.
(40) In order to stimulate research and development into GMOs for food and/or feed use, it is appropriate to protect the investment made by innovators in gathering the information and data supporting an application under this Regulation. This protection should however be limited in time in order to avoid the unnecessary repetition of studies and trials which would be against the public interest.
(41) The measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(27).
(42) Provision should be made for consultation of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies established by Commission Decision of 16 December 1997, or any other appropriate body established by the Commission, with a view to obtaining advice on ethical issues regarding the placing on the market of genetically modified food or feed. Such consultations should be without prejudice to the competence of Member States as regards ethical issues.
(43) In order to provide a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, environment and consumer interests in relation to genetically modified food and feed, requirements arising from this Regulation should apply in a non-discriminatory manner to products originating in the Community and imported from third countries, in accordance with the general principles referred to in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002. The content of this Regulation takes account of the international trade commitments of the European Communities and of the requirements of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity as regards importer obligations and notification.
(44) Certain instruments of Community law should be repealed and others amended as a result of this Regulation.
(45) The implementation of this Regulation should be reviewed in the light of experience gained in the short term, and the impact of the application of this Regulation on human and animal health, consumer protection, consumer information and the functioning of the internal market should be monitored by the Commission,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
CHAPTER I OBJECTIVE AND DEFINITIONS
Article 1
Objective
The objective of this Regulation, in accordance with the general principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, is to:
(a) provide the basis for ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, environment and consumer interests in relation to genetically modified food and feed, whilst ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market;
(b) lay down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of genetically modified food and feed;
(c) lay down provisions for the labelling of genetically modified food and feed.
Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Regulation:
1. the definitions of "food", "feed", "final consumer", "food business" and "feed business" given in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 shall apply;
2. the definition of "traceability", laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003;
3. "operator" means the natural or legal person responsible for ensuring that the requirements of this Regulation are met within the food businesses or feed businesses under its control;
4. the definitions of "organism", "deliberate release" and "environmental risk assessment" referred to in Directive 2001/18/EC shall apply;
5. "genetically modified organism" or "GMO" means a genetically modified organism as defined in Article 2(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC, excluding organisms obtained through the techniques of genetic modification listed in Annex I B to Directive 2001/18/EC;
6. "genetically modified food" means food containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs;
7. "genetically modified feed" means feed containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs;
8. "genetically modified organism for food use" means a GMO that may be used as food or as a source material for the production of food;
9. "genetically modified organism for feed use" means a GMO that may be used as feed or as a source material for the production of feed;
10. "produced from GMOs" means derived, in whole or in part, from GMOs, but not containing or consisting of GMOs;
11. "control sample" means the GMO or its genetic material (positive sample) and the parental organism or its genetic material that has been used for the purpose of the genetic modification (negative sample);
12. "conventional counterpart" means a similar food or feed produced without the help of genetic modification and for which there is a well-established history of safe use;
13. "ingredient" means "ingredient" as referred to in Article 6(4) of Directive 2000/13/EC;
14. "placing on the market" means the holding of food or feed for the purpose of sale, including offering for sale, or any other form of transfer, whether free of charge or not, and the sale, distribution and other forms of transfer themselves.
15. "pre-packaged food" means any single item for presentation as such consisting of a food and the packaging into which it was put before being offered for sale, whether such packaging encloses the food completely or only partially, provided that the contents cannot be altered without opening or changing the packaging.
16. "mass caterer" means "mass caterer" as referred to in Article 1 of Directive 2000/13/EC.
CHAPTER II GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD
Section 1 Authorisation and supervision
Article 3
Scope
1. This Section shall apply to:
(a) GMOs for food use;
(b) food containing or consisting of GMOs;
(c) food produced from or containing ingredients produced from GMOs.
2. Where necessary, it may be determined in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2) whether a type of food falls within the scope of this Section.
Article 4
Requirements
1. Food referred to in Article 3(1) must not:
(a) have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment;
(b) mislead the consumer;
(c) differ from the food which it is intended to replace to such an extent that its normal consumption would be nutritionally disadvantageous for the consumer.
2. No person shall place on the market a GMO for food use or food referred to in Article 3(1) unless it is covered by an authorisation granted in accordance with this Section and the relevant conditions of the authorisation are satisfied.
3. No GMO for food use or food referred to in Article 3(1) shall be authorised unless the applicant for such authorisation has adequately and sufficiently demonstrated that it satisfies the requirements of paragraph 1 of this Article.
4. The authorisation referred to in paragraph 2 may cover:
(a) a GMO and foods containing or consisting of that GMO as well as foods produced from or containing ingredients produced from that GMO; or
(b) food produced from a GMO as well as foods produced from or containing that food;
(c) an ingredient produced from a GMO as well as food containing that ingredient.
5. An authorisation as referred to in paragraph 2 shall not be granted, refused, renewed, modified, suspended or revoked except on the grounds and under the procedures set out in this Regulation.
6. The applicant for an authorisation as referred to in paragraph 2 and, after the authorisation is granted, the authorisation-holder or his representative, shall be established in the Community.
7. Authorisation under this Regulation shall be without prejudice to Directive 2002/53/EC, Directive 2002/55/EC and Directive 68/193/EEC.
Article 5
Application for authorisation
1. To obtain the authorisation referred to in Article 4(2), an application shall be submitted in accordance with the following provisions.
2. The application shall be sent to the national competent authority of a Member State.
(a) The national competent authority:
(i) shall acknowledge receipt of the application in writing to the applicant within 14 days of its receipt. The acknowledgement shall state the date of receipt of the application;
(ii) shall inform without delay the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority); and
(iii) shall make the application and any supplementary information supplied by the applicant available to the Authority.
(b) The Authority
(i) shall inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission of the application and shall make the application and any supplementary information supplied by the applicant available to them;
(ii) shall make the summary of the dossier referred to in paragraph 3(1) available to the public.
3. The application shall be accompanied by the following:
(a) the name and the address of the applicant;
(b) the designation of the food, and its specification, including the transformation event(s) used;
(c) where applicable, the information to be provided for the purpose of complying with Annex II to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (hereinafter referred to as the Cartagena Protocol);
(d) where applicable, a detailed description of the method of production and manufacturing;
(e) a copy of the studies, including, where available, independent, peer-reviewed studies, which have been carried out and any other material which is available to demonstrate that the food complies with the criteria referred to in Article 4(1);
(f) either an analysis, supported by appropriate information and data, showing that the characteristics of the food are not different from those of its conventional counterpart, having regard to the accepted limits of natural variations for such characteristics and to the criteria specified in Article 13(2)(a), or a proposal for labelling the food in accordance with Article 13(2)(a) and (3);
(g) either a reasoned statement that the food does not give rise to ethical or religious concerns, or a proposal for labelling it in accordance with Article 13(2)(b);
(h) where appropriate, the conditions for placing on the market the food or foods produced from it, including specific conditions for use and handling;
(i) methods for detection, sampling (including references to existing official or standardised sampling methods) and identification of the transformation event and, where applicable, for the detection and identification of the transformation event in the food and/or in foods produced from it;
(j) samples of the food and their control samples, and information as to the place where the reference material can be accessed;
(k) where appropriate, a proposal for post-market monitoring regarding use of the food for human consumption;
(l) a summary of the dossier in a standardised form.
4. In the case of an application relating to a GMO for food use, references to "food" in paragraph 3 shall be interpreted as referring to food containing, consisting of or produced from the GMO in respect of which an application is made.
5. In the case of GMOs or food containing or consisting of GMOs, the application shall also be accompanied by:
(a) the complete technical dossier supplying the information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC or, where the placing on the market of the GMO has been authorised under part C of Directive 2001/18/EC, a copy of the authorisation decision;
(b) a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC, including a proposal for the duration of the monitoring plan; this duration may be different from the proposed period for the consent.
In such case, Articles 13 to 24 of Directive 2001/18/EC shall not apply.
6. Where the application concerns a substance, the use and placing on the market of which is subject, under other provisions of Community law, to its inclusion on a list of substances registered or authorised to the exclusion of others, this must be stated in the application and the status of the substance under the relevant legislation must be indicated.
7. The Commission, having first consulted the Authority, shall establish, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2), implementing rules for the application of this Article, including rules concerning the preparation and the presentation of the application.
8. Before the date of application of this Regulation, the Authority shall publish detailed guidance to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of the application.
Article 6
Opinion of the Authority
1. In giving its opinion, the Authority shall endeavour to respect a time limit of six months as from the receipt of a valid application. Such time limit shall be extended whenever the Authority seeks supplementary information from the applicant as provided for in paragraph 2.
2. The Authority or a national competent authority through the Authority may, where appropriate, request the applicant to supplement the particulars accompanying the application within a specific time limit.
3. In order to prepare its opinion the Authority:
(a) shall verify that the particulars and documents submitted by the applicant are in accordance with Article 5 and examine whether the food complies with the criteria referred to in Article 4(1);
(b) may ask the appropriate food assessment body of a Member State to carry out a safety assessment of the food in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002;
(c) may ask a competent authority designated in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 2001/18/EC to carry out an environmental risk assessment; however, if the application concerns GMOs to be used as seeds or other plant-propagating material, the Authority shall ask a national competent authority to carry out the environmental risk assessment;
(d) shall forward to the Community reference laboratory referred to in Article 32 the particulars referred to in Article 5(3)(i) and (j). The Community reference laboratory shall test and validate the method of detection and identification proposed by the applicant;
(e) shall, in verifying the application of Article 13(2)(a), examine the information and data submitted by the applicant to show that the characteristics of the food are not different from those of its conventional counterpart, having regard to the accepted limits of natural variations for such characteristics.
4. In the case of GMOs or food containing or consisting of GMOs, the environmental safety requirements referred to in Directive 2001/18/EC shall apply to the evaluation to ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to prevent the adverse effects on human and animal health and the environment which might arise from the deliberate release of GMOs. During evaluation of requests for the placing on the market of products consisting of or containing GMOs, the national competent authority within the meaning of Directive 2001/18/EC designated by each Member State for this purpose shall be consulted by the Authority. The competent authorities shall have three months after the date of receiving the request within which to make their opinion known.
5. In the event of an opinion in favour of authorising the food, the opinion shall also include the following particulars:
(a) the name and address of the applicant;
(b) the designation of the food, and its specification;
(c) where applicable, the information required under Annex II to the Cartagena Protocol;
(d) the proposal for the labelling of the food and/or foods produced from it;
(e) where applicable, any conditions or restrictions which should be imposed on the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements based on the outcome of the risk assessment and, in the case of GMOs or food containing or consisting of GMOs, conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas;
(f) the method, validated by the Community reference laboratory, for detection, including sampling, identification of the transformation event and, where applicable, for the detection and identification of the transformation event in the food and/or in foods produced from it; an indication of where appropriate reference material can be accessed;
(g) where appropriate, the monitoring plan referred to in Article 5(5)(b).
6. The Authority shall forward its opinion to the Commission, the Member States and the applicant, including a report describing its assessment of the food and stating the reasons for its opinion and the information on which this opinion is based, including the opinions of the competent authorities when consulted in accordance with paragraph 4.
7. The Authority, in conformity with Article 38(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, shall make its opinion public, after deletion of any information identified as confidential in accordance with Article 30 of this Regulation. The public may make comments to the Commission within 30 days from such publication.
Article 7
Authorisation
1. Within three months after receiving the opinion of the Authority, the Commission shall submit to the Committee referred in Article 35 a draft of the decision to be taken in respect of the application, taking into account the opinion of the Authority, any relevant provisions of Community law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration. Where the draft decision is not in accordance with the opinion of the Authority, the Commission shall provide an explanation for the differences.
2. Any draft decision which envisages the granting of authorisation shall include the particulars referred to in Article 6(5), the name of the authorisation-holder and, where appropriate, the unique identifier attributed to the GMO as referred to in the Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003.
3. A final decision on the application shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2).
4. The Commission shall without delay inform the applicant of the decision taken and publish details of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union.
5. The authorisation granted in accordance with the procedure referred to in this Regulation shall be valid throughout the Community for 10 years and shall be renewable in accordance with Article 11. The authorised food shall be entered in the Register referred to in Article 28. Each entry in the Register shall mention the date of authorisation and shall include the particulars referred to in paragraph 2.
6. The authorisation under this Section shall be without prejudice to other provisions of Community law governing the use and placing on the market of substances which may only be used if they are included in a list of substances registered or authorised to the exclusion of others.
7. The granting of authorisation shall not lessen the general civil and criminal liability of any food operator in respect of the food concerned.
8. References made in parts A and D of Directive 2001/18/EC to GMOs authorised under part C of that Directive shall be considered as applying equally to GMOs authorised under this Regulation.
Article 8
Status of existing products
1. By way of derogation from Article 4(2), products falling within the scope of this Section which have been lawfully placed on the market in the Community before the date of application of this Regulation may continue to be placed on the market, used and processed provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) in the case of products placed on the market under Directive 90/220/EEC before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 or in accordance with the provisions referred to in Regulation (EC) No 258/97, operators responsible for placing on the market the products concerned shall, within six months after the date of application of this Regulation, notify the Commission of the date on which they were first placed on the market in the Community;
(b) in the case of products which have been lawfully placed on the market in the Community but are not covered by point (a), operators responsible for placing on the market the products concerned shall, within six months after the date of application of this Regulation, notify the Commission that the products were placed on the market in the Community before the date of application of this Regulation.
2. The notification referred to in paragraph 1 shall be accompanied by the particulars mentioned in Article 5(3) and (5), as appropriate, which the Commission shall forward to the Authority and the Member States. The Authority shall forward to the Community reference laboratory the particulars referred to in Article 5(3)(i) and (j). The Community reference laboratory shall test and validate the method of detection and identification proposed by the applicant.
3. Within one year from the date of application of this Regulation and after verification that all the information required has been submitted and examined, the products concerned shall be entered in the Register. Each entry in the Register shall include the particulars referred to in Article 7(2) as appropriate and, in the case of the products referred to in paragraph 1(a), shall mention the date on which the products concerned were first placed on the market.
4. Within nine years from the date on which the products referred to in paragraph 1(a) were first placed on the market, but in no case earlier than three years after the date of application of this Regulation, operators responsible for placing them on the market shall submit an application in accordance with Article 11, which shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Within three years from the date of application of this Regulation, operators responsible for placing on the market products referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall submit an application in accordance with Article 11, which shall apply mutatis mutandis.
5. Products referred to in paragraph 1 and food containing them or produced from them shall be subject to the provisions of this Regulation, in particular Articles 9, 10 and 34, which shall apply mutatis mutandis.
6. Where the notification and accompanying particulars referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 are not supplied within the period specified or are found to be incorrect, or where an application is not submitted as required by paragraph 4 within the period specified, the Commission, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2), shall adopt a measure requiring the product concerned and any products derived from it to be withdrawn from the market. Such a measure may provide for a limited period of time within which existing stocks of the product may be used up.
7. In the case of authorisations not issued to a specific holder, the operator who imports, produces or manufactures the products referred to in this Article shall submit the information or the application to Commission.
8. Detailed rules for implementing this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2).
Article 9
Supervision
1. After an authorisation has been issued in accordance with this Regulation, the authorisation-holder and parties concerned shall comply with any conditions or restrictions which have been imposed in the authorisation and shall in particular make sure that products not covered by the authorisation are not placed on the market as food or feed. Where post-market monitoring as referred to in Article 5(3)(k) and/or monitoring as referred to in Article 5(5)(b) has been imposed on the authorisation-holder, the authorisation-holder shall ensure that it is carried out and shall submit reports to the Commission in accordance with the terms of the authorisation. The monitoring reports referred to shall be made accessible to the public after deletion of any information identified as confidential in accordance with Article 30.
2. If the authorisation-holder proposes to modify the terms of the authorisation, the authorisation-holder shall submit an application in accordance with Article 5(2). Articles 5, 6 and 7 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
3. The authorisation-holder shall forthwith inform the Commission of any new scientific or technical information which might influence the evaluation of the safety in use of the food. In particular, the authorisation-holder shall forthwith inform the Commission of any prohibition or restriction imposed by the competent authority of any third country in which the food is placed on the market.
4. The Commission shall make the information supplied by the applicant available to the Authority and the Member States without delay.
Article 10
Modification, suspension and revocation of authorisations
1. On its own initiative or following a request from a Member State or from the Commission, the Authority shall issue an opinion on whether an authorisation for a product referred to in Article 3(1) still meets the conditions set by this Regulation. It shall forthwith transmit this opinion to the Commission, the authorisation-holder and the Member States. The Authority, in conformity with Article 38(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, shall make its opinion public, after deletion of any information identified as confidential in accordance with Article 30 of this Regulation. The public may make comments to the Commission within 30 days from such publication.
2. The Commission shall examine the opinion of the Authority as soon as possible. Any appropriate measures shall be taken in accordance with Article 34. If appropriate, the authorisation shall be modified, suspended or revoked in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 7.
3. Articles 5(2), 6 and 7 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Article 11
Renewal of authorisations
1. Authorisations under this Regulation shall be renewable for 10-year periods, on application to the Commission by the authorisation-holder at the latest one year before the expiry date of the authorisation.
2. The application shall be accompanied by the following:
(a) a copy of the authorisation for placing the food on the market;
(b) a report on the results of the monitoring, if so specified in the authorisation;
(c) any other new information which has become available with regard to the evaluation of the safety in use of the food and the risks of the food to the consumer or the environment;
(d) where appropriate, a proposal for amending or complementing the conditions of the original authorisation, inter alia the conditions concerning future monitoring.
3. Articles 5(2), 6 and 7 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
4. Where, for reasons beyond the control of the authorisation-holder, no decision is taken on the renewal of an authorisation before its expiry date, the period of authorisation of the product shall automatically be extended until a decision is taken.
5. The Commission, having first consulted the Authority, may establish, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2), implementing rules for the application of this Article, including rules concerning the preparation and the presentation of the application.
6. The Authority shall publish detailed guidance to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of its application.
Section 2 Labelling
Article 12
Scope
1. This Section shall apply to foods which are to be delivered as such to the final consumer or mass caterers in the Community and which:
(a) contain or consist of GMOs; or
(b) are produced from or contain ingredients produced from GMOs.
2. This Section shall not apply to foods containing material which contains, consists of or is produced from GMOs in a proportion no higher than 0,9 per cent of the food ingredients considered individually or food consisting of a single ingredient, provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable.
3. In order to establish that the presence of this material is adventitious or technically unavoidable, operators must be in a position to supply evidence to satisfy the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of such material.
4. Appropriate lower thresholds may be established in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2) in particular in respect of foods containing or consisting of GMOs or in order to take into account advances in science and technology.
Article 13
Requirements
1. Without prejudice to the other requirements of Community law concerning the labelling of foodstuffs, foods falling within the scope of this Section shall be subject to the following specific labelling requirements:
(a) where the food consists of more than one ingredient, the words "genetically modified" or "produced from genetically modified (name of the ingredient)" shall appear in the list of ingredients provided for in Article 6 of Directive 2000/13/EC in parentheses immediately following the ingredient concerned;
(b) where the ingredient is designated by the name of a category, the words "contains genetically modified (name of organism)" or "contains (name of ingredient) produced from genetically modified (name of organism)" shall appear in the list of ingredients;
(c) where there is no list of ingredients, the words "genetically modified" or "produced from genetically modified (name of organism)" shall appear clearly on the labelling;
(d) the indications referred to in (a) and (b) may appear in a footnote to the list of ingredients. In this case they shall be printed in a font of at least the same size as the list of ingredients. Where there is no list of ingredients, they shall appear clearly on the labelling;
(e) where the food is offered for sale to the final consumer as non-pre-packaged food, or as pre-packaged food in small containers of which the largest surface has an area of less than 10 cm2, the information required under this paragraph must be permanently and visibly displayed either on the food display or immediately next to it, or on the packaging material, in a font sufficiently large for it to be easily identified and read.
2. In addition to the labelling requirements referred to in paragraph 1, the labelling shall also mention any characteristic or property, as specified in the authorisation, in the following cases:
(a) where a food is different from its conventional counterpart as regards the following characteristics or properties:
(i) composition;
(ii) nutritional value or nutritional effects;
(iii) intended use of the food;
(iv) implications for the health of certain sections of the population;
(b) where a food may give rise to ethical or religious concerns.
3. In addition to the labelling requirements referred to in paragraph 1 and as specified in the authorisation, the labelling of foods falling within the scope of this Section which do not have a conventional counterpart shall contain appropriate information about the nature and the characteristics of the foods concerned.
Article 14
Implementing measures
1. Detailed rules for implementing this Section, amongst other things regarding the measures necessary for operators to comply with the labelling requirements, may be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2).
2. Specific rules concerning the information to be given by mass caterers providing food to the final consumer may be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2).
In order to take into account the specific situation of mass caterers, such rules may provide for adaptation of the requirements of Article 13(1)(e).
CHAPTER III GENETICALLY MODIFIED FEED
Section 1 Authorisation and supervision
Article 15
Scope
1. This Section shall apply to:
(a) GMOs for feed use;
(b) feed containing or consisting of GMOs;
(c) feed produced from GMOs.
2. Where necessary, it may be determined in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2) whether a type of feed falls within the scope of this Section.
Article 16
Requirements
1. Feed referred to in Article 15(1) must not:
(a) have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment;
(b) mislead the user;
(c) harm or mislead the consumer by impairing the distinctive features of the animal products;
(d) differ from feed which it is intended to replace to such an extent that its normal consumption would be nutritionally disadvantageous for animals or humans.
2. No person shall place on the market, use or process a product referred to in Article 15(1) unless it is covered by an authorisation granted in accordance with this Section and the relevant conditions of the authorisation are satisfied.
3. No product referred to in Article 15(1) shall be authorised unless the applicant for such authorisation has adequately and sufficiently demonstrated that it satisfies the requirements of paragraph 1 of this Article.
4. The authorisation referred to in paragraph 2 may cover:
(a) a GMO and feed containing or consisting of that GMO as well as feed produced from that GMO; or
(b) feed produced from a GMO as well as feeds produced from or containing that feed.
5. An authorisation as referred to in paragraph 2 shall not be granted, refused, renewed, modified, suspended or revoked except on the grounds and under the procedures set out in this Regulation.
6. The applicant for an authorisation as referred to in paragraph 2 and, after the authorisation is granted, the authorisation-holder or his representative, shall be established in the Community.
7. Authorisation under this Regulation shall be without prejudice to Directive 2002/53/EC, Directive 2002/55/EC and Directive 68/193/EEC.
Article 17
Application for authorisation
1. To obtain the authorisation referred to in Article 16(2), an application shall be submitted in accordance with the following provisions.
2. The application shall be sent to the national competent authority of a Member State.
(a) The national competent authority:
(i) shall acknowledge receipt of the application in writing to the applicant within 14 days of its receipt. The acknowledgement shall state the date of receipt of the application;
(ii) shall inform the Authority without delay; and
(iii) shall make the application and any supplementary information supplied by the applicant available to the Authority.
(b) The Authority:
(i) shall inform without delay the other Member States and the Commission of the application and shall make the application and any supplementary information supplied by the applicant available to them;
(ii) shall make the summary of the dossier referred to in paragraph 3(1) available to the public.
3. The application shall be accompanied by the following:
(a) the name and the address of the applicant;
(b) the designation of the feed and its specification, including the transformation event(s) used;
(c) where applicable, the information to be provided for the purpose of complying with Annex II to the Cartagena Protocol;
(d) where applicable, a detailed description of the method of production and manufacturing and intended uses of the feed;
(e) a copy of the studies including, where available, independent, peer-reviewed studies, which have been carried out and any other material which is available to demonstrate that the feed complies with the criteria referred to in Article 16(1), and, in particular for feed falling within the scope of Directive 82/471/EEC, the information required under Council Directive 83/228/EEC of 18 April 1983 on the fixing of guidelines for the assessment of certain products used in animal nutrition(28);
(f) either an analysis, supported by appropriate information and data, showing that the characteristics of the feed are not different from those of its conventional counterpart, having regard to the accepted limits of natural variations for such characteristics and to the criteria specified in Article 25(2)(c), or a proposal for labelling the feed in accordance with Article 25(2)(c) and (3);
(g) either a reasoned statement that the feed does not give rise to ethical or religious concerns, or a proposal for labelling it in accordance with Article 25(2)(d);
(h) where appropriate, the conditions for placing the feed on the market, including specific conditions for use and handling;
(i) methods for detection, sampling (including references to existing official or standardised sampling methods) and identification of the transformation event and, where applicable, for the detection and identification of the transformation event in the feed and/or in the feed produced from it;
(j) samples of the feed and their control samples and information as to the place where the reference material can be accessed;
(k) where appropriate, a proposal for post-market monitoring for the use of the feed for animal consumption;
(l) a summary of the dossier in a standardised form.
4. In the case of an application relating to a GMO for feed use, references to "feed" in paragraph 3 shall be interpreted as referring to feed containing, consisting of or produced from the GMO in respect of which an application is made.
5. In the case of GMOs or feed containing or consisting of GMOs, the application shall also be accompanied by:
(a) the complete technical dossier supplying the information required by Annexes III and IV to Directive 2001/18/EC and information and conclusions about the risk assessment carried out in accordance with the principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC or, where the placing on the market of the GMOs has been authorised under part C of Directive 2001/18/EC, a copy of the authorisation decision;
(b) a monitoring plan for environmental effects conforming with Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC, including a proposal for the duration of the monitoring plan; this duration may be different from the proposed period for the consent.
In such case, Articles 13 to 24 of Directive 2001/18/EC shall not apply.
6. Where the application concerns a substance, the use and placing on the market of which is subject under other provisions of Community law to its inclusion on a list of substances registered or authorised to the exclusion of others, this must be stated in the application and the status of the substance under the relevant legislation must be indicated.
7. The Commission, having first consulted the Authority, shall establish, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2), implementing rules for the application of this Article, including rules concerning the preparation and the presentation of the application.
8. Before the date of application of this Regulation, the Authority shall publish detailed guidance to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of the application.
Article 18
Opinion of the Authority
1. In giving its opinion, the Authority shall endeavour to comply with a time limit of six months as from the receipt of a valid application. Such time limit shall be extended whenever the Authority seeks supplementary information from the applicant as provided in paragraph 2.
2. The Authority or a national competent authority through the Authority may, where appropriate, request the applicant to supplement the particulars accompanying the application within a specific time limit.
3. In order to prepare its opinion, the Authority:
(a) shall verify that the particulars and documents submitted by the applicant are in accordance with Article 17, and examine whether the feed complies with the criteria laid down in Article 16(1);
(b) may ask the appropriate feed assessment body of a Member State to carry out a safety assessment of the feed in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002;
(c) may ask a competent authority designated in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 2001/18/EC to carry out an environmental risk assessment; however, if the application concerns GMOs to be used as seeds or other plant-propagating material, the Authority shall ask a national competent authority to carry out the environmental risk assessment;
(d) shall forward to the Community reference laboratory the particulars referred to in Article 17(3)(i) and (j). The Community reference laboratory shall test and validate the method of detection and identification proposed by the applicant;
(e) shall, in verifying the application of Article 25(2)(c), examine the information and data submitted by the applicant to show that the characteristics of the feed are not different from those of its conventional counterpart, having regard to the accepted limits of natural variations for such characteristics.
4. In the case of GMOs or feed containing or consisting of GMOs, the environmental safety requirements referred to in Directive 2001/18/EC shall apply to the evaluation to ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to prevent the adverse effects on human and animal health and the environment which might arise from the deliberate release of GMOs. During evaluation of requests for the placing on the market of products consisting of or containing GMOs, the national competent authority within the meaning of Directive 2001/18/EC, designated by each Member State for this purpose shall be consulted by the Authority. The competent authorities shall have three months after the date of receiving the request within which to make their opinion known.
5. In the event of an opinion in favour of authorising the feed, the opinion shall also include the following particulars:
(a) the name and address of the applicant;
(b) the designation of the feed, and its specification;
(c) where applicable, the information required under Annex II to the Cartagena Protocol;
(d) the proposal for the labelling of the feed;
(e) where applicable, any conditions or restrictions which should be imposed on the placing on the market and/or specific conditions or restrictions for use and handling, including post-market monitoring requirements based on the outcome of the risk assessment and, in the case of GMOs or feed containing or consisting of GMOs, conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environment and/or geographical areas;
(f) the method, validated by the Community reference laboratory, for detection, including sampling, identification of the transformation event and, where applicable, for the detection and identification of the transformation event in the feed and/or in feed produced from it; an indication of where appropriate reference material can be accessed;
(g) where appropriate, the monitoring plan as referred to in Article 17(5)(b).
6. The Authority shall forward its opinion to the Commission, the Member States and the applicant, including a report describing its assessment of the feed and stating the reasons for its opinion and the information on which this opinion is based, including the opinions of the competent authorities when consulted in accordance with paragraph 4.
7. The Authority, in conformity with Article 38(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, shall make its opinion public, after deletion of any information identified as confidential in accordance with Article 30 of this Regulation. The public may make comments to the Commission within 30 days from such publication.
Article 19
Authorisation
1. Within three months after receiving the opinion of the Authority, the Commission shall submit to the Committee referred in Article 35 a draft of the decision to be taken in respect of the application, taking into account the opinion of the Authority, any relevant provisions of Community law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration. Where the draft decision is not in accordance with the opinion of the Authority, the Commission shall provide an explanation for the differences.
2. Any draft decision which envisages the granting of authorisation shall include the particulars referred to in Article 18(5), the name of the authorisation-holder and, where appropriate, the unique identifier attributed to the GMO as referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003.
3. A final decision on the application shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2).
4. The Commission shall without delay inform the applicant of the decision taken and publish details of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union.
5. The authorisation granted in accordance with the procedure referred to in this Regulation shall be valid throughout the Community for 10 years and shall be renewable in accordance with Article 23. The authorised feed shall be entered in the Register referred to in Article 28. Each entry in the Register shall mention the date of authorisation and shall include the particulars referred to in paragraph 2.
6. The authorisation under this Section shall be without prejudice to other provisions of Community law governing the use and placing on the market of substances which may only be used if they are included in a list of substances registered or authorised to the exclusion of others.
7. The granting of authorisation shall not lessen the general civil and criminal liability of any feed operator in respect of the feed concerned.
8. References made in parts A and D of Directive 2001/18/EC to GMOs authorised under part C of that Directive shall be considered as applying equally to GMOs authorised under this Regulation.
Article 20
Status of existing products
1. By way of derogation from Article 16(2), products falling within the scope of this Section which have been lawfully placed on the market in the Community before the date of application of this Regulation may continue to be placed on the market, used and processed provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) in the case of products which have been authorised under Directives 90/220/EEC or 2001/18/EC, including use as feed, under Directive 82/471/EEC, which are produced from GMOs, or under Directive 70/524/EEC, which contain, consist of or are produced from GMOs, operators responsible for placing on the market the products concerned shall, within six months after the date of application of this Regulation, notify the Commission of the date on which they were first placed on the market in the Community;
(b) in the case of products which have been lawfully placed on the market in the Community but which are not referred to in point (a), operators responsible for placing on the market in the Community the products concerned shall, within six months after the date of application of this Regulation, notify the Commission that the products were placed on the market in the Community before the date of application of this Regulation.
2. The notification referred to in paragraph 1 shall be accompanied by the particulars mentioned in Article 17(3) and (5), as appropriate, which the Commission shall forward to the Authority and the Member States. The Authority shall forward to the Community reference laboratory the particulars referred to in Article 17(3)(i) and (j). The Community reference laboratory shall test and validate the method of detection and identification proposed by the applicant.
3. Within one year from the date of application of this Regulation and after verification that all the information required has been submitted and examined, the products concerned shall be entered in the Register. Each entry in the Register shall include the particulars referred to in Article 19(2) as appropriate and, in the case of the products referred to in paragraph 1(a), shall mention the date on which the products concerned were first placed on the market.
4. Within nine years from the date on which the products referred to in paragraph 1(a) were first placed on the market, but in no case earlier than three years after the date of application of this Regulation, operators responsible for placing them on the market shall submit an application in accordance with Article 23, which shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Within three years from the date of application of this Regulation, operators responsible for placing on the market products referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall submit an application in accordance with Article 23, which shall apply mutatis mutandis.
5. Products referred to in paragraph 1 and feed containing them or produced from them shall be subject to the provisions of this Regulation, in particular Articles 21, 22 and 34, which shall apply mutatis mutandis.
6. Where the notification and accompanying particulars referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 are not supplied within the period specified or are found to be incorrect, or where an application is not submitted as required by paragraph 4 within the period specified, the Commission, acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 35(2), shall adopt a measure requiring the product concerned and any products derived from it to be withdrawn from the market. Such a measure may provide for a limited period of time within which existing stocks of the product may be used up.
7. In the case of authorisations not issued to a specific holder, the operator who imports, produces or manufactures the products referred to in this Article shall submit the information or the application to the Commission.
8. Detailed rules for implementing this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2).
Article 21
Supervision
1. After an authorisation has been issued in accordance with this Regulation, the authorisation-holder and the parties concerned shall comply with any conditions or restrictions which have been imposed in the authorisation and shall in particular make sure that products not covered by the authorisation are not placed on the market as food or feed. Where post-market monitoring as referred to in Article 17(3)(k) and/or monitoring as referred to in Article 17(5)(b) has been imposed on the authorisation-holder, the authorisation-holder shall ensure that it is carried out and shall submit reports to the Commission in accordance with the terms of the authorisation. The monitoring reports referred to shall be made accessible to the public after deletion of any information identified as confidential in accordance with Article 30.
2. If the authorisation-holder proposes to modify the terms of the authorisation, the authorisation-holder shall submit an application in accordance with Article 17(2). Articles 17, 18 and 19 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
3. The authorisation-holder shall forthwith inform the Commission of any new scientific or technical information which might influence the evaluation of the safety in use of the feed. In particular, the authorisation-holder shall forthwith inform the Commission of any prohibition or restriction imposed by the competent Authority of any third country in which the feed is placed on the market.
4. The Commission shall make the information supplied by the applicant available to the Authority and the Member States without delay.
Article 22
Modification, suspension and revocation of authorisations
1. On its own initiative or following a request from a Member State or from the Commission, the Authority shall issue an opinion on whether an authorisation for a product referred to in Article 15(1) still meets the conditions set by this Regulation. It shall forthwith transmit this opinion to the Commission, the authorisation-holder and the Member States. The Authority, in conformity with Article 38(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, shall make its opinion public, after deletion of any information identified as confidential in accordance with Article 30 of this Regulation. The public may make comments to the Commission within 30 days from such publication.
2. The Commission shall examine the opinion of the Authority as soon as possible. Any appropriate measures shall be taken in accordance with Article 34. If appropriate, the authorisation shall be modified, suspended or revoked in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 19.
3. Articles 17(2), 18 and 19 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Article 23
Renewal of authorisations
1. Authorisations under this Regulation shall be renewable for 10-year periods, on application to the Commission by the authorisation-holder at the latest one year before the expiry date of the authorisation.
2. The application shall be accompanied by the following particulars and documents:
(a) a copy of the authorisation for placing the feed on the market;
(b) a report on the results of the monitoring, if so specified in the authorisation;
(c) any other new information which has become available with regard to the evaluation of the safety in use of the feed and the risks of the feed to animals, humans or the environment;
(d) where appropriate, a proposal for amending or complementing the conditions of the original authorisation, inter alia the conditions concerning future monitoring.
3. Articles 17(2), 18 and 19 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
4. Where, for reasons beyond the control of the authorisation-holder, no decision is taken on the renewal of an authorisation before its expiry date, the period of authorisation of the product shall automatically be extended until a decision is taken.
5. The Commission, having first consulted the Authority, may establish, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2), implementing rules for the application of this Article, including rules concerning the preparation and the presentation of the application.
6. The Authority shall publish detailed guidance to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of its application.
Section 2 Labelling
Article 24
Scope
1. This Section shall apply to feed referred to in Article 15(1).
2. This Section shall not apply to feed containing material which contains, consists of or is produced from GMOs in a proportion no higher than 0,9 per cent of the feed and of each feed of which it is composed, provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable.
3. In order to establish that the presence of this material is adventitious or technically unavoidable, operators must be in a position to supply evidence to satisfy the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of such materials.
4. Appropriate lower thresholds may be established in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2), in particular in respect of feed containing or consisting of GMOs, or in order to take into account advances in science and technology.
Article 25
Requirements
1. Without prejudice to the other requirements of Community law concerning the labelling of feed, feed referred to in Article 15(1) shall be subject to the specific labelling requirements laid down below.
2. No person shall place a feed referred to in Article 15(1) on the market unless the particulars specified below are shown, in a clearly visible, legible and indelible manner, on an accompanying document or, where appropriate, on the packaging, on the container or on a label attached thereto.
Each feed of which a particular feed is composed shall be subject to the following rules:
(a) for the feeds referred to in Article 15(1) (a) and (b), the words "genetically modified (name of the organism)" shall appear in parentheses immediately following the specific name of the feed.
Alternatively, these words may appear in a footnote to the list of feed. It shall be printed in a font of at least the same size as the list of feed;
(b) for the feed referred to in Article 15(1)(c), the words "produced from genetically modified (name of the organism)" shall appear in parentheses immediately following the specific name of the feed.
Alternatively, these words may appear in a footnote to the list of feed. It shall be printed in a font of at least the same size as the list of feed;
(c) as specified in the authorisation, any characteristic of the feed referred to in Article 15(1) such as those indicated hereunder, which is different from its conventional counterpart:
(i) composition;
(ii) nutritional properties;
(iii) intended use;
(iv) implications for the health of certain species or categories of animals;
(d) as specified in the authorisation, any characteristic or property where a feed may give rise to ethical or religious concerns.
3. In addition to the requirements referred to in paragraph 2(a) and (b) and as specified in the authorisation, the labelling or accompanying documents of feed falling within the scope of this Section which does not have a conventional counterpart shall contain appropriate information about the nature and the characteristics of the feed concerned.
Article 26
Implementing measures
Detailed rules for implementing this Section, amongst other things regarding the measures necessary for operators to comply with the labelling requirements, may be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2).
CHAPTER IV COMMON PROVISIONS
Article 27
Products likely to be used as both food and feed
1. Where a product is likely to be used as both food and feed, a single application under Articles 5 and 17 shall be submitted and shall give rise to a single opinion from the Authority and a single Community decision.
2. The Authority shall consider whether the application for authorisation should be submitted both as food and feed.
Article 28
Community register
1. The Commission shall establish and maintain a Community register of genetically modified food and feed, hereinafter referred to as "the Register".
2. The Register shall be made available to the public.
Article 29
Public access
1. The application for authorisation, supplementary information from the applicant, opinions from the competent authorities designated in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 2001/18/EC, monitoring reports and information from the authorisation holder, excluding confidential information, shall be made accessible to the public.
2. The Authority shall apply the principles of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents(29) when handling applications for access to documents held by the Authority.
3. Member States shall handle applications for access to documents received under this regulation in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
Article 30
Confidentiality
1. The applicant may indicate which information submitted under this Regulation it wishes to be treated as confidential on the ground that its disclosure might significantly harm its competitive position. Verifiable justification must be given in such cases.
2. Without prejudice to paragraph 3, the Commission shall determine, after consultation with the applicant, which information should be kept confidential and shall inform the applicant of its decision.
3. Information relating to the following shall not be considered confidential:
(a) name and composition of the GMO, food or feed referred to in Articles 3(1) and 15(1) and, where appropriate, indication of the substrate and the micro-organism;
(b) general description of the GMO and the name and address of the authorisation-holder;
(c) physico-chemical and biological characteristics of the GMO, food or feed referred to in Articles 3(1) and 15(1);
(d) effects of the GMO, food or feed referred to in Articles 3(1) and 15(1) on human and animal health and on the environment;
(e) effects of the GMO, food or feed referred to in Articles 3(1) and 15(1) on the characteristics of animal products and its nutritional properties;
(f) methods for detection, including sampling and identification of the transformation event and, where applicable, for the detection and identification of the transformation event in the food or feed referred to in Articles 3(1) and 15(1);
(g) information on waste treatment and emergency response.
4. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, the Authority shall on request supply the Commission and Member States with all information in its possession.
5. The use of the detection methods and the reproduction of the reference materials, provided under Article 5(3) and 17(3) for the purpose of applying this Regulation to the GMOs, food or feed to which an application refers, shall not be restricted by the exercise of intellectual property rights or otherwise.
6. The Commission, the Authority and the Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure appropriate confidentiality of the information received by them under this Regulation except for information which must be made public if circumstances so require in order to protect human health, animal health or the environment.
7. If an applicant withdraws or has withdrawn an application, the Authority, the Commission and the Member States shall respect the confidentiality of commercial and industrial information, including research and development information, as well as information as to the confidentiality of which the Commission and the applicant disagree.
Article 31
Data protection
The scientific data and other information in the application dossier required under Article 5(3) and (5) and Article 17(3) and (5) may not be used for the benefit of another applicant for a period of 10 years from the date of authorisation, unless the other applicant has agreed with the authorisation-holder that such data and information may be used.
On the expiry of this 10-year period, the findings of all or part of the evaluation conducted on the basis of the scientific data and information contained in the application dossier may be used by the Authority for the benefit of another applicant if the applicant can demonstrate that the food or feed for which it is seeking authorisation is essentially similar to a food or feed already authorised under this Regulation.
Article 32
Community reference laboratory
The Community reference laboratory and its duties and tasks shall be those referred to in the Annex.
National reference laboratories may be established in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2).
Applicants for authorisation of genetically modified food and feed shall contribute to supporting the costs of the tasks of the Community reference laboratory and the European Network of GMO laboratories mentioned in the Annex.
The contributions from applicants shall not exceed the costs incurred in carrying out the validation of detection methods.
Detailed rules for implementing this Article, the Annex and any changes to it may be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2).
Article 33
Consultation with the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies
1. The Commission, on its own initiative or at the request of a Member State, may consult the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies or any other appropriate body it might establish, with a view to obtaining its opinion on ethical issues.
2. The Commission shall make these opinions available to the public.
Article 34
Emergency measures
Where it is evident that products authorised by or in accordance with this Regulation are likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment, or where, in the light of an opinion of the Authority issued under Article 10 or Article 22, the need to suspend or modify urgently an authorisation arises, measures shall be taken under the procedures provided for in Articles 53 and 54 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.
Article 35
Committee procedure
1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, set up by Article 58 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, hereinafter referred to as the "Committee".
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.
The period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months.
3. The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure.
Article 36
Administrative review
Any decision taken under, or failure to exercise, the powers vested in the Authority by this Regulation may be reviewed by the Commission on its own initiative or in response to a request from a Member State or from any person directly and individually concerned.
To this effect a request shall be submitted to the Commission within two months from the day on which the party concerned became aware of the act or omission in question.
The Commission shall take a decision within two months requiring, if appropriate, the Authority to withdraw its decision or to remedy its failure to act.
Article 37
Repeals
The following Regulations shall be repealed with effect from the date of application of this Regulation:
- Regulation (EC) No 1139/98,
- Regulation (EC) No 49/2000,
- Regulation (EC) No 50/2000.
Article 38
Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 258/97
Regulation (EC) No 258/97 is hereby amended with effect from the date of application of this Regulation as follows:
1. The following provisions shall be deleted:
- Article 1(2)(a) and (b),
- Article 3(2), second subparagraph, and (3),
- Article 8(1)(d),
- Article 9.
2. In Article 3, the first sentence of paragraph 4 shall be replaced by the following:
"4. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, the procedure referred to in Article 5 shall apply to foods or food ingredients referred to in Article 1(2)(d) and (e) which, on the basis of the scientific evidence available and generally recognised or on the basis of an opinion delivered by one of the competent bodies referred to in Article 4(3), are substantially equivalent to existing foods or food ingredients as regards their composition, nutritional value, metabolism, intended use and the level of undesirable substances contained therein."
Article 39
Amendment to Directive 82/471/EEC
The following paragraph shall be added to Article 1 of Directive 82/471/EEC with effect from the date of application of this Regulation:
"3. This Directive does not apply to products which act as direct or indirect protein sources that fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed(30)."
Article 40
Amendments to Directive 2002/53/EC
Directive 2002/53/EC is hereby amended with effect from the date of application of this Regulation as follows:
1. Article 4(5) shall be replaced by the following:
"5. Further, when material derived from a plant variety is intended to be used in food falling within the scope of Article 3, or in feed falling within the scope of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed(31), the variety shall be accepted only if it has been approved in accordance with that Regulation."
2. Article 7(5) shall be replaced by the following:
"5. Member States shall ensure that a variety intended to be used in food or feed as defined in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority, and laying down procedures in matters of food safety(32) is accepted only if it has been authorised under the relevant legislation."
Article 41
Amendments to Directive 2002/55/EC
Directive 2002/55/EC is hereby amended with effect from the date of application of this Regulation as follows:
1. Article 4(3) shall be replaced by the following:
"3. Further, when material derived from a plant variety is intended to be used in food falling within the scope of Article 3, or in feed falling within the scope of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed(33), the variety shall be accepted only if it has been approved in accordance with that Regulation."
2. Article 7(5) shall be replaced by the following:
"5. Member States shall ensure that a variety intended to be used in food or feed as defined in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority, and laying down procedures in matters of food safety(34) is accepted only if it has been authorised under the relevant legislation."
Article 42
Amendment to Directive 68/193/EEC
Article 5ba(3) of Directive 68/193/EEC shall be replaced by the following wording with effect from the date of application of this Regulation:
"3. (a) Where products derived from vine-propagating material are intended to be used as or in food falling within the scope of Article 3 or as or in a feed falling within the scope of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed(35), the vine variety concerned shall be accepted only if it has been authorised pursuant to the said Regulation.
(b) Member States shall ensure that a vine variety, from the propagating material of which products were derived intended for use in food and feed pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority, and laying down procedures in matters of food safety(36) shall be accepted only if it has been authorised pursuant to the relevant legislation."
Article 43
Amendments to Directive 2001/18/EC
Directive 2001/18/EC is hereby amended with effect from the date of entry into force of this Regulation, as follows:
1. The following Article shall be inserted:
"Article 12a
Transitional measures for adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified organisms having benefited from a favourable risk evaluation
1. Placing on the market of traces of a GMO or combination of GMOs in products intended for direct use as food or feed or for processing shall be exempted from Articles 13 to 21 provided that they meet the conditions referred to in Article 47 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed(37).
2. This Article shall be applicable for a period of three years after the date of application of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003."
2. The following Article shall be inserted:
"Article 26a
Measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs
1. Member States may take appropriate measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products.
2. The Commission shall gather and coordinate information based on studies at Community and national level, observe the developments regarding coexistence in the Member States and, on the basis of the information and observations, develop guidelines on the coexistence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops."
Article 44
Information to be provided in accordance with the Cartagena Protocol
1. Any authorisation, renewal, modification, suspension or revocation of authorisation of a GMO, food or feed referred to in Articles 3(1)(a) or (b) or 15(1)(a) or (b) shall be notified by the Commission to the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol through the biosafety clearing house in accordance with Article 11(1) or Article 12(1) of the Cartagena Protocol, as the case may be.
The Commission shall provide a copy of the information, in writing, to the national focal point of each Party that informs the Secretariat in advance that it does not have access to the biosafety clearing house.
2. The Commission shall also process requests for additional information made by any Party in accordance with Article 11(3) of the Cartagena Protocol and shall provide copies of the laws, regulations and guidelines in accordance with Article 11(5) of that Protocol.
Article 45
Penalties
The Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission six months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation at the latest and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.
Article 46
Transitional measures for requests, labelling and notifications
1. Requests submitted under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 before the date of application of this Regulation shall be transformed into applications under Chapter II, Section 1 of this Regulation where the initial assessment report provided for under Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 has not yet been forwarded to the Commission, as well as in all cases where an additional assessment report is required in accordance with Article 6(3) or (4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97. Other requests submitted under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 before the date of application of this Regulation shall be processed under the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 258/97, notwithstanding Article 38 of this Regulation.
2. The labelling requirements referred to in this Regulation shall not apply to products, the manufacturing process of which has commenced before the date of application of this Regulation, provided that these products are labelled in accordance with the legislation applicable to them before the date of application of this Regulation.
3. Notifications concerning products including their use as feed submitted under Article 13 of Directive 2001/18/EC before the date of application of this Regulation shall be transformed into applications under Chapter III, Section 1 of this Regulation where the assessment report provided for in Article 14 of Directive 2001/18/EC has not yet been sent to the Commission.
4. Requests submitted for products referred to in Article 15(1)(c) of this Regulation under Article 7 of Directive 82/471/EEC before the date of application of this Regulation shall be transformed into applications under Chapter III, Section 1 of this Regulation.
5. Requests submitted for products referred to in Article 15(1) of this Regulation under Article 4 of Directive 70/524/EEC before the date of application of this Regulation shall be supplemented by applications under Chapter III, Section 1 of this Regulation.
Article 47
Transitional measures for adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified material which has benefited from a favourable risk evaluation
1. The presence in food or feed of material which contains, consists of or is produced from GMOs in a proportion no higher than 0,5 % shall not be considered to be in breach of Article 4(2) or Article 16(2), provided that:
(a) this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable;
(b) the genetically modified material has benefited from a favourable opinion from the Community Scientific Committee(s) or the Authority before the date of application of this Regulation;
(c) the application for its authorisation has not been rejected in accordance with the relevant Community legislation; and
(d) detection methods are publicly available.
2. In order to establish that the presence of this material is adventitious or technically unavoidable, operators must be in a position to demonstrate to the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of such materials.
3. The thresholds referred to in paragraph 1 may be lowered in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2), in particular for GMOs sold directly to the final consumer.
4. Detailed rules for implementing this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 35(2).
5. This Article shall remain applicable for a period of three years after the date of application of this Regulation.
Article 48
Review
1. No later than 7 November 2005 and in the light of experience gained, the Commission shall forward to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the implementation of this Regulation and in particular of Article 47, accompanied, where appropriate, by any suitable proposal. The report and any proposal shall be made accessible to the public.
2. Without prejudice to the powers of national authorities, the Commission shall monitor the application of this Regulation and its impact on human and animal health, consumer protection, consumer information and the functioning of the internal market and, if necessary, will bring forward proposals at the earliest possible date.
Article 49
Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from six months after the date of publication of this Regulation.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 September 2003.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 5 December 1988 approving derogations provided for by Italy from certain provisions of Council Directive 77/93/EEC in respect of seed potatoes originating in Poland (Only the Italian text is authentic) (88/632/EEC) (88/632/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 77/93/EEC of 21 December 1976 on protective measures against the introduction into the Member States of organisms harmful to plants or plant products (1), as last amended by Directive 88/572/EEC (2), and in particular Article 14 (2) thereof and Annex IV, part A (24) thereto,
Whereas, pursuant to Directive 77/93/EEC, potato tubers originating in third countries where potato spindle tuber viroid has occurred may not, in principle, be brought into the Community unless their faculty of germination has been suppressed, in view of the risk of introduction of potato spindle tuber viroid, and unless - if they originate in a country where Corynebacterium sepedonicum is known to occur - provisions recognized as equivalent to the Community provisions on combating this harmful organism have been complied with in the country of origin;
Whereas, nevertheless, Article 14 (1) (c) (iii) of the abovementioned Directive permits Member States to provide for derogations with regard to the rule relating to the suppression of the faculty of germination, provided that there is no risk of harmful organisms spreading; whereas these derogations are subject to approval, under certain conditions, in accordance with Article 14 (2) and must also comply with the conditions laid down in Annex IV, part A (24);
Whereas in Italy the growing of potatoes of the Sieglinde variety has been an established practice; whereas part of the supply of seed potatoes of this variety has been ensured by imports from Poland;
Whereas Italy has stated that it intends to provide for derogations for the current seed-potato marketing seasons;
Whereas it is known that Poland is still not free from potato spindle tuber viroid or from Corynebacterium sepedonicum;
Whereas Poland has developed a programme to eradicate these harmful organisms on a regional basis; whereas there are good reasons to believe that the programme to eradicate these harmful organisms has become fully effective, at least in certain ´closed zones' (strefy zamkniete) of the voiedvodship of Lomza;
Whereas it can therefore be established that there is no risk of the harmful organisms in question spreading, provided that the seed potatoes originate in such zones and that certain special technical conditions are complied with;
Whereas the Commission will ensure that Poland makes all technical information available which is necessary to monitor the protective measures required under the aforementioned conditions, and to assess the development of the Polish eradication programme;
Whereas, therefore, the derogations provided for by Italy should be approved for the current seed-potato marketing season, provided that they include the aforementioned conditions and without prejudice to Council Directive 66/403/EEC (3), as last amended by Directive 88/359/EEC (4), and to Council Directive 70/457/EEC (5), as last amended by Directive 88/380/EEC (6);
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1 1. Approval is hereby given, under the conditions laid down in paragraph 2, and without prejudice to Directives 66/403/EEC and 70/457/EEC, to Italy to provide, in accordance with Article 14 (1) (c) (iii) of Directive 77/93/EEC, and in connection with the third indent of part A (24) of Annex IV thereto, for derogations from Article 5 (1) and the third indent of Article 12 (1) (a) of that Directive as regards the requirements referred to in part A (25) of Annex IV thereto, in respect of seed potatoes of the Sieglinde variety originating in Poland.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the following conditions shall apply:
(a) the seed potatoes shall have been produced in fields located in the ´closed zone' (strefa zamknieta) of Wierzbowo in the voievodship of Lomza;
(b) the seed potatoes shall have been produced exclusively from seed potatoes of the ´Super-Elite' category, supplied by the official Plant Improvement Station of Lubleno in the voievodship of Gdansk;
(c) the seed potatoes shall be certified officially as seed potatoes meeting at least the conditions laid down for the ´Elite' category;
(d) samples shall be taken officially in respect of each lot intended for Italy; a lot may consist only of tubers of one single variety which have been produced on one single establishment; the samples shall be examined by official laboratories in order to detect any presence of potato spindle tuber viroid or Corynebacterium sepedonicum; the samples for the detection of potato spindle tuber viroid shall be tubers, or leaves taken from the crop which produced the lot; for the detection of Corynebacterium sepedonicum two samples of tubers shall be taken per lot, each of which shall be approximately 1 % of the tubers in the lot, up to 1 000 tubers; the examinations shall be carried out on the entire samples, using the following methods:
- as regards potato spindle tuber viroid:
the Page method, after passage of the material through appropriate plants, or c-DNA hybridization procedure, and - as regards Corynebacterium sepedonicum: at least the Angers IF method or an equivalent IF method;
(e) the lots shall be kept separate in all operations including transport;
(f) the plant health certificate required shall be made out separately for each consignment and only if it has been established by the scientists involved that the examinations referred to in (d) did not give rise to suspicions or to the detection of the presence of potato spindle tuber viroid or Corynebacterium sepedonicum in the lot, and that in particular the IF-testing was shown to be negative. It shall state, under ´Additional Declaration' that the conditions laid down in (a) to (d) have been complied with, and shall give the name of the establishment which produced the seed potatoes and the seed potato certification number, as well as the name of the area referred to in (a);
(g) in Italy, a representative sample shall be taken officially from each of the lots imported pursuant to this Decision, for official examination in respect of Corynebacterium sepedonicum, in accordance with the Community established method for the detection and diagnosis of Corynebacterium sepedonicum; the lots shall remain separate under official control and may not be marketed or used until it has been established that the presence of Corynebacterium sepedonicum was not suspected or detected in those examinations; sub-samples shall be kept available for subsequent examination by other Member States, and the Italian authorities shall before 31 March 1989 inform the Commission, with a view to organizing that examination and the recording thereof; the total of lots imported shall not exceed an amount which is adequate for the abovementioned examinations, taking into account the facilities available for that purpose;
(h) potatoes grown from seed potatoes imported pursuant to this Decision shall not be certified as seed potatoes and shall be used only in Italy, and only as potatoes for consumption;
(i) buildings, containers, packaging material, vehicles and handling, grading and preparation equipment which have been in contact with seed potatoes imported pursuant to this Decision shall be cleaned and disinfected before being brought into contact with other potatoes.
Article 2 Italy shall provide the Commission and the other Member States, before 1 June 1989 with information on the amounts imported pursuant to this Decision and with a detailed technical report of the official examination referred to in Article 1 (2) (g); copies of each plant health certificate shall be transmitted to the Commission.
Article 3 The approval granted in Article 1 shall expire on 31 March 1989. It shall be revoked prior to that date if it is found that the conditions laid down in Article 1 (2) have been insufficient to prevent the introduction of the harmful organisms in question or have not been complied with. It may be revoked prior to that date if it is found that there are elements which would militate against the proper functioning of the ´closed zones' concept in Poland.
Article 4 This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.
Done at Brussels, 5 December 1988.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION 2009/820/CFSP
of 23 October 2009
on the conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America and the Agreement on mutual legal assistance between the European Union and the United States of America
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 24 and 38 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Following the authorisation given by the Council on 26 April 2002 to the Presidency, assisted by the Commission, to enter into negotiations with the United States of America, two Agreements on international cooperation in criminal matters, one on extradition and one on mutual legal assistance, have been negotiated with the United States of America.
(2)
In accordance with Council Decision 2003/516/EC of 6 June 2003 (1), the Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America (2) and the Agreement on mutual legal assistance between the European Union and the United States of America (3) have been signed on behalf of the European Union on 25 June 2003.
(3)
The Agreements should now be approved.
(4)
The Agreements provide in their Article 3(2) that written instruments be exchanged between the USA and the Member States of the Union on the application of bilateral treaties. Article 3(3) of the Agreement on mutual legal assistance provides a similar obligation for those Member States that do not have a bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty with the United States. These written instruments have been exchanged between all Member States and the United States of America.
(5)
On 19 February 2009 the General Secretariat of the Council notified the United States of America of the designations pursuant to Articles 2(3) and 10(2) of the Agreement on extradition and pursuant to Articles 4(3) and 8(2)(b) of the Agreement on mutual legal assistance, as well as of limitations invoked under Article 4(4) of the Agreement on mutual legal assistance,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America and the Agreement on mutual legal assistance between the European Union and the United States of America are hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.
Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered, on behalf of the European Union, to exchange the instruments of approval provided for in Article 22 of the Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America and in Article 18 of the Agreement on mutual legal assistance between the European Union and the United States of America, in order to express the consent of the European Union to be bound.
Article 3
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Done at Luxembourg, 23 October 2009.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1842/2003
of 17 October 2003
fixing the interest rates to be used for calculating the costs of financing intervention measures comprising buying-in, storage and disposal for the EAGGF Guarantee Section for the accounting year 2004
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1883/78 of 2 August 1978 laying down general rules for the financing of interventions by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1259/96(2), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 5 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 411/88 of 12 February 1988 on the method and the rate of interest to be used for calculating the costs of financing intervention measures comprising buying-in, storage and disposal(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2623/1999(4), lays down that the uniform interest rate used for calculating the costs of financing intervention measures is to correspond to the three months' and 12 months' forward Euribor rates with a weighting of one third and two thirds respectively.
(2) The Commission fixes this rate before the beginning of each EAGGF Guarantee Section accounting year on the basis of the rates recorded in the six months preceding fixing.
(3) Article 4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 411/88 lays down that if the rate of interest borne by a Member State is lower for at least six months than the uniform interest rate fixed for the Community, a specific interest rate is to be fixed for that Member State. Where a Member State has not notified the rates before the end of the accounting year, the rate to be applied is determined on the basis of the reference interest rates set out in the Annex to the said Regulation.
(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the EAGGF Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For expenditure incurred during the 2004 EAGGF Guarantee Section accounting year:
1. the interest rate referred to in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 411/88 shall be 2,3 %;
2. the specific interest rate referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 411/88 shall be 2,2 % for Italy.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 October 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 17 October 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 713/2005
of 10 May 2005
imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain broad spectrum antibiotics originating in India
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Articles 18 and 19 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A. PROCEDURE
I. Previous investigation and existing measures
(1)
The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 2164/98 (2), imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain broad spectrum antibiotics, namely amoxicillin trihydrate, ampicillin trihydrate and cefalexin not put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale (the product concerned) falling within CN codes ex 2941 10 10, ex 2941 10 20 and ex 2941 90 00 originating in India. The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty ranging between 0 and 12 % imposed on imports from individually named exporters with a residual duty rate of 14,6 % imposed on imports from other exporters.
II. Request for a combined expiry and interim review
(2)
Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (3) of the definitive measures in force, the Commission received a request for the initiation of a combined expiry and interim review of Regulation (EC) No 2164/98 pursuant to Articles 18(2) and 19(2) of the basic Regulation, from related Community producers of the like product, Sandoz GmbH, Austria, and Sandoz Industrial Products SA, Spain, (the applicants). The applicants represent a major proportion, in this case over 40 %, of the total Community production of certain broad spectrum antibiotics.
(3)
The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in the continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and injury to the Community industry and that the level of the measures in force was allegedly inappropriate to counteract the subsidisation which was causing the injury.
(4)
Prior to the initiation of the combined expiry and interim review, and in accordance with Articles 22(1) and 10(9) of the basic Regulation, the Commission notified the Government of India (the GOI) that it had received a properly documented review request. The GOI was invited for consultations with the aim of clarifying the situation as regards the contents of the request and arriving at a mutually agreed solution. The GOI declined the Commission's invitation to have consultations.
III. Initiation of a combined expiry and interim review
(5)
The Commission examined the evidence submitted by the applicants and considered it sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accordance with the provisions of Articles 18(2) and 19(2) of the basic Regulation. After consultation of the Advisory Committee, the Commission initiated, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (4), a combined expiry and interim review of Council Regulation (EC) No 2164/98.
IV. Investigation period
(6)
The investigation covered the period from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 (the review investigation period or IP). The examination of trends in the context of injury covered the period from 1 January 1999 up to the end of the review investigation period (the period considered).
V. Parties concerned by the investigation
(7)
The Commission officially informed the applicants, other known Community producers, exporting producers, importers, upstream suppliers, users and the GOI of the initiation of the investigation. Interested parties had the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing. The written and oral comments submitted by the parties were considered and, where appropriate, taken into account.
(8)
In view of the apparently large number of exporting producers of the product concerned in India which were named in the request, the use of sampling techniques for the investigation of subsidisation was envisaged in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation.
(9)
However, only a limited number of exporting producers made themselves known and provided the information requested for sampling. Therefore, the use of sampling techniques was not considered necessary.
(10)
The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned who made themselves known within the deadlines set in the notice of initiation. Replies were received from five Community producers, seven exporting producers, one importer, two up-stream suppliers and the GOI.
(11)
The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the determination of subsidisation and injury as well as to determine whether there is a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and injury and whether maintaining or amending the measures would not be against the Community interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following interested parties:
1.
Community producers
DSM Anti-Infectives BV, Delft (The Netherlands), which also replied to the Commission’s questionnaire on behalf of DSM Anti-Infectives Deretil SA, Almeria, (Spain) and DSM Anti-Infectives Chemferm SA, Santa Perpetua de Mogoda, (Spain). These three companies are hereafter jointly referred to as ‘DSM’.
Sandoz GmbH (formerly Biochemie GmbH), Kundl (Austria), which also replied to the Commission's questionnaire on behalf of Sandoz Industrial Products SA (formerly Biochemie SA), Barcelona (Spain). Both companies are hereafter jointly referred to as ‘Sandoz’.
2.
Government of India
Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi.
3.
Exporting producers in India
KDL Biotech Ltd (formerly Kopran Ltd), Mumbai,
Orchid Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd, Chennai,
Nectar Lifesciences Ltd, Chandigarh,
Nestor Pharmaceuticals Ltd, New Delhi,
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, New Delhi,
Torrent Gujarat Biotech Ltd, Ahmedabad,
Surya Pharmaceutical Ltd, Chandigarh.
VI. Disclosure and comments on procedure
(12)
The GOI and the other interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations upon which it was intended to propose the continuation of measures. They were also given a reasonable time to comment. Certain parties presented their comments in writing. In addition, the GOI and three exporting producers presented their positions in post-disclosure hearings followed up by post-hearing submissions summarizing their positions. All submissions and comments were taken duly into consideration as set out below.
(13)
The GOI and one exporting producer pointed out during a post-disclosure hearing that the applicants did not produce one type of the like product, i.e. cefalexin, and claim that therefore in respect of this type the initiation of the investigation should be made void.
(14)
In response to this submission, it should be recalled that already in the original investigation it was established that all types of the product under investigation (see below under Section B) constitute one single category of product (5). All types belong to the same category, i.e. bulk semisynthetic broad spectrum antibiotics, and have the same use, that of being incorporated into finished dosage forms which are effective in treating a variety of infectious diseases. Thus, since all types form one product for the purpose of this proceeding, which is produced by the applicants, this argument has to be refuted.
(15)
The GOI and one exporting producer contended that the non-confidential questionnaire replies of the Community producers were not sufficiently detailed and not filed in accordance with Article 29 of the basic Regulation. It was alleged, that a lack of information in the non-confidential questionnaire replies denied cooperating exporters an effective opportunity to defend their interests in relation to the injury and causal link analysis.
(16)
In this context, it should be noted that, as set out in section E, the Community industry in the present investigation consists of only two parties, i.e. Sandoz and DSM. In addition, one party produced only amoxicillin trihydrate and ampicillin trihydrate, whereas the other produced cefalexin as well. These particular circumstances with regard to the Community industry increased the confidential nature of certain data provided during the investigation. In any event, the file available for inspection by interested parties contains the non-confidential replies to the questionnaire of both cooperating Community producers, where confidential data have been provided in index form in order to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence. Therefore, the non-confidential questionnaire replies of the Community producers are still considered in line with the provisions of Article 29 of the basic Regulation. In addition, it is pertinent to note, that the indexed injury data as disclosed and set out in section F of this Regulation provided all interested parties with a sufficiently precise picture on the injury and causality situation, so as to be able to assess the analysis and defend their interests.
B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT
I. Product concerned
(17)
The product covered by this review is the same product as the one concerned by Council Regulation (EC) No 2164/98, namely amoxicillin trihydrate, ampicillin trihydrate and cefalexin not put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale falling within CN codes ex 2941 10 10, ex 2941 10 20 and ex 2941 90 00 originating in India (the product concerned).
II. Like product
(18)
During the post-disclosure hearing the GOI and one exporting producer have drawn attention to the fact that one Community producer mentioned certain differences in ‘stability, purity, assay, galenical properties etc.’ when comparing the product concerned and the like product. In addition, the only cooperating importer mentioned differences with regard to water solubility.
(19)
However, both the product concerned and the like product have to correspond to the same international pharmacopoeias with certain specifications. Thus, though not alike in all respects, they closely resemble each other as required by Article 1(5) of the basic Regulation.
(20)
Consequently, the investigation confirmed that the amoxicillin trihydrate, ampicillin trihydrate and cefalexin produced and sold in the Community by the Community producers had identical or closely resembling physical characteristics and uses to the product concerned and were thus a like product within the meaning of Article 1(5) of the basic Regulation.
C. SUBSIDIES
I. Introduction
(21)
On the basis of the information contained in the review request and the replies to the Commission's questionnaire, the following schemes, which allegedly involve the granting of subsidies, were investigated:
1. Nationwide schemes
(a)
Advance licence scheme,
(b)
Duty entitlement passbook scheme,
(c)
Special economic zones/Export oriented units scheme,
(d)
Export promotion capital goods scheme,
(e)
Income tax schemes,
-
Export income tax exemption scheme,
-
Income tax incentive for research and development,
(f)
Export credit scheme.
(22)
The schemes (a) to (d) specified above are based on the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 (No 22 of 1992) which entered into force on 7 August 1992 (Foreign Trade Act). The Foreign Trade Act authorises the GOI to issue notifications regarding the export and import policy. These are summarised in ‘Export and Import Policy’ documents, which are issued by the Ministry of Commerce every five years and updated regularly. One Export and Import Policy document is relevant to the review investigation period of this case; i.e. the five-year plan relating to the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2007 (EXIM-policy 02-07). In addition, the GOI also sets out the procedures governing the EXIM-policy 02-07 in a ‘Handbook of Procedures - 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2007, Volume I’ (HOP I 02-07) (6). The Handbook of Procedures is also updated on a regular basis.
(23)
The income tax schemes specified above under (e) are based on the Income Tax Act of 1961, which is amended yearly by the Finance Act.
(24)
The Export credit scheme specified above under (f) is based on sections 21 and 35A of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, which allow the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to direct commercial banks in the field of export credits.
2. Regional Schemes
(25)
On the basis of the information contained in the review request and the replies to the Commission's questionnaire, the Commission also investigated a number of schemes which allegedly are granted by regional governments or authorities in certain Indian states.
(a)
State of Punjab,
-
Punjab industrial incentive scheme.
-
This scheme is based on the industrial policy and incentives code of the Government of Punjab.
(b)
State of Gujarat,
-
Gujarat industrial incentive scheme,
-
Refund of electricity duty.
-
The first scheme is based on Gujarat's industrial incentive policy whereas the second scheme is based on the Bombay Electricity Duty Act of 1958.
(c)
State of Maharashtra,
-
Package scheme of incentives of the Government of Maharashtra (the GOM). This scheme is based on resolutions of the GOM Industries, Energy and Labour Department.
(26)
One income tax scheme (income tax incentive for research and development) and three regional schemes (Punjab industrial incentives, Gujarat industrial incentives and Gujarat refund of electricity duty) were not mentioned in the review request. Therefore, in accordance with Articles 22(1) and 11(10) of the basic Regulation, the Commission notified the GOI about a possible extension of the scope of the investigation in order to include these schemes. The GOI was invited for consultations with the aim of clarifying the factual situation as regards the alleged schemes and arriving at a mutually agreed solution. Following these consultations, and in the absence of a mutually agreed solution in relation to these four schemes, the Commission included these schemes in the investigation of subsidisation.
3. General disclosure comments on subsidisation
(27)
Two exporting producers contended that the Advance licence scheme, the Income tax incentive scheme for research and development and the Export credit scheme should be excluded from the scope of the present investigation, because a review should only cover schemes originally investigated. In this case, these three schemes and the regional schemes investigated were not investigated during the original investigation.
(28)
However, the relevant provisions of the basic Regulation concerning interim and expiry reviews do not stipulate such a narrow approach in reviews. For example, an interim review could lead to an increase of measures, in line with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, if the existing ones were insufficient to counteract a countervailable subsidy. Article 19(4) of the basic Regulation further requires an examination to ‘consider whether the circumstances with regard to subsidisation (…) have changed significantly’. Thus, an interim review concerning subsidisation can lead per se to a complete re-evaluation of the subsidisation framework, not just the subsidy schemes originally investigated, which possibly could benefit the product concerned. In addition, an expiry review need not solely focus on schemes originally investigated. Article 18(2) of the basic Regulation refers to ‘continuation or recurrence of subsidisation’, that is to say, in general, and not to subsidy schemes originally investigated. Consequently, reviews are not limited to schemes originally investigated, but necessitate a determination of present and future subsidisation, including programs not originally investigated. In fact, it is only such an approach which leads to an adequate analysis of the factual situation concerning subsidisation during a given review investigation period. Otherwise, governments could effectively shield themselves from subsidy disciplines by simply renaming a scheme or making slight structural changes in it. This would frustrate the object and purpose of countervailing measures, which is to offset injurious subsidisation.
II. Nationwide schemes
1. Advance licence scheme (ALS)
(a) Legal basis
(29)
The detailed description of the scheme is contained in paragraphs 4.1.1 to 4.1.14 of the EXIM-policy 02-07 and chapters 4.1 to 4.30 of the HOP I 02-07.
(b) Eligibility
(30)
The ALS consists of six subschemes, as described in more detail in recital 31. Those subschemes, inter alia, differ in the scope of eligibility. Manufacturer-exporters and merchant-exporters ‘tied to’ supporting manufacturers are eligible for the ALS physical exports and for the ALS for annual requirement. Manufacturer-exporters supplying the ultimate exporter are eligible for ALS for intermediate supplies. Main contractors which supply to the ‘deemed export’ categories mentioned in paragraph 8.2 of the EXIM-policy 02-07, such as suppliers of an export oriented unit (EOU), are eligible for ALS deemed export. Eventually, intermediate suppliers to manufacturer-exporters are eligible for ‘deemed export’ benefits under the subschemes advance release order (ARO) and back to back inland letter of credit.
(c) Practical implementation
(31)
Advance licences can be issued for:
(i) Physical exports: this is the main subscheme. It allows for duty free import of input materials for the production of a specific resultant export product. ‘Physical’ in this context means that the export product has to leave Indian territory. Import allowance and export obligation including the type of export product are specified in the licence.
(ii) Annual requirement: such a licence is not linked to a specific export product, but to a wider product group (e.g. chemical and allied products). The licence holder can, up to a certain value threshold set by its past export performance, import duty free any input to be used in manufacturing any of the items falling under such a product group. It can choose to export any resultant product falling under the product group using such duty-exempt material.
(iii) Intermediate supplies: this subscheme covers cases where two manufacturers intend to produce a single export product and divide the production process. The manufacturer-exporter produces the intermediate product. It can import duty free input materials and can obtain for this purpose an ALS for intermediate supplies. The ultimate exporter finalizes the production and is obliged to export the finished product.
(iv) Deemed exports: this subscheme allows a main contractor to import inputs free of duty which are required in manufacturing goods to be sold as ‘deemed exports’ to the categories of customers mentioned in paragraph 8.2(b) to (f), (g), (i) and (j) of the EXIM policy 02-07. According to the GOI, deemed exports refer to those transactions in which the goods supplied do not leave the country. A number of categories of supply is regarded as deemed exports provided the goods are manufactured in India, e.g. supply of goods to an EOU or to a company situated in a special economic zone (SEZ).
(v) ARO: The ALS holder intending to source the inputs from indigenous sources, in lieu of direct import, has the option to source them against AROs. In such cases the Advance Licences are validated as AROs and are endorsed to the indigenous supplier upon delivery of the items specified therein. The endorsement of the ARO entitles the indigenous supplier to the benefits of deemed exports as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the EXIM-policy 02-07 (i.e. ALS for intermediate supplies/deemed export, deemed export drawback and refund of terminal excise duty). The ARO mechanism refunds taxes and duties to the supplier instead of refunding the same to the ultimate exporter in the form of drawback/refund of duties. The refund of taxes/duties is available both for indigenous inputs as well as imported inputs.
(vi) Back to back inland letter of credit: this subscheme again covers indigenous supplies to an ALS holder. The holder of an ALS can approach a bank for opening an inland letter of credit in favour of an indigenous supplier. The licence will be invalidated by the bank for direct import, only in respect of the value and volume of items being sourced indigenously instead of importation. The indigenous supplier will be entitled to deemed export benefits as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the EXIM-policy 02-07 (i.e. ALS for intermediate supplies/deemed export, deemed export drawback and refund of terminal excise duty).
It was established that during the review investigation period, the cooperating exporters only obtained concessions under four subschemes linked to the product concerned, i.e. (i) ALS physical exports, (ii) ALS for annual requirement, (iii) ALS for intermediate supplies as furnisher to an ultimate exporter and (iv) ALS deemed export as supplier to EOUs/units in SEZs. It is therefore not necessary to establish the countervailability of (v) the ARO scheme and (vi) the back to back inland letter of credit scheme.
(32)
For verification purposes by the Indian authorities, a licence holder is legally obliged to maintain ‘a true and proper account of licence-wise consumption and utilisation of imported goods’ in a specified format (chapter 4.30 and appendix 18 HOP I 02-07), i.e. an actual consumption register (appendix 18 register).
(33)
With regard to the subschemes (i), (iii) and (iv) listed above under recital 31, both the import allowance and the export (including deemed export) obligation are fixed in volume and value by the GOI and are documented on the licence. In addition, at the time of import and of export, the corresponding transactions are to be documented by government officials on the licence. The volume of imports allowed under this scheme is determined by the GOI on the basis of standard input-output norms (SIONs). SIONs exist for most products including the product concerned and are published in the HOP II 02-07.
(34)
In the case of the subscheme (ii) listed above under recital 31 (ALS for annual requirement), only the import allowance in value is documented on the licence. The licence holder is obliged to ‘maintain the nexus between imported inputs and the resultant product’ (paragraph 4.24A(c) HOP I 02-07).
(35)
Imported input materials are not transferable and have to be used to produce the resultant export product. The export obligation must be fulfilled within a prescribed time frame after issuance of the licence (18 months with two possible extensions of six months each). In case of an ALS for annual requirement, no extension of the time frame is allowed.
(36)
In the course of the review investigation it was established that the input materials imported according to the SIONs import allowance duty free under the various subschemes by the cooperating exporters exceeded the material they needed to produce the reference quantity of the resultant export product. Thus, the SIONs for the product concerned were not accurate. Furthermore, during the review investigation period, none of the cooperating exporters kept a correct actual consumption register based on real consumption. In four cases, such register was not kept at all despite a legal obligation to do so (see recital 32 above). In two cases, no actual consumption was registered by the companies. Neither the investigated exporters nor the GOI were able to demonstrate that the import duty exemption did not lead to an excess remission.
(d) Disclosure comments
(37)
The GOI and five cooperating exporters submitted comments on the ALS. They claimed that the ALS operates as a permitted drawback or substitution drawback system, which allegedly resembles the EC inward processing system, with a verification system in conformity with the provisions of Annexes I, II and III of the basic Regulation in place to monitor the nexus between duty free imported inputs and the resultant export products. The GOI and two exporters further contended that only an excess remission of duties could be countervailed. With regard to a verification system, they insisted that an adequate verification system was in place. In this context they referred to a number of verification elements which were available to the GOI for such verification, including: SIONs, quantity information on import and export documents, a customs bond register of imports and exports under the ALS, a consumption register, a duty entitlement export certification book (DEEC book), redemption verification after fulfilment of importation and exportation, additional checks in the context of the Indian excise and customs duty administration, periodical audits and legal prosecutions in case of ‘diversion’. However, the GOI and one exporter admitted the SIONs ‘can lower that what is actually consumed’. In addition, no exporter provided sufficient evidence that it fulfilled its obligation to properly keep the actual consumption register mandated by the EXIM-policy. Further, two exporters claimed that the investigating authority should have calculated an excess remission itself. Finally, it has been claimed that the EC is bound by past precedents not to countervail the ALS. One exporter provided, after the post-disclosure hearing, a calculation of duties remitted in excess.
(e) Conclusion
(38)
The exemption from import duties is a subsidy within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) and Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. a financial contribution of the GOI which conferred a benefit upon the investigated exporters.
(39)
In addition, ALS physical exports, ALS for annual requirement and ALS for intermediate supply are clearly contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation. Without an export commitment a company cannot obtain benefits under these schemes.
(40)
ALS deemed export under the modalities of the present case is de facto contingent upon export performance. It was only used by one company to a minor extent and only when supplying EOUs or units in a SEZ, both categories mentioned in paragraph 8.2(b) of the EXIM-policy 02-07. This company stated that its customers eventually exported the product concerned. The objective of an EOU/SEZ is exportation as set out in paragraph 6.1 of the EXIM-policy 02-07. Thus, a domestic supplier obtains benefits under the ALS deemed export, because the GOI anticipates export earnings subsequently received by an exporter located in an EOU/SEZ. According to Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation, a subsidy shall be considered as export contingent when the facts demonstrate that the granting of a subsidy, though not legally contingent upon export performance, is in fact tied to actual or anticipated export earnings.
(41)
None of the four subschemes used in the present case can be considered as permissible duty drawback systems or substitution drawback systems within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. This finding is confirmed after careful consideration of the disclosure submissions. They do not conform to the strict rules laid down in Annex I item (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) of the basic Regulation. The GOI did not effectively apply its verification system or procedure to confirm whether and in what amounts inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (Annex II(II)(4) of the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) of the basic Regulation). The SIONs for the product concerned were not sufficiently precise. No disclosure comment has changed this finding. To the contrary, the GOI even admitted the SIONs were inaccurate. Thus, it is confirmed that the SIONs themselves cannot be considered a verification system of actual consumption, because the design of those overly generous standard norms does not enable the GOI to verify with sufficient precision what amount of inputs were consumed in the export production. Furthermore, an effective control done by the GOI based on a correctly kept actual consumption register (appendix 18 register), did not take place. In addition, the GOI did not carry out a further examination based on actual inputs involved, although this would normally need to be carried out in the absence of an effectively applied verification system (Annex II(II)(5) and Annex III(II)(3) to the basic Regulation), nor did it prove, that no excess remission took place. The alleged comparability of the ALS with the EC inward processing system is irrelevant since the EC system is not subject to the present investigation.
(42)
The other verification elements claimed upon disclosure either no longer exist (i.e. the DEEC-book was abolished by the EXIM policy 02-07) or are apparently, in the absence of an effective control of actual consumption registers, based on the overly generous SIONs, which is not sufficient (i.e. information on import export documents, customs bond register, redemption control of ALS). Auditing reports of the Indian authorities with regard to the exporting producers under investigation have not been provided.
(43)
Finally, since the ALS was never previously analysed on a basis of facts comparable with those established during the present investigation, in particular in view of the imprecision of the SIONs for the product concerned, no binding precedent not to countervail the scheme exists.
(44)
These four subschemes are therefore countervailable.
(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount
(45)
In the absence of permitted duty drawback systems or substitution drawback systems, the countervailable benefit is the remission of total import duties normally due upon importation of inputs. Contrary to the disclosure submissions made by the GOI and two exporters, the basic Regulation does not only provide for the countervailing of an ‘excess’ remission of duties. According to Article 2(1)(a)(ii) and Annex I(i) of the basic Regulation only an excess remission of duties can be countervailed, provided the conditions of Annexes II and III of the basic Regulation are met. However, these conditions were not fulfilled in the present case. Thus, if an absence of an adequate monitoring process is established, the above exception for drawback schemes is not applicable and the normal rule of the countervailing of the amount of (revenue foregone) unpaid duties, rather than any purported excess remission, applies. As set out in Annexes II(II) and III(II) of the basic Regulation the burden is not upon the investigating authority to calculate such excess remission. To the contrary, according to Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation it only has to establish sufficient evidence to refute the appropriateness of an alleged verification system. It should further be noted, that an additional examination by the Indian authorities in the absence of an effectively applied verification system needs to be done in a timely manner, i.e. normally before the on the spot verification in a countervailing duty investigation. The calculation of a duty remission in excess provided by one exporter after disclosure is neither timely nor done by the GOI. Therefore, it has to be disregarded.
(46)
The subsidy amounts for the exporters which used the ALS were calculated on the basis of import duties forgone (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) on the material imported under the four subschemes used for the product concerned during the review investigation period as set out under recital 31 (numerator). In accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the subsidy amounts where justified claims were made. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, these subsidy amounts have been allocated over the export turnover generated by the product concerned during the review investigation period as appropriate denumerator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported.
(47)
Six companies benefited from this scheme during the review investigation period and obtained subsidies of between 22,0 and 25,8 % (see table in recital 154).
2. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS)
(a) Legal Basis
(48)
The detailed description of the DEPBS is contained in paragraph 4.3 of the EXIM-policy 02-07 and in chapter 4 of the HOP I 02-07.
(b) Eligibility
(49)
Any manufacturer-exporter or merchant-exporter is eligible for this scheme.
(c) Practical implementation of the DEPBS
(50)
An eligible exporter can apply for DEPBS credits which are calculated as a percentage of the value of products exported under this scheme. Such DEPBS rates have been established by the Indian authorities for most products, including the product concerned. They are determined on the basis of SIONs, taking into account a presumed import content of inputs in the export product and the customs duty incidence on such presumed imports, regardless of whether import duties have actually been paid or not.
(51)
To be eligible for benefits under this scheme, a company must export. At the point in time of the export transaction, a declaration must be made by the exporter to the authorities in India indicating that the export is taking place under the DEPBS. In order for the goods to be exported, the Indian customs authorities issue, during the dispatch procedure, an export shipping bill. This document shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPBS credit which is to be granted for that export transaction. At this point in time, the exporter knows the benefit it will receive. Once the customs authorities issue an export shipping bill, the GOI has no discretion over the granting of a DEPBS credit. The relevant DEPBS rate to calculate the benefit is that which applied at the time the export declaration is made. Therefore, there is no possibility for a retroactive amendment to the level of the benefit.
(52)
It was also found that in accordance with Indian accounting standards, DEPBS credits can be booked on an accrual basis as income in the commercial accounts, upon fulfilment of the export obligation.
(53)
Such credits can be used for payment of customs duties on subsequent imports of any goods unrestrictedly importable, except capital goods. Goods imported against such credits can be sold on the domestic market (subject to sales tax) or used otherwise.
(54)
DEPBS credits are freely transferable and valid for a period of 12 months from the date of issue.
(55)
An application for DEPBS credits can cover up to 25 export transactions and, if electronically filed, an unlimited amount of export transactions. De facto, no strict deadlines to apply for DEPBS credits exist, because the time periods mentioned in chapter 4.47 HOP I 02-07 are always counted from the most recent export transaction included in a given DEPBS application.
(d) Disclosure comments
(56)
Upon disclosure three exporters, which received benefits under this scheme, commented on the DEPBS analysis as set out above. They submitted that (i) contrary to the findings in recitals 53 and 59 materials imported under the DEPBS allegedly have to be used for export production and DEPBS credit can allegedly only be obtained if goods are exported which bear import duties on its input materials, (ii) the new calculation methodology for countervailable amounts (focus on the export transaction, see recitals 61 and 62) should not be used, because a benefit is allegedly only conferred upon usage of the credit and for the reason that the new approach discriminatorily departs from earlier EC precedence, (iii) DEBPS should only be countervailed to the extent that such credits were obtained for the product concerned and (iv) a DEPBS-rate reduction which took place in February 2004 should be taken into consideration.
(e) Conclusions on the DEPBS
(57)
The DEPBS provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) and Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. A DEPBS credit is a financial contribution by the GOI, since the credit will eventually be used to offset import duties, thus decreasing the GOI’s duty revenue which would be otherwise due. In addition, the DEPBS credit confers a benefit upon the exporter, because it improves its liquidity.
(58)
Furthermore, the DEPBS is contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.
(59)
This scheme cannot be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. It does not conform to the strict rules laid down in Annex I item (i), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) of the basic Regulation. An exporter is under no obligation to actually consume the goods imported free of duty in the production process and the amount of credit is not calculated in relation to actual inputs used. Moreover, there is no system or procedure in place to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production process of the exported product or whether an excess payment of import duties occurred within the meaning of item (i) of Annex I and Annexes II and III of the basic Regulation. Lastly, an exporter is eligible for the DEPBS benefits regardless of whether it imports any inputs at all. In order to obtain the benefit, it is sufficient for an exporter to simply export goods without demonstrating that any input material was imported. Thus, even exporters which procure all of their inputs locally and do not import any goods which can be used as inputs are still entitled to benefit from the DEPBS.
(60)
Neither the claim made by one exporter that materials imported under this scheme have to be used for export production nor the allegation that DEPBS credits can only be obtained under the condition that input material used bears an import duty burden, have been substantiated. In this context it should also be noted, that the GOI did at no point in time contest the factual description of the DEPBS as set out above. Therefore, those claims have to be rejected.
(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount
(61)
In accordance with Articles 2(2) and 5 of the basic Regulation, the amount of countervailable subsidies was calculated in terms of the benefit conferred on the recipient, which is found to exist during the review investigation period. In this regard, it was considered that the benefit is conferred on the recipient at the point in time when an export transaction is made under this scheme. At this moment the GOI is liable to forego the customs duties, which constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. As stated in recital 51 above, once the customs authorities issue an export shipping bill which shows, inter alia, the amount of DEPBS credit which is to be granted for that export transaction, the GOI has no discretion as to whether or not to grant the subsidy and it has no discretion as to the amount of the subsidy. Also, as stated above in the same recital, any change of the DEPBS rates between the actual export and the issuance of a DEPBS licence has no retroactive effect on the level of the benefit granted. Furthermore, as stated in recital 52, companies can, in line with Indian accounting standards, book the DEPBS credits on an accrual basis as income at the stage of export transaction. Finally, by virtue of the fact that a company is aware that it will receive a subsidy under the DEPBS, and indeed benefits under other schemes, the company is already in a more advantageous competitive position, because it can reflect the subsidies through offering lower prices.
(62)
The rationale for imposing a countervailing duty, though, is to redress unfair trading practices based on illicit competitive advantage. In light of the above, it is considered appropriate to assess the benefit under the DEPBS as being the sum of the credits earned on all export transactions made under this scheme during the investigation period.
(63)
The comments on the disclosure have not led to a revision of this calculation approach. The new methodology has already been used in the recent past by the European Communities for example in the context of the graphite electrode system case (7). In addition, the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations do not prevent such change of methodology. Firstly, the new approach does not result in a complete re-evaluation of the scheme, which, indeed, has always been countervailable. It only concerns the calculation of the subsidy amount in order to link it more closely to the factual situation during a given investigation period. Secondly, this approach is, inter alia, the consequence of facts established by the Commission in the course of recent investigations, e.g. the booking of DEPBS credits on an accrual basis according to Indian accounting standards and the de facto non-existence of application deadlines for such credits under the EXIM policy. Furthermore, the disclosure comments have confirmed that at the moment of the export transaction made under this scheme, an exporter has obtained an irrevocable entitlement for DEPBS credits. However, such moment is decisive in order to establish conferral of a benefit as set out under recital 61, not the subsequent usage, because an exporter already with such vested right is ‘better off’ in financial terms.
(64)
Contrary to the submission of some exporting producers, even DEPBS credit generated by exporting non-product concerned had to be considered when establishing the amount of countervailable DEPBS credit. Under the DEPBS no obligation exists which limits the use of the credits to import duty-free input material linked to a specific product. On the contrary, DEPBS credits are freely transferable, can even be sold and be used for imports of any unrestrictedly importable goods (the input materials of the product concerned belong to this category), except capital goods. Consequently, the product concerned can benefit from all DEPBS credits generated.
(65)
Furthermore, DEPBS rate reductions subsequent to the review investigation period cannot be considered, since Article 11(1) of the basic Regulation provides that information relating to a period subsequent to the IP shall not, normally, be taken into account. Besides, no guarantee exists that the GOI will not increase DEPBS rates in the future.
(66)
Where justified claims were made, fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted from the credits so established to arrive at the subsidy amounts as numerator, Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation these subsidy amounts have been allocated over the total export turnover during the review investigation period as appropriate denumerator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. Five companies benefited from this scheme during the review investigation period and obtained subsidies of between 3,2 and 8,0 % (see table in recital 154).
3. Export Oriented Units Scheme (‘EOUS’)/Special Economic Zones Scheme (SEZS)
(a) Legal basis
(67)
The details of these schemes are contained in chapters 6 (EOUS) and 7 (SEZS) respectively of the EXIM-policy 02-07 and of the HOP I 02-07.
(b) Eligibility
(68)
With the exception of pure trading companies, all enterprises which, in principle, undertake to export their entire production of goods or services may be set up under the SEZS or the EOUS. However, unlike services and agriculture, undertakings in the industrial sectors have to fulfil a minimum investment threshold in fixed assets (Indian rupees 10 million) to be eligible for the EOUS.
(c) Practical implementation
(69)
The SEZS is the successor scheme of the former Export processing zones scheme (EPZS). SEZs are specifically delineated duty free enclaves and considered by the EXIM-policy 02-07 as foreign territory for the purpose of trade operations, duties and taxes. 14 SEZs already operate and another 13 SEZs have been approved by the Indian authorities for establishment.
(70)
EOUs on the other side, are geographically more flexible and can be established anywhere in India. This scheme is complementary to the SEZS.
(71)
An application for EOU or SEZ status must include details for a period of the next five years on, inter alia, planned production quantities, projected value of exports, import requirements and indigenous requirements. If the authorities accept the company’s application, the terms and conditions attached to the acceptance will be communicated to the company. The agreement to be recognised as a company under SEZ/EOU is valid for a five-year period. The agreement may be renewed for further periods.
(72)
A crucial obligation of an EOU or an SEZ as set out in the EXIM-policy 02-07 is to achieve net foreign exchange (NFE) earnings, i.e. in a reference period (five years) the total value of exports has to be higher than the total value of imported goods.
(73)
EOU/SEZ units are entitled to the following concessions:
(i)
exemption from import duties on all types of goods (including capital goods, raw materials and consumables) required for the manufacture, production, processing, or in connection therewith;
(ii)
exemption from excise duty on goods procured from indigenous sources;
(iii)
reimbursement of central sales tax paid on goods procured locally;
(iv)
facility to sell a part of production on the domestic market on payment of applicable duties on the finished product as an exception to the general requirement to export the entire production;
(v)
exemption from income tax normally due on profits realised on export sales in accordance with Section 10A or Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, for a 10-year period after starting its operations, but no longer than up to 2010;
(vi)
possibility of 100 % foreign equity ownership.
(74)
Although the concessions under both schemes are largely comparable, some differences exist. For instance, only an EOU can obtain a 50 % reduction of duties payable upon domestic sales (DTA sales), whereas in an SEZ 100 % of the duties are payable on such sales. An EOU unit can sell up to 50 % of its turnover domestically at such reduced rate.
(75)
Units operating under these schemes are bonded under the surveillance of customs officials in accordance with Section 65 of the Customs Act.
(76)
They are legally obliged to maintain, in a specified format, a proper account of all imports, of the consumption and utilisation of all imported materials and of the exports made. These documents should be submitted periodically, as may be required, to the competent authorities (quarterly and annual progress reports).
(77)
However, ‘at no point in time (an EOU or a SEZ unit) shall be required to co-relate every import consignment with its exports, transfers to other units, sales in DTA or stocks’, paragraph 10.2 of appendix 14-I and paragraph 13.2 of appendix 14-II of the HOP I 02-07.
(78)
Domestic sales are dispatched and recorded on a self-certification basis. The dispatch process of export consignments of an EOU is supervised by a customs/excise official, who is permanently posted in the EOU. The company is obliged to reimburse the GOI for the salary of such permanent bond officer.
(79)
‘All activities of SEZ units within the zone, unless otherwise specified, including export and re-import of goods shall be through self certification procedure’, as paragraph 29 of appendix 14-II of the HOP I 02-07 states. Thus, no routine examinations of the export consignments of an SEZ unit by customs authorities take place.
(80)
In the present case, the EOUS was used by one of the cooperating exporters. As the SEZS was not used, it is therefore not necessary to analyse the countervailability of this scheme. The cooperating exporter that used the EOUS utilised the scheme to import raw materials and capital goods free of import duties, to procure goods domestically free of excise duty plus obtain sales tax reimbursement and to sell part of its production on the domestic market. Thus, it availed of all benefits as described in recital 73 (i) to (iv). The exporter concerned also availed of benefits under the income tax exemption provisions of the EOUS. However, as the said income tax exemption falls under the more generally available income tax exemption scheme, the analysis thereof is set out in recitals 117 and 118.
(d) Disclosure comments
(81)
Upon disclosure, one exporting producer submitted that the EOUS should, if at all, only be countervailed insofar as duties paid for domestic sales do not fully cover the amount of import duties exempted on input materials used for domestically sold production (excess remission). The exporter is of the opinion that with regard to the EOUS, which allegedly resembles the EC inward processing system, a verification system in conformity with the provisions of Annexes I, II and III of the basic Regulation is in place. To this end, it argued that a consignment-wise correlation of input materials and resultant export production is indeed not required by the Indian authorities (see recital 77), as it is not mandatory according to the basic Regulation or the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) for a proper verification system. In addition, the exporter referred to its company internal batch sheet system as providing nexus information between inputs and outputs. The exporter further pointed out that its domestic sales constituted less the 5 % of its sales during the IP. It also claimed that the periodical assessment of the monthly sales tax returns by the GOI is sufficient to meet the verification standards set by the basic Regulation.
(82)
Furthermore it contended, that (i) for calculation purposes not the amount of raw materials imported during the review investigation period as set out in recital 19 of the annual progress report of this EOU should be taken, but the amount of raw materials consumed during this period as set out in recital 20 of this report and (ii) the allocation period concerning duties saved upon importation of capital goods should be based on the company specific depreciation period and not on the basis of an average depreciation period for all cooperating exporting producers. In addition, it claimed that the interest added (commercial rate prevailing in India during the IP) should be reduced to the weighted average rate of founding of this EOU during the review investigation period.
(e) Conclusions on the EOUS
(83)
The exemptions of an EOU from two types of import duties (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) and the reimbursement of sales tax are financial contributions of the GOI within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. Government revenue which would be due in the absence of this scheme is forgone, thus, in addition, conferring a benefit upon the EOU in the meaning of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, because it saved liquidity by not having to pay duties normally due and by obtaining a sales tax reimbursement.
(84)
The exemption from excise duty and its import duty equivalent (additional customs duty), however, do not lead to revenue forgone which is otherwise due. Excise and additional customs duty, if paid, could be used as a credit for own future duty liabilities (the so-called Cenvat mechanism). Therefore, these duties are not definitive. By the means of ‘Cenvat’-credit only an added value bears a definitive duty, not the input materials.
(85)
Thus, only the exemption from basic customs duty, special additional customs duty and the sales tax reimbursement constitute subsidies in the meaning of Article 2 of the basic Regulation. They are contingent in law upon export performance, and therefore deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation. The export objective of an EOU as set out in paragraph 6.1 of the EXIM-policy 02-07 is a conditio sine qua non to obtain the incentives.
(86)
Furthermore, these subsidies cannot, contrary to the submission made by one exporter, be considered as permissible duty drawback systems or substitution drawback systems within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. They do not conform to the strict rules laid down in Annex I (items (h) and (i)), Annex II (definition and rules for drawback) and Annex III (definition and rules for substitution drawback) of the basic Regulation. The alleged comparability of the EOUS with the EC inward processing system is in this context irrelevant since the EC system is not subject to the present investigation.
(87)
In so far as the sales tax reimbursement and import duty exemption provisions are used for purchasing capital goods, they are already not in conformity with the rules for permitted drawback systems, because those goods are not consumed in the production process, as required by Annex I item (h) (sales tax reimbursement) and (i) (import duties remission). The exporter objected to this analysis and argued that since capital goods are necessary for production, they cannot be per se excluded from any permitted duty drawback. However, this reasoning is not reflected in the clear wording of Annex I item (h) and (i), capital goods are used for production not consumed in it. The argument is therefore rejected.
(88)
In addition, and also concerning the other benefits which are available under this scheme, despite careful consideration of the submissions made by the exporter, it was confirmed that the GOI has no effective verification system or procedure in place to confirm whether and in what amounts duty and or sales tax free procured inputs were consumed in the production of the exported product (Annex II(II)(4) of the basic Regulation and, in the case of substitution drawback schemes, Annex III(II)(2) of the basic Regulation).
(89)
An EOU is allowed to sell a significant amount of its production, up to 50 % of its annual turnover, on the domestic market. Therefore, no obligation in law exists to export the total amount of manufactured resultant products. Moreover, due to the self-certification procedure these domestic transactions take place without the supervision and control of a government official. Consequently, the bonded premises of an EOU are at least in part not subject to a physical control by the Indian authorities. This, however, increases the importance of further verification elements, notably control of the nexus between duty free inputs and resultant export products in order to qualify as a duty drawback verification system. It was considered that the EOU subject to the present investigation did not sell 50 % domestically but only around 5 % of its annual turnover during the IP. However, this has no impact on the more general assessment of the adequacy of the verification system in place.
(90)
Concerning further verification steps installed it should be recalled, as mentioned under recital 77 and confirmed by the submissions of the exporter, that an EOU is already de jure and at no point in time required to co-relate every import consignment with the destination of the corresponding resultant product. Only such consignment controls, however, would provide the Indian authorities with sufficient information about the final destination of inputs to check that the duty/sales tax exemptions do not exceed inputs for export production. Monthly tax returns for domestic sales on a self assessment basis, which are periodically assessed by the Indian authorities, do not suffice. Company internal systems, which are kept without a legal obligation under the EXIM policy, e.g. a batch sheets system, do not suffice to replace such key requirement for a duty drawback verification system either. In addition, a duty drawback verification system needs to be designed and enforced by a government and should not be left to the discretion of the management of each individual company concerned to set up an information system. Audit reports of the Indian authorities were requested both from the company and the GOI, but never made available, thus not substantiated. Consequently it is confirmed that, since an EOU is explicitly not required by the Indian EXIM policy to record the nexus between input materials and the resultant product, no effective control mechanism was set up by the GOI to determine which inputs were consumed in export production and in what amounts.
(91)
Also, the GOI neither carried out a further examination based on actual inputs involved, although this would normally need to be carried out in the absence of an effective verification system (Annex II(II)(5) and Annex III(II)(3) to the basic Regulation), nor did it prove that no excess remission took place. It should be recalled that such further examination in principle needs to be completed before the verification visit in such investigation is carried out, so that a verification, if considered appropriate, can take place to base findings on such further examination, Articles 11(8) and 26(1) of the basic Regulation.
(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount
(92)
Accordingly, in the absence of a permitted duty drawback system or substitution drawback system, the countervailable benefit is the remission of total import duties (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) normally due upon importation, as well as the sales tax reimbursement, both during the review investigation period.
(93)
The claim of the exporter to take only into consideration the amount of duties and sales taxes saved, which were linked to inputs consumed during the review investigation period, was rejected. Conferral of the benefit in the meaning of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation takes already place upon duty or sales tax free procurement of the input materials, since at that stage the duties would normally be due.
(i) Exemption from import duties (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) and sales tax reimbursement on raw materials
(94)
The subsidy amount for the exporter which used the EOUS was calculated on the basis of import duties forgone (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) on the materials imported for the production sector, i.e. bulk drugs and intermediates, and the sales tax reimbursed for this sector, both during the review investigation period. Fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation from this sum to arrive at the subsidy amount as numerator. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount has been allocated over the export turnover generated by the bulk pharmaceutical sector (sector) during the review investigation period as appropriate denumerator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. The subsidy margin thus obtained was 29,6 %.
(ii) Exemption from import duties (basic customs duty and special additional customs duty) on capital goods
(95)
Unlike raw materials, capital goods are not physically incorporated into the finished goods. In accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, the benefit to the investigated company has been calculated on the basis of the amount of unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods spread across a period which reflects the normal depreciation period of such capital goods in the industry of the product concerned. In order to determine such normal depreciation period a weighted average of the depreciation periods used by all cooperating exporters has been calculated. The claim of the EOU under investigation to use the company-specific depreciation period had to be rejected, because ‘normal’ is not synonymous for ‘individual’ but for a ‘representative average’. The amount so calculated which is then attributable to the review investigation period has been adjusted by adding interest during this period in order to reflect the value of the benefit over time and thereby establishing the full benefit of this scheme to the recipient. The amount of interest added was based on the commercial interest rate during the review investigation period in India. The claim of the exporter to use its lower average rate did not lead to a difference in outcome, i.e. the subsidy margin remained the same. Fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation from this sum to arrive at the subsidy amount as numerator. In accordance with Article 7(2) and (3) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount has been allocated over the export turnover generated by the sector during the review investigation period as appropriate denumerator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. The subsidy margin thus obtained was 1,3 %.
(96)
Thus, the total subsidy margin under the EOUS for the company concerned amounts to 30,9 %.
4. Export promotion capital goods scheme (EPCGS)
(a) Legal basis
(97)
The detailed description of the EPCGS is contained in chapter 5 of the EXIM-policy 02-07 and in chapter 5 of the HOP I 02-07.
(b) Eligibility
(98)
Manufacturer-exporters, merchant-exporters ‘tied to’ supporting manufacturers and service providers are eligible for this scheme.
(c) Practical implementation
(99)
Under the condition of an export obligation, a company is allowed to import capital goods (new and, since April 2003, second-hand capital goods up to 10 years old) at a reduced rate of duty. To this end the GOI issues upon application and payment of a fee an EPCGS licence. Since April 2000 the scheme provides for a reduced import duty rate of 5 % applicable to all capital goods imported under the scheme. Until 31 March 2000, an effective duty rate of 11 % (including a 10 % surcharge) and, in case of high value imports, a zero duty rate were applicable. In order to meet the export obligation, the imported capital goods must be used to produce a certain amount of export goods during a certain period.
(100)
The EPCGS licence holder can also source the capital goods indigenously. In such case, the indigenous manufacturer of capital goods may avail of the benefit for duty free import of components required to manufacture such capital goods. Alternatively, the indigenous manufacturer can claim the benefit of deemed export in respect of supply of capital goods to an EPCGS licence holder.
(d) Disclosure comments
(101)
Upon disclosure the GOI and one exporting producer submitted that, (i) the depreciation period used for capital goods has allegedly not been adequately disclosed to interested parties and (ii) that it was not sufficiently set out why and to which extent interest has been added to arrive at the countervailable subsidy amount.
(e) Conclusion on EPCG Scheme
(102)
The EPCGS provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) and Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The duty reduction constitutes a financial contribution by the GOI, since this concession decreases the GOI’s duty revenue which would be otherwise due. In addition, the duty reduction confers a benefit upon the exporter, because the duties saved upon importation improve its liquidity.
(103)
Furthermore, the EPCGS is contingent in law upon export performance, since such licences can not be obtained without a commitment to export. Therefore it is deemed to be specific and countervailable under Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.
(104)
Eventually, this scheme can not be considered a permissible duty drawback system or substitution drawback system within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. Capital goods are not covered by the scope of such permissible systems, as set out in Annex I, item (i), of the basic Regulation, because they are not consumed in the production of the exported products.
(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount
(105)
The subsidy amount was calculated, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the unpaid customs duty on imported capital goods spread across a period which reflects the normal depreciation period of such capital goods in the antibiotics industry. In accordance with the established practice, the amount so calculated which is attributable to the review investigation period has been adjusted by adding interest during this period in order to reflect the full value of the benefit over time. The commercial interest rate during the review investigation period in India was considered appropriate for this purpose. Fees necessarily incurred to obtain the subsidy were deducted in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the basic Regulation from this sum to arrive at the subsidy amount as numerator. In accordance with Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the basic Regulation this subsidy amount has been allocated over the export turnover during the review investigation period as appropriate denumerator, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. Four companies benefited from this scheme during the review investigation period. The subsidies obtained were negligible.
(106)
Since the EPCGS will not be countervailed in the case at hand, it is not necessary to respond to the corresponding disclosure comments.
5. Export Credit Scheme (ECS)
(a) Legal basis
(107)
The details of the scheme are set by in Master Circular IECD No 5/04.02.02/2002-03 (Export Credit in Foreign Currency) and Master Circular IECD No 4/04.02.02/2002-03 (Rupee Export Credit) of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which is addressed to all commercial banks in India.
(b) Eligibility
(108)
Manufacturing exporters and merchant exporters are eligible for this scheme.
(c) Practical implementation
(109)
Under this scheme, the RBI mandatorily sets maximum ceiling interest rates applicable to export credits, both in Indian rupees or in foreign currency, which commercial banks can charge an exporter ‘with a view to making credit available to exporters at internationally competitive rates’. The ECS consists of two subschemes, the Pre-shipment export credit scheme (packing credit), which covers credits provided to an exporter for financing the purchase, processing, manufacturing, packing and/or shipping of goods prior to export, and the Post-shipment export credit scheme, which provides for working capital loans with the purpose of financing export receivables. The RBI also directs the banks to provide a certain amount of their net bank credit towards export finance.
(110)
As a result of these RBI Master Circulars exporters can obtain export credits at preferential interest rates compared with the interest rates for ordinary commercial credits (cash credits), which are purely set under market conditions. In this respect the Master Circular on Rupee Export Credit notes that ‘ceiling rates of interest on credit extended to exporters as prescribed in this Circular are lower than the maximum lending rates normally charged to other borrowers and are, therefore, indicated as concessive in this sense.’ The difference in rates might decrease for companies with good credit ratings. In fact, high rating companies might be in a position to obtain export credits and cash credits at the same conditions.
(d) Disclosure comments
(111)
Upon disclosure two exporters, which received benefits under this scheme, argued that the ECS is not a countervailable subsidy. To this end, they submitted that (i) a countervailable subsidy requires the transfer of public funds, (ii) the rates for ECS credits are set under market conditions, because different commercial banks offer significantly different interest rates and (iii) interest rates for cash credits are higher as compared with those for export credits, because export financing is less risky (self executing) and, in case of foreign currency export credits, due to allegedly lower inflation of freely convertible foreign currencies as compared with the Indian rupee currency, which it was claimed to have an impact of the interest rates.
(112)
Furthermore, one exporter claimed, and without providing any new calculation of the subsidy margin, that for calculation purposes rates of other banks, and not those banks identified during the verification visit as lending banks, should be used and in any event only the lowest rates both for export and cash credits taken for the comparison. Another exporter argued without providing any evidence that the loan amount should be reduced by 25 %, which allegedly represents own capital, although in the accounts identified as foreign capital.
(e) Conclusion on the ECS
(113)
Firstly, the preferential interest rates of an ECS credit set by the RBI Master Circulars mentioned in recital 107 can decrease interest costs of an exporter as compared with credit costs purely set by market conditions and confer in this case a benefit in the meaning of Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation on such exporter. Only in the case of those cooperating exporters, where such rate differences were found to exist, was it concluded that a benefit was conferred. Contrary to the submissions set out above, those rate differences cannot be explained by pure market behaviour of the commercial banks. Export financing is not per se more secure than domestic financing. In fact, it is usually perceived as being more risky and the extent of security required for a certain credit, regardless of the finance object, is a purely commercial decision of a given commercial bank. Rate differences with regard to different banks are the result of the methodology of the RBI to set maximum lending rates for each commercial bank individually. In addition, but for the RBI Master Circulars, commercial banks would not be obliged to pass through to borrowers of export financing any perhaps more advantageous interest rates for export credits in foreign currency. Summarizing the response to those submissions, it should be recalled that the objective of the RBI Master Circulars is to provide export financing at ‘internationally competitive rates’ and the RBI itself considers export credit rates as ‘concessive’. Secondly, and despite the fact that the preferential credits under the ECS are granted by commercial banks, this benefit is a financial contribution by a government in the meaning of Article 2(1)(iv) of the basic Regulation. In this context, it should be noted that neither Article 2(1)(iv) of the basic Regulation nor the ASCM require a charge on the public accounts, e.g. reimbursement of the commercial banks by the GOI, to establish a subsidy, but only government direction to carry out functions illustrated in points (i), (ii) or (iii) of Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation. The RBI is a public body and falls therefore under the definition of a ‘government’ as set out in Article 1(3) of the basic Regulation. It is 100 % government-owned, pursues public policy objectives, e.g. monetary policy, and its management is appointed by the GOI. The RBI directs private bodies, since the commercial banks are bound by the conditions, inter alia, the maximum ceilings for interest rates on export credits mandated in the RBI Master Circulars and the RBI provisions that commercial banks have to provide a certain amount of their net bank credit towards export finance. This direction obliges commercial banks to carry out functions mentioned in Article 2(1)(a)(i) of the basic Regulation, in this case loans in the form of preferential export financing. Such direct transfer of funds in the form of loans under certain conditions would normally be vested in the government, and the practice, in no real sense, differs from practices normally followed by governments, Article 2(1)(a)(iv) of the basic Regulation. This subsidy is deemed to be specific and countervailable since the preferential interest rates are only available in relation to the financing of export transactions and are therefore contingent upon export performance, Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.
(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount
(114)
The subsidy amount has been calculated on the basis of the difference between the interest paid for export credits used during the review investigation period and the amount that would have been payable if the same interest rates were applicable as for ordinary commercial credits used by the particular company. This subsidy amount (numerator) has been allocated over the total export turnover during the review investigation period as appropriate denumerator in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. The late claim made by one exporter that the credit amount as verified during the on the spot visit should be reduced by 25 % because it allegedly consisted to this extent of own founds, something not mentioned before or even during the verification visit, has not been substantiated and, therefore, cannot be accepted. As far as the claim is concerned to use with regard to the lending banks new information instead of the information provided during the verification visit this has also to be refuted, because such information was not made available in good time and not subject to verification. In any event, this exporter has not substantiated its claim that it only obtained export financing by the commercial banks with the most favourable conditions. Six companies availed of benefits under the ECS. They obtained subsidies of up to 2,3 %.
6. Income Tax Schemes
(a) Export Income Tax Exemption Scheme (EITES)
(i) Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act 1961 (ITA)
(115)
It was established that four of the investigated exporters received the benefit of a partial income tax exemption on profits derived from export sales during the review investigation period. The legal basis for this exemption is set by Section 80HHC of the ITA.
(116)
This provision of the ITA was abolished for the assessment year 2005 to 2006 (i.e. for the financial year from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) onwards. Consequently, 80HHC of the ITA will not confer any benefits on the applicant after 31 March 2004. While four of the investigated exporters benefited from this scheme in the review investigation period, insofar as the scheme has since been withdrawn, it shall therefore not be countervailed, in accordance with Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation.
(ii) Sections 10A and 10B of the ITA
(117)
The full income tax exemption on profits derived from export sales of a newly established undertaking in a SEZ, a free trade zone, an electronic hardware technology park or a software technology park (section 10A ITA) or a newly established EOU (section 10B ITA) during the first 10 years of production continues to be in force till 31 March 2010.
(118)
One company availed during the past 10 years of benefits under section 10B ITA, starting in the financial year 1993 to 1994. For this reason, this company will no longer be eligible for benefits under section 10B ITA from the financial year 2003 to 2004 onwards. Therefore, in accordance with Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, this scheme shall not be countervailed in the present case.
(b) Income Tax Incentive for Research and Development (ITIRAD)
(i) Legal basis
(119)
The detailed description of the ITIRAD is set out in section 35(2AB) of the ITA.
(ii) Eligibility
(120)
Companies engaged in the business of bio-technology or manufacturing of drugs, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, electronic equipment, computers and computer software, telecommunication equipments, helicopters, aircrafts or any other article or thing as may be notified are eligible for benefits under this scheme.
(iii) Practical implementation
(121)
For any expenditure (other than cost of land or building) on in-house research and development facilities as approved by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research of the GOI, a deduction of a sum equal to 150 % of the costs de facto incurred is permitted for income tax purposes. Thus, by means of a 50 % deduction of fictional expenses (i.e. expenses not actually incurred), the income tax base and subsequently the income tax burden decreases artificially.
(iv) Disclosure comments
(122)
Upon disclosure one exporter, which received benefits under this scheme, made the following submissions. This scheme should not be countervailed, because (i) albeit ITIRAD being indeed limited to certain sectors it is claimed to be not specific in the meaning of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation, since all enterprises in those sectors are eligible and (ii) expenditure which is incurred after 31 March 2005 will, according to section 35(2AB) subsection (5)ITA, not benefit from this scheme.
(v) Conclusion on ITIRAD
(123)
The ITIRAD provides subsidies within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(ii) and Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation. The artificial income tax base reduction under section 35(2AB) of the ITA constitutes a financial contribution by the GOI, since this decreases the GOI’s income tax revenue which would be otherwise due. In addition, the income tax reduction confers a benefit upon the company, because it improves its liquidity.
(124)
The GOI argued and reiterated upon disclosure without substantiating it, that eligibility for ITIRAD is based on objective criteria and thus the scheme is not specific. However, the clear wording of section 35(2AB) ITA proves that ITIRAD is de jure specific in the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of the basic Regulation and therefore countervailable. Eligibility for this scheme is not governed by objective criteria, which are neutral in the meaning of Article 3(2)(b) of the basic Regulation. Benefits under this scheme are only available to certain industrial sectors listed under recital 120; the GOI has not made this scheme available to all sectors. Contrary to the submission made by one exporter, such limitation constitutes specificity, since the category ‘group of industries’ in Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation synonymously describes sector restrictions. This restriction is not economic in nature and horizontal in application such as number of employees or size of enterprise.
(125)
In addition, the claim that expenditure incurred after 31 March 2005 is exempt from the scheme does not lead to its non-countervailability in the meaning of Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation. It has not been demonstrated that this scheme was already withdrawn at the moment of finalizing the findings of the review investigation, nor that the exporter will no longer obtain benefits from ITIRAD. To the contrary, ITIRAD is in force for the whole assessment year 2005/2006 (i.e. the financial year 2004/2005), can thus continue conferring further benefits. In addition, the exporter has not substantiated its claim, that no prolongation of this scheme is foreseen by the GOI. In fact, the scheme has already been prolonged in the past (8). There is no indication that such prolongation will not take place with a future Finance Act, in particular since the GOI neither in the consultation nor in its disclosure comments gave any indication that as of 31 March 2005 the scheme will (i) expire and (ii) not be substituted by a comparable income tax relief provision.
(vi) Calculation of the subsidy amount
(126)
The subsidy amount has been calculated on the basis of the difference between the income tax due for the review investigation period with and without the application of the provision of section 35(2AB) of the ITA. This subsidy amount (numerator) has been allocated over the total turnover during the review investigation period as appropriate denumerator in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, because this subsidy relates to all sales, domestic and export, and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. A subsidy margin of 1,5 % was so established for one company which received benefits under the ITIRAD.
III. Regional Schemes
1. Industrial Incentive Schemes (IIS) of the Governments of Gujarat and Punjab
(127)
The States of Gujarat and Punjab grant to eligible industrial enterprises, incentives in the form of exemption and/or deferment of sales and purchase tax in order to encourage the industrial development of economically backward areas within these States. Since these schemes are virtually identical, they are assessed jointly.
(a) Legal basis
(128)
The detailed description of these schemes as applied by the Government of Gujarat (GOG) and the Government of Punjab (GOP) is set out in GOG Resolution No INC-1090-1023-(2)-I(GR No 2) of 16 October 1990 and in GOP Resolution No 15/43/96-5IB/2238 of 20 March 1996 respectively.
(b) Eligibility
(129)
Companies setting up a new industrial establishment or making a large-scale expansion of an existing industrial establishment in backward areas are eligible to avail of benefits under these schemes. Nevertheless, exhaustive lists of ineligible industries exist that prevent companies in certain fields of operations from benefiting from the incentives.
(c) Practical implementation
(130)
Under these schemes, companies must invest in backward areas. These areas, which represent certain territorial units in the two States are classified according to their economic development into different categories while at the same time there are areas excluded or ‘banned’ from the application of the incentive schemes. The main criteria to establish the amount of the incentives are the size of the investment and the area in which the enterprise is or will be located.
(131)
Incentives can be granted at any point in time since there are no time limits either in the filing of an application for the incentives or in the fulfilment of the quantitative criteria.
(d) Disclosure comments
(132)
Upon disclosure two exporters, which received benefits under the IIS, made the submission (i) that the IIS is not an export subsidy, (ii) constitutes only a compensation for extra expenses incurred on account of non-availability of appropriate infrastructure in the designated backward areas and (iii) in the case of one exporter that it did no longer benefit from the scheme since 5 July 2003.
(e) Conclusion on IIS
(133)
These schemes provide subsidies within the meaning of Articles 2(1)(a)(ii) and 2(2) of the basic Regulation. They constitute a financial contribution by the GOG and the GOP respectively, since the incentives granted, in the present case sales and purchase tax exemptions, decrease tax revenue which would be otherwise due. In addition, these incentives confer a benefit upon a company, because they improve its financial situation since taxes otherwise due are not paid.
(134)
Furthermore, the schemes are regionally specific in the meaning of Articles 3(2)(a) and 3(3) of the basic Regulation since they are only available to certain companies having invested within certain designated geographical areas within the jurisdiction of the States concerned. They are not available to companies located outside these areas and, in addition, the level of benefit is differentiated according to the area concerned.
(135)
The GOI does not share this assessment. Firstly, it argued that international trade is per se not subject to sales tax, as already stipulated by the Indian Constitution. As a result, the GOI continued, such schemes cause no revenue forgone otherwise due in respect of export transactions and should consequently not be countervailed. However, and contrary to the disclosure submissions by two exporters in this respect as well, the scheme was not assessed as an export subsidy, within the meaning of Article 3(4)(a) of the basic Regulation, with a direct focus on exports of the product concerned, but as otherwise specific (see recital 134). A direct link between the subsidy and the exported product is not required to render a subsidy scheme countervailable. In accordance with Article 1(1) of the basic Regulation, it is sufficient to establish a direct link between the subsidy and the manufacturing company. On the basis that ‘money is fungible’ every kind of such domestic subsidy will be, via lower prices, reflected in export transactions as well, because such subsidy improved the overall liquidity of a company. In addition, the GOI has provided no evidence that the general sales tax exemption for export sales covers purchase tax liabilities on input materials as well. In fact, in the present case, the companies have also used the IIS to offset purchase tax liabilities.
(136)
The GOI further contended that the IIS, although admittedly limited to certain backward regions within the territories of Punjab and Gujarat, should not be considered as specific, because they allegedly do not favour certain enterprises within these specially designated regions. However, the GOI admitted that not all kinds of production within those designated territories are eligible for the IIS. In fact, a regional restriction of a state subsidy scheme to all enterprises in specially designated areas within its territory by itself constitutes specificity. This kind of scheme clearly favour certain enterprises over others, because a company in an eligible region can obtain aid while its competitor located in a non-eligible region can not. Such a differentiation is not objective within the meaning of Article 3(2)(b) of the basic Regulation and therefore specific, since the schemes are not horizontally applied all over the State territory.
(137)
An alleged compensation via the IIS for extra costs incurred due to insufficient infrastructure does not, contrary to the submission made by one exporter, change the evaluation as a countervailable subsidy. Such alleged costs have not been substantiated.
(138)
The exporter, which claimed no longer to be eligible for benefits under the IIS, has not substantiated this allegation, e.g. by providing a confirmation of the GOG. To the contrary, it stated in its management reports for 2002 to 2003 (i.e. the review investigation period) that it was seeking extension of the IIS benefits until 2012. It should be noted, that such extension is possible under the IIS of Gujarat. The company has not provided any evidence that the GOG refused this extension.
(139)
The argumentation of the GOI and the disclosure submissions have therefore not changed the assessment of the schemes, sales and purchase tax exemption, being countervailable.
(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount
(140)
The subsidy amount was calculated on the basis of the amount of the sales and purchase tax normally due during the review investigation period but which remained unpaid under these schemes. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, these amounts of subsidy (numerator) have then been allocated over total sales during the review investigation period as appropriate denominator, because the subsidy is not export contingent and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. During this period three companies benefited from these schemes. They obtained subsidies of 2,4 % (two companies) and 3,1 %.
2. Electricity Duty Exemption scheme (EDE) of the Government of Gujarat
(141)
The State of Gujarat grants to eligible industrial enterprises, incentives in the form of exemption from the payment of electricity duty in order to encourage the industrial development of economically backward areas within this State.
(a) Legal basis
(142)
The detailed description of the electricity duty exemption scheme applied by the Government of Gujarat (GOG) is set out in the Bombay Electricity Duty Act of 1958 and in particular in sections 3(2)(vi) and 3(2)(vii)(a) and (b) of this Act, as adapted by the Gujarat Adaptation of Laws Order of 1960.
(b) Eligibility
(143)
Companies investing in backward areas, either by setting up a new industrial establishment or by making a large-scale capital investment in expansion of an existing industrial establishment, are eligible.
(c) Practical implementation
(144)
The scheme is only available to companies having invested within certain designated geographical areas within the jurisdiction of the State of Gujarat. It also empowers the GOG to exclude any areas and any new industrial undertaking from the obligation to pay electricity duty. Furthermore, new industrial undertakings established in specially designated areas are, for a period of five years from the date of commencement of manufacturing, either exempted from the energy duty or levied with the duty at half the normal rate.
(d) Disclosure comments
(145)
Upon disclosure one exporter, which received benefits under this scheme, made the submission that as per 4 June 2004 it allegedly no longer benefited from this scheme. In addition, another exporter claimed not to have used the scheme. However, it should be noted that in respect to this latter exporter this scheme has in any event not been included whilst establishing its subsidy amount.
(e) Conclusion on EDE
(146)
This scheme is a subsidy within the meaning of Articles 2(1)(a)(ii) and 2(2) of the basic Regulation. It constitutes a financial contribution by the GOG, since this incentive decreases the state revenues which would be otherwise due. In addition, it confers a benefit upon the recipient company. The scheme is also regionally specific in the meaning of Articles 3(2)(a) and 3(3) of the basic Regulation since it is only available to companies having invested within certain designated geographical areas within the jurisdiction of the State of Gujarat. Furthermore, criteria and conditions of eligibility governing this incentive are not clearly set out by law, regulation, or other official document. It was confirmed during the verification visits, that one company made use of the scheme for a period of nine years. Although requested to do so, the company did not provide any information other than the Bombay Electricity Duty Act itself, which could have changed this analysis.
(147)
The GOI argued that since the scheme has not been countervailed in another case in 1999, because it was considered horizontal in application within a whole State, it should not be countervailed now. To this end, it has only provided a notification of the GOM Industries, Energy and Labour Department of the State of Maharashtra concerning the Bombay Electricity Duty Act of 1958. However, this information does not concern the State of Gujarat. In addition, it should be noted that according to this notification, the EDE-incentive is apparently not available in all districts/areas of Maharashtra, thus still to be considered regionally specific. It was established that one exporter under investigation, which is situated in Gujarat, used this scheme during the review investigation period. Consequently, it is concluded that this scheme is countervailable for this exporter for the reasons set out in the previous recital.
(148)
The exporter which claimed no longer to be eligible for benefits under the EDE, has not substantiated this allegation, e.g. by providing a confirmation of the GOG. On the contrary, it stated in its management reports for 2002 to 2003 (i.e. the review investigation period) that it was seeking extension of the EDE benefits until 2012, which it already successfully had done in the past for a total of nine years, despite the fact that according to the relevant legislation the exemption period for the EDE should only be five years. The company has not provided any evidence that the GOG refused this extension.
(f) Calculation of the subsidy amount
(149)
The benefit to the exporting producer has been calculated on the basis of the amount of electricity duty normally due during the review investigation period but which remained unpaid under this scheme. In accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, the amount of subsidy (numerator) has then been allocated over total sales during the review investigation period (denominator), because it relates to all sales, domestic and export, and it was not granted by reference to the quantities manufactured, produced, exported or transported. A subsidy margin of 0,2 % was so established for one company which received benefits under the EDE.
3. Package Scheme of Incentives (‘PSI’) of the Government of Maharashtra (GOM)
(150)
It was found that the exporting producers did not obtain any countervailable benefits under the PSI.
IV. Amount of countervailable subsidies
(151)
It has been the consistent practice to consider related companies as one single entity for the determination of a subsidy rate. This is because calculating individual subsidy rates might encourage circumvention of countervailing measures, thus rendering them ineffective, by enabling related producers to channel their exports to the Community through the company with the lowest individual rate. In order to avoid such a situation, an individual subsidy amount per scheme for each related company is first calculated and then a weighted average of these subsidy amounts is established and attributed to each of the related companies.
(152)
Two exporting producers were regarded as related companies and attributed one single subsidy rate, because each of them is operationally in a position to exercise restraint on the other company. According to their Annual Reports, the key management persons of the two companies are relatives and are able to exercise ‘significant influence’ in each other’s company. Significant influence according to Indian accounting standards means the participation in the financial and/or operating decisions of an enterprise. Such influence leads to the qualification as related according to the Indian accounting standards. Furthermore, according to European Customs law parties are deemed to be related when they control each other or are members of the same family (9).
(153)
Upon disclosure one of these exporting producers disagreed with the related parties’ analysis as set out above. It alleged without providing further evidence that no business relation between the two companies concerned exists. However, the exporting producer did neither contest the factual description outlined in recital 152 nor substantiated, why, despite these facts, both companies should not be considered as related parties. Consequently, the claim has to be disregarded.
The amount of countervailable subsidies in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation, expressed ad valorem, for the investigated exporting producers ranges between 25,3 and 35,1 %.
(154)
Given the high level of cooperation, the subsidy rate for all non-cooperating companies is set at the level for the company with the highest individual rate, i.e. 35,1 %.
SCHEME →
ALS
DEPBS
EOUS
EPCGS
ECS
ITIRAD
PSI
GIIS
PIIS
EDE
Total
COMPANY ↓
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
KDL Biotech Ltd
22,8
4,6
nil
negl.
1,0
nil
nil
nil
nil
nil
28,4
Nectar Lifesciences Ltd
25,8
3,2
nil
negl.
2,3
nil
nil
nil
2,4
nil
33,7
Nestor Pharmaceuticals Ltd
22,0
3,3
nil
nil
negl.
nil
nil
nil
nil
nil
25,3
Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd
nil
nil
30,9
nil
1,1
nil
nil
nil
nil
nil
32,0
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd
25,6
8,0
nil
negl.
negl.
1,5
nil
nil
nil
nil
35,1
Surya Pharmaceutical Ltd
25,8
3,2
nil
negl.
2,3
nil
nil
nil
2,4
nil
33,7
Torrent Gujarat Biotech Ltd
24,8
nil
nil
nil
nil
nil
nil
3,1
nil
0,2
28,1
D. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF SUBSIDISATION
(155)
In accordance with Article 18(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the expiry of the measures in force would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of subsidisation.
(156)
As set out under recitals 21 to 153, it was established that during the review investigation period Indian exporters of the product concerned continued to benefit from countervailable subsidisation by the Indian authorities. In fact, the subsidy margins found during the review are higher than those established during the original investigation, which ranged from 0 to 15,3 % (recital 43 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2164/98). Only the subsidy scheme mentioned under recitals 115 and 116 (80 HHC ITA) has been discontinued, while in some other cases, individual companies have ceased to become eligible for certain schemes. This has already been reflected in the calculation of the subsidy rates. The remaining subsidy schemes concerned give recurring benefits and there is no indication that these programmes will be phased out or modified in the foreseeable future. In the absence of such action, the exporters of the product in question will continue to receive countervailable subsidies. Each exporter is eligible for several of the subsidy programmes. In these circumstances, it was considered reasonable to conclude that subsidisation would be likely to continue in the future.
(157)
Since it has been demonstrated that subsidisation continued at the time of the review and will likely continue in the future, the issue of likelihood of recurrence of subsidisation is irrelevant.
E. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY
I. Community production
(158)
During the review investigation period, the like product was manufactured in the Community by the following Community producers: Sandoz, DSM, ACS Dobfar SpA and Antibioticos S.A.. Sandoz requested a combined expiry and interim review of the anti-subsidy measures in force. DSM supported the request. Sandoz and DSM fully cooperated with the review investigation. The other Community producers neither cooperated nor opposed the initiation of this combined expiry and interim review.
(159)
One cooperating Community producer imported two types of the product concerned from India during the period considered, as well as from other third countries. This activity does not change its qualification as a producer in the meaning of Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation. Compared to its Community production of the like product, the quantities imported from India during the review investigation period represented only a relatively minor proportion of less than 10 %. Furthermore, its imports of the product concerned from India are only of a temporary nature since it is restructuring its production in the Community and it has started producing types of the like product which it has been importing from, inter alia, India.
II. Definition of the Community industry
(160)
The like product produced by the cooperating Community producers during the review investigation period represented 70,5 % of the total Community production of the like product. These companies, therefore, constitute the Community industry within the meaning of Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation. They are referred to as the ‘Community industry’ hereafter.
F. ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION ON THE COMMUNITY MARKET
I. Introduction
(161)
The relevant Eurostat statistics for TARIC codes 2941101010, 2941102010 and 2941900030 together with data obtained from the verified questionnaire responses of the Community industry were used in the evaluation of volume and price trends.
(162)
Community industry data were obtained from the verified questionnaire responses of the cooperating Community producers.
(163)
Where necessary for reasons of confidentiality, indices are used to show the evolution of trends.
(164)
Following disclosure, one exporter claimed that the injury analysis should have taken place on the basis of information for the Community market after the enlargement as per 1 May 2004, i.e. including the 10 new Member States.
(165)
Given that Article 11(1) of the basic Regulation stipulates that information relating to a period subsequent to the IP shall not, normally, be taken into account, and as enlargement took place after the IP, this submission has to be rejected. In any event, the information available indicates that there is no production of the like product in the 10 new Member States, which could alter the situation of the Community industry.
(166)
In addition, as a general comment, it was submitted by one exporter without further substantiation that the injury analysis as disclosed did not consider all factors stipulated in Article 8 of the basic Regulation and was not based on positive evidence.
(167)
Concrete claims to specific aspects of the injury analysis will be addressed in the context of the respective part of the analysis below. However, in reply to the general comment it should be mentioned that, (i) the basis for the injury analysis were verified facts supported by evidence and (ii) as set out below all import related factors of Article 8(2) of the basic Regulation, all 17 indicators of Article 8(5) of the basic Regulation related to the situation of the Community industry and all known factors other than subsidised imports of Article 8(7) of the basic Regulation have been assessed.
II. Determination of the relevant Community market
(168)
In order to establish whether or not the Community industry suffered injury and to determine consumption and the various economic indicators related to the situation of the Community industry, it was examined whether and to what extent the subsequent use of the Community industry’s production of the like product had to be taken into account in the analysis.
(169)
Indeed, the like product is sold by the Community industry to both (i) unrelated customers and (ii) for further downstream processing to formulations in the same group of companies (related entities). Sales to unrelated entities were considered to form the ‘free market’. Sales to related entities for further downstream processing were considered as captive use, because of a lack to choose the supplier freely.
(170)
For the following economic indicators relating to the Community industry, it was found that a meaningful analysis and evaluation had to focus on the situation prevailing on the free market: sales volume and sales prices on the Community market, market share, growth, profitability, export volume and prices. Where possible and justified, these findings were subsequently compared with the data for the captive market, in order to provide a full picture of the situation of the Community industry.
(171)
As regards other economic indicators, however, it was found on the basis of the investigation, that they could reasonably be examined only by referring to the whole activity. Indeed, production (for both the captive and the free market), capacity, capacity utilisation, investments, stocks, employment, productivity, wages, ability to raise capital depend upon the whole activity, whether the production is captive or sold on the free market.
(172)
Two exporters contested the analysis in regard to the free and captive markets. They argued that it was not objective within the meaning of Article 8(2) of the basic Regulation.
(173)
However, it is considered that the present investigation established a clear separation between the free and the captive markets. In fact, the captive buyer had no choice but to buy from its captive supplier. Under such circumstances the analysis has to focus primarily on the free market, since sales on the captive market were not subject to competition with products sold on the free market and were therefore not affected by the subsidised imports. It is further noted that the injury analysis has despite this clear separation not ignored the captive market. To the contrary, the situation of both markets has been juxtaposed, as set out below, in order to reach an objective final determination on the state of the Community industry as a whole. Consequently, the claim has to be rejected.
III. Community consumption
(174)
In calculating the apparent Community consumption of the product concerned and the like product, the Commission added:
-
the volume of total imports of the product concerned and the like product into the Community as reported by Eurostat,
-
the volume of sales of the like product in the Community produced by the Community industry,
-
the volume of captive use of the like product by the Community industry,
-
and, on the basis of the information contained in the review request, the estimated volume of sales of the like product in the Community by the other known Community producers.
As shown in the table below, Community consumption of the product concerned and the like product increased by 51 % over the period considered.
Consumption
(in kg)
1999
2000
2001
2002
IP
Product concerned and like product
2 482 053
3 240 481
3 254 464
3 801 666
3 745 549
Index
100
131
131
153
151
(175)
The GOI and one exporter submitted that the consumption details as set out above should have been disclosed in more detail, notably per Community producer and separating free and captive consumption. Further, it was argued that the credibility of the data with regard to Community producers other than the Community industry has not been checked.
(176)
It is noted that the Community industry consists only of two parties of which only one operates on the captive market. Therefore, in view of Article 29 of the basic Regulation (confidentiality) it is not possible to disclose further details. Concerning data for Community producers other than the Community industry it should be recalled that these producers did not cooperate with the investigation. In the absence of any other information available concerning their contribution to the Community consumption, the data provided in the review request were used. Furthermore, no party provided conflicting information nor did the verification raise doubts as to their credibility.
IV. Imports of the product concerned into the Community
1. Volume, price and market share of imports from India
Imports
(in kg)
1999
2000
2001
2002
IP
Product concerned
36 800
47 400
72 100
101 800
95 200
Index
100
129
196
277
259
(177)
The volume of imports of the product concerned increased significantly throughout the period considered. Imports in the review investigation period were 159 % greater than in 1999. These imports rose much faster than the general growth in consumption of 51 %, the increase in imports from third countries other than India of 13 % and the sales increase of the Community industry of 80 % during the same period. With regard to the developing country status of India and the provisions of Article 14(4) of the basic Regulation, it was found that the volume of imports from India in the review investigation period represented significantly more than 4 % of the total imports of the like product in the Community.
Average import price per kg in EUR
1999
2000
2001
2002
IP
Product concerned
34,66
33,94
35,51
36,57
35,34
Index
100
98
102
106
102
(178)
The average import price of the product concerned increased slightly with a peak in 2002 and subsequently fell back to the level before 2001.
EC market share
1999
2000
2001
2002
IP
Product concerned
1,5 %
1,5 %
2,2 %
2,7 %
2,5 %
Index
100
99
149
181
171
(179)
Indian imports’ market share on the Community market grew by 71 % over the period considered. It was submitted that the indexed increase should only amount to 66 instead of 71 %. On the basis of the rounded down market share in percentage this submission is arithmetically valid. Nevertheless, the above index is correctly calculated. For the purpose of precisely indexing the market share percentage points have not been rounded. This can be seen when comparing indexed figures and percentage points for 1999 and 2000. Furthermore, this methodology has consistently been applied in all tables of this Regulation.
2. Price undercutting
(180)
For the determination of price undercutting, price data referring to the review investigation period were analysed. To this end, sales prices of the Community industry to their first unrelated customers on an ex-works basis have been compared with sales prices of the Indian exporting producers to their first independent customers in the Community on a cif import basis, in both cases after deduction of discounts, rebates and commissions.
(181)
Based on the questionnaire replies, different product sub-types of the product concerned and the like product could be defined for comparison purposes based on the product type (i.e. amoxicillin trihydrate, ampicillin trihydrate and cefalexin) and its variants (i.e. powder or compacted form).
(182)
The Community industry's sales prices and the cif import prices of the exporting producers were compared at the same level of trade, namely traders/distributors within the Community market, on the basis of weighted average prices per product subtype. During the review investigation period, virtually all sales of the exporting producers in the Community were made via traders/distributors.
(183)
The results of the comparison, when expressed as a percentage of the Community industry’s sales prices during the review investigation period, showed significant price undercutting margins. On an exporting producer basis these margins were found to range between 11,5 and 17,1 %. Consequently, these price undercutting margins indicate continuous price pressure exerted by the Indian imports on the Community market despite the existence of measures.
V. Economic situation of the Community industry
1. Production, capacity and capacity utilisation
1999
2000
2001
2002
IP
Index production
100
121
127
154
160
Index capacity
100
117
123
148
157
Index capacity utilisation
100
103
103
104
102
(184)
As a consequence of the steady increase in Community consumption, the Community industry’s production of the like product increased continuously over the period considered. This positive trend became more pronounced during the review investigation period when one of the cooperating Community producers started the production in the Community of one type of the like product which it only had imported previously.
(185)
The production capacity of the Community industry showed the same positive trend as its production. This is partly due to important investments in a new production plant which were made during the review investigation period by one of the cooperating Community producers.
(186)
The capacity utilisation rate has been stable at a relatively high level over the period considered. Such a high rate of utilisation is common in this type of industry, because of the continuous batch process utilised for the manufacture of the like product and in the case of the Community industry in addition due to its captive use.
(187)
Three exporters submitted upon disclosure that the development of these factors does not show any sign of injury. However, it is noted that the conclusion on injury has not been based on these factors.
2. Sales volume, sales price, market share and growth
(a) Free market sales
Free market sales in the Community
1999
2000
2001
2002
IP
Index volume
100
170
162
192
180
Index average sales price
100
94
94
94
95
Index market share
100
130
123
125
120
(188)
Based on the favourable evolution of Community consumption, the volume of free market sales of the Community industry in the Community increased over the period considered. The Community industry’s free market sales volume showed a higher growth than the growth of Community consumption during the period considered. However, between 2000 and the review investigation period, the increase of the Community industry’s free market sales volume was less than the increase of the Community consumption. The large increase of the Community industry’s free market sales volume between 1999 and 2000 is mainly attributable to the taking over of another Community producer by the Community industry. Nevertheless, the 80 % increase of the free market sales volume of the Community industry in the Community during the period considered was less pronounced than the 159 % increase of imports of the product concerned during the same period.
(189)
The GOI and four exporters pointed to the overall increase in sales of the Community industry as a positive sign and contended that it does not support an injury finding. It was further submitted that a comparison of the Community industry’s performance with the one of Indian exporters in relative terms would be misleading due to significant difference in the size of the competitors.
(190)
In reply to these submissions it should be noted that sales volume development has not been considered in the present case as a key factor indicating the extent of injury suffered. However, since the growth in sales for the Community industry can largely be attributed to a take over in 2000, i.e. the integration of the sales of a former competitor as opposed to new sales, it cannot be considered as an indicator for the absence of injury either. Furthermore, in 2001 and during the IP the sales volume of the Community industry on the free market decreased.
(191)
Despite growing demand indicated by the increased Community consumption, average free market sales prices of the Community industry declined from 1999 to 2000. This indicates price pressure exercised by competitors. Prices remained practically stable at the lower level up to the end of the review investigation period although demand further grew.
(192)
The GOI and three exporters claimed that the price development should be considered as positive for the Community industry.
(193)
This claim cannot be accepted. In fact, during the period considered the Community industry was at no time in the position to achieve non-injurious price levels.
(194)
The Community industry increased its market share by 30 % from 1999 to 2000 to the detriment of the market shares held by the other Community producers and exporters from third countries other than India. However, the Community industry’s market share fell from 2000 to the review investigation period when it reached its lowest level since 1999. This period coincided with a strong acceleration in growth of the share of imports from India.
(195)
One exporter argued that the decrease in market share of the Community industry in 2001 and the IP would be insignificant in light of the increase in 2000 and it further pointed to its overall increase in market share over the period considered.
(196)
However, this submission cannot be accepted, because it is based on an isolated focus 1999 versus the IP, which moreover neglects the exceptional nature of the increase in the year 2000. No explanation has been provided by this exporter why this obviously digressive development of the Community industry’s free market share after 2000 should not be considered as negative.
(197)
In this context, two other exporters argued that, given the more positive development on the captive market, this would be the result of a deliberate choice of the Community industry to opt for the more profitable formulations market.
(198)
This argument cannot be accepted as it ignores the increased stock which could have been sold to the free market.
(b) Captive sales
Captive sales in the Community
1999
2000
2001
2002
IP
Index volume
100
88
124
180
189
Index average sales price
100
102
104
102
99
Index market share
100
67
95
117
125
(199)
While the Community industry’s sales volume on the free market increased by 80 % over the period considered, sales on the captive market increased by 89 %. In particular since 2001 an expansion on the Community industry’s captive market can be observed, whereas its situation on the free market remained practically unchanged. This coincides with a strong increase of imports from India on the free market, which implies that the Community industry used its option to switch markets at least to a certain extent in order to avoid direct competition with subsidised imports of the product concerned at low prices.
(200)
A similar pattern can be observed by examining comparatively the trends in growth of the Community industry’s market share both on the free and on the captive market. This again indicates an increasing strategic relevance of the captive market for the Community industry since 2001.
(201)
Whereas prices on the free market started to decrease already in 2000, the transfer prices on the captive market continued to increase moderately until 2001. However, with a time lag, starting in 2002 prices on the captive market showed a downward trend as well. This could be explained by the fact that transfer prices are generally not adjusted that quickly, because they are not shaped by direct competition. It is noted that the overall movement in prices of free market and captive sales during the period considered are similar.
3. Stocks
Stocks
1999
2000
2001
2002
IP
Index
100
74
100
141
161
(202)
The Community industry’s year-end stock levels in relation to production dropped by 26 % from 1999 to 2000 but then sharply increased by more than 115 % towards the end of the review investigation period. This increase coincided in time with a doubling of the Indian imports over the same period.
(203)
The GOI and four exporters contended that the increase in stocks was not abnormally high, thus not showing injury. Furthermore, the methodology of using year-end stock levels was contested. Instead, other approaches, like moving average stock levels or stocks in terms of number of days sales, were suggested as more appropriate indicators.
(204)
In reply to this submission it should be noted that the standard methodology of the Community to quantify stock levels was applied. The approach is objective and in line with WTO obligations. The claim for the use of another methodology was not substantiated. Thus, the suggestion to choose an alternative methodology is refuted. Secondly, on the basis of verified facts it cannot be denied that stock levels increased sharply.
4. Profitability
(a) Free market sales
Profitability
(Free market sales in the Community)
1999
2000
2001
2002
IP
Index
- 100
113
239
146
87
(205)
The profitability of the Community industry expressed in terms of return on net sales on the free market improved significantly from a loss-making situation in 1999. Following the imposition of the existing measures in 1998, profitability increased up to 2001, but then deteriorated sharply towards the review investigation period. In addition, it is pertinent that the Community industry was at no time during the period considered in a position to reach even half of the profit margin, which, according to the findings in the original investigation, it could reasonably have obtained in the absence of subsidised imports, i.e. 15 %. The development of the profitability and in particular its decline since 2002 is considered very important as it affects the level of financial resources available to the Community industry for investments in research and development that are necessary for further improvements to the production processes of existing products and the development of new products.
(206)
The GOI and four exporters submitted comments on the profitability analysis. It was submitted that, (i) the Community industry achieved reasonable profitability levels, (ii) a non-injurious profitability margin of 10 % (see recital 260), would be too high and instead 5 % is sufficient, (iii) the profitability decline could be essentially attributed to the investment policy of the Community industry, (iv) the start up activities of one party qualify for self inflicted injury and (v) the profitability development should have been disclosed for each Community producer.
(207)
It is reiterated that the Community industry was at no time, during the period considered, in a position to achieve reasonable profit margins as set out above. Thus, the deterioration since 2002 only worsened an already unsatisfactory situation. Further, in view of the special circumstances of the pharmaceutical sector a profit margin of 5 % is considered not to be sufficient. The Community industry has provided evidence that it can achieve for comparable bulk drugs profit figures of above 10 %. Such profit levels are necessary to provide the pharmaceutical sector sustainably with the necessary financial resources to carry on pharmaceutical innovation with its high inherent economic risks. In addition, the lack of reasonable profit margins achieved by the Community industry cannot just be explained by its investment policy. Only one Community producer was in a start up phase during the period considered, but neither party achieved reasonable profit margins. Finally, in view of Article 29 of the basic Regulation (‘confidentiality’) it is not possible to disclose further details.
(b) Captive sales
Profitability
(Captive sales in the Community)
1999
2000
2001
2002
IP
Index
100
482
564
431
325
(208)
The profitability trends of captive sales follow the same line, although on a higher level, i.e. increasing until 2001 and consecutively diminishing. The differences in profitability levels can mainly be attributed to the facts that, (i) selling general and administrative costs (SG & A) for captive sales are lower, because they do not necessitate marketing costs, and (ii) to higher transfer prices as compared with prices on the free market. In the absence of the higher profit levels achieved on captive sales, the industry would be in a worse overall financial situation.
5. Investments, return on investment, cash flow and the ability to raise capital
1999
2000
2001
2002
IP
Index investments
0
100
300
1 123
351
Index return on investment
- 100
160
286
161
91
Index cash flow
100
186
71
160
33
(209)
After 1999, the Community industry continually made investments for the manufacture of the like product. In particular in 2002, it strongly invested in new production techniques in order to remain competitive, improve environmental and security standards and increase production capacities.
(210)
From 1999 to 2001, i.e. after the imposition of measures, return on investment improved. Since then, however, it strongly declined. Although this can be partially attributed to the start-up phase of one new production plant, the unsatisfactory profitability situation, caused by competitors’ price pressure, contributed to this situation.
(211)
During the period considered, the fluctuations of the cash flow generated by the sales of the like product are to a certain extent the consequence of the Community industry’s investment policy during this period. However, the drastic decline in cash flow between 2002 and the review investigation period cannot only be explained by this factor. Price pressure exercised by competitors contributed to the unsatisfactory cash flow development as well.
(212)
The Community industry did not experience any significant difficulty to raise capital.
(213)
Upon disclosure it was submitted by the GOI and exporters that, (i) the data above should have been disclosed separately for each Community producer separately, (ii) the ability to raise capital did not support an injury finding, (iii) the cash flow allegedly cannot follow this trends in view of the trends for return on investments and profitability and should therefore be re-evaluated and, (iv) without further substantiation the analysis would be insufficient.
(214)
In reply to these submissions it should be recalled that in accordance with Article 29 of the basic Regulation (confidentiality) the data cannot be disclosed separately for each Community producer. In regard to the ability to raise capital, no negative conclusion on injury has been drawn. As far as the submission regarding cash flow is concerned, after careful re-examination the respective index as set out above is confirmed. In regard to the general submission of insufficient analysis in respect of above factors it should be considered that, (i) the injury finding is not essentially based on these indicators and (ii) that the submission has not substantiated why a further elaboration could still change the overall finding.
6. Employment, productivity and wages
1999
2000
2001
2002
IP
Index employment
100
101
101
187
185
Index productivity
100
120
127
83
86
Index wages
100
103
106
185
178
(215)
Employment for the like product remained stable until 2001 but increased considerably in 2002 due to the setting up of a new production plant in the Community by one of the cooperating Community producers. The total cost for wages followed the same trend. However, productivity per worker, although increasing until 2001, declined in 2002. This can be clearly attributed to the start-up phase of one new production plant. No evidence of a decrease of efficiency was found during the investigation.
(216)
The GOI and four exporters submitted that the trends for employment, productivity and wages are not supportive for a finding of material injury in the present case.
(217)
However, it should be noted, that no such conclusion has been made for employment and productivity. With regard to wages, only the total amount of wages increased. On average per employee, wages even decreased slightly (see table below). This shows that, (i) no positive development per employee took place and (ii) the determination of the Community industry to be cost efficient.
1999
2000
2001
2002
IP
Index wages per employee
100
103
105
99
96
7. Magnitude of subsidy and recovery from past subsidisation
(218)
Given the volume and in particular the prices of the subsidised imports from India, the impact of the actual amount of subsidisation, which is significant, cannot be considered to be negligible.
(219)
In this context the GOI and three exporters submitted that the subsidy margins have been overstated.
(220)
However, as set out in recitals 153 and 154 above, the investigation has shown that the amount of countervailable subsidies expressed ad valorem for the investigated exporting producers ranges between 25,3 and 35,1 %. This is a clear finding of significant subsidisation.
(221)
The situation of the Community industry improved in the period considered. However, it did not fully recover from past subsidisation and continues to be weak.
VI. Conclusion on the economic situation of the Community industry
(222)
Between 1999 and the review investigation period the volume of the subsidised imports of the product concerned increased significantly by 159 % and their share of the Community market grew by 70 %. This development contrasts with the much less favourable development for exporters from other countries and the Community industry. Imports from other countries to the Community market grew only by 7 % during the period considered and their market share even decreased by 29 %. The sales volume of the Community industry grew by 80 % and its market share by 20 % during the period considered. However, this positive development can essentially be attributed to the take over of another Community producer by the Community industry in 2000. Since 2001, the trend in market share development for the Community industry is even digressive. In particular, it can be observed that as of 2000 the Community industry did not, in relative terms, keep pace with the increase of Community consumption and the strong evolution of its Indian competitors on the Community market.
(223)
In this context, it is noted that the average prices of subsidised imports from India were consistently lower than those of the Community industry during the period considered. Moreover, during the review investigation period, the prices of the imports from the country concerned undercut those of the Community industry. On a weighted average basis, price undercutting was in the review investigation period between 11,5 and 17,1 %.
(224)
As a consequence of this price pressure exercised by subsidised Indian imports, the Community industry was at no time during the period considered in a position to reach non-injurious price levels. Although profitability of the Community industry initially improved after the imposition of measures, it has deteriorated since 2001 and its actual level is well below what it could reasonably have achieved in the absence of subsidised imports, i.e. 10 % on turnover (see recital 260). However, only an acceptable level of profitability will allow the Community industry to remain viable in a sustainable way.
(225)
This negative tendency for the Community industry is further reflected in the picture displayed by the trends in return on investment and cash flow.
(226)
Regarding captive sales, the option for the Community industry to sell part of its production on the captive market provided it with the opportunity to maintain high levels of capacity utilisation. High capacity utilisation contributes to decrease cost of production because of economies of scale. Furthermore, as outlined above, the trends in sales volumes, prices and market share between the free and captive markets did not diverge significantly. In the absence of the higher profits achieved by the industry on captive sales, the industry would be in a worse financial situation. Thus, the captive use did not contribute to the injurious situation. To the contrary, without a captive market the injurious situation of the Community industry might even have been worse.
(227)
Two exporters contended that it cannot be concluded that the captive market sales did not contribute to the injurious situation of the Community industry, because captive sales prices are allegedly unreliable, i.e. the profitability of captive sales would be artificially too high.
(228)
However, higher profitability on the captive market was not mainly the result of higher transfer prices, but in particular attributable to lower SG & A (see recital 208). Furthermore, this submission neglects the effect of economies of scale. Thus, it cannot change the conclusion that the captive sales did not contribute to the injury.
(229)
As a result, it was confirmed that, overall, the Community industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation. It should be recalled that Article 8(5) of the basic Regulation does not mandate all economic indicators for the Community industry to be negative in order to establish material injury. Moreover, not all economic indicators have the same weight. Profitability, though, is one of the key economic indicators, since it constitutes the ultimate goal of every economic undertaking. In the present case, insufficient profitability levels were established. Another important injury indicator having a major impact on profitability is the price levels. The Community industry was never in a position to achieve non injurious price levels during the period considered on the free market due to external price pressure, mainly from heavily subsidised Indian imports.
VII. Effect of the subsidised imports
(230)
In 2000, and most likely due to the imposition of measures, India lost its position as the second largest exporter to the Community market for an interim period, whereas notably Omani exporters gained market share. However, since then, Indian exporters not only have recovered their position, but in the review investigation period they even took over the lead as the largest exporter to the Community.
(231)
This growth in volume of the subsidised imports from India, in particular since 2002, coincided with the fact that in 2002, the profitability for the Community industry decreased as compared with 2001, i.e. by around 36 %. It was found that, during this time, one Community producer set up a new plant and found itself in a start-up phase which may have had an effect on its profitability in that period. However, it was also found that the other Community producer, which was not in a start-up phase, found itself confronted with a significant decrease in profitability, i.e. by 17 % as compared with 2001 which further deteriorated during the review investigation period. Moreover, as stated under recital 207, at no point in time was the Community industry in a position to reach non-injurious price levels. To the contrary, again starting in 2002, the Community industry had to adjust prices downwards in order to defend its market share.
(232)
Upon disclosure, three exporters submitted that the Indian imports share on the Community market, 2,5 % during the IP, and their volume in relation to total imports, 8,4 % during the IP, both of which slightly decreased as compared with 2002, would be too small and marginal to have any injurious impact in particular in view of a bigger market share hold by the Community industry. Furthermore, it was argued that an analysis expressed in relative terms would be misleading, because India started from a very low level, 1,5 % market share and 3,7 % import volume in 1999.
(233)
In reply to this submission it should be considered that both, India’s market share and its import volume during the IP, are well above the de minimis thresholds set in Articles 10(11) and 14(4) of the basic Regulation, thus can have a causal effect. According to Article 8(6) of the basic Regulation, a causal effect can be manifested alternatively either by the import volume or by the price levels of subsidised imports. Such price level impact can clearly be observed in the present case. As already established in the course of the original investigation, the product under investigation, a bulk commodity, is highly price sensitive and reacts swiftly to any downward pressure. In such cases small quantities can influence prices on the market. In fact, over the period considered the Indian prices set on average the price pressure benchmark in this case.
(234)
It was therefore confirmed that the subsidised imports from India had a considerable negative impact on the situation of the Community industry during the period considered, in particular in terms of profitability.
VIII. Impact of other factors
1. Imports from other third countries
Third country imports
1999
2000
2001
2002
IP
Volume (kg)
India
36 800
47 400
72 100
101 800
95 200
Index
100
129
196
277
259
Oman
77 400
119 700
85 100
88 400
93 500
Index
100
155
110
114
121
USA
11 100
2 800
16 600
106 300
70 000
Index
100
25
149
932
631
China
0
3 900
21 800
75 600
63 000
Index
0
100
559
1 938
1 615
South Korea
19 800
75 300
40 200
54 500
45 000
Index
100
380
203
275
227
Singapore
0
4 600
128 300
62 700
37 700
Index
0
100
2 789
1 363
820
Average import price per kg (EUR)
India
34,66
33,94
35,51
36,57
35,34
Index
100
98
102
106
102
Oman
36,10
36,21
39,30
39,15
38,34
Index
100
100
109
108
106
USA
74,87
115,35
108,90
101,40
48,74
Index
100
154
145
135
65
China
0,00
188,97
116,06
68,22
58,59
Index
0
100
61
36
31
South Korea
34,84
37,52
37,66
45,59
48,06
Index
100
108
108
131
138
Singapore
0,00
76,88
57,47
57,47
51,28
Index
0
100
75
75
67
(235)
Imports of the product under consideration from countries other than India increased by only 7 % between 1999 and the review investigation period, i.e. well below the rate of increase of the Community consumption. Amongst these countries, Oman, the United States of America (USA), China, South Korea and Singapore are the main suppliers to the Community market. However, their average import prices were considerably higher than the Indian import prices and, except for the import prices from Oman, also the Community industry prices. Import prices of Oman are at comparable levels to the Community industry’s prices, but Oman’s increase in market share over the period considered was much less pronounced than that for the other third countries.
(236)
Following disclosure, it was submitted by the GOI and two exporters that the countervailing duty in place for Indian imports should have been taken into consideration when comparing average sales prices. This would allegedly lead to practically similar Indian and Omani price levels. In addition, it was noted that average prices from some third countries, notably the USA and China, decreased significantly over the period considered whereas, inter alia, Indian prices increased. Furthermore, it was submitted by another exporter that the volume decrease in Indian imports between 2002 and the review investigation period has not been properly taken into account in the analysis, that other third countries were the main suppliers and that average prices from South Korea and India were similar from 1999 to 2001.
(237)
With regard to the original countervailing duty in place, it should be noted that the vast majority of imports from India were either subject to a zero duty rate or to a duty rate which still leads to lower average landing prices than the average Omani price levels. Thus, on average Omani imports did not exercise the same degree of price pressure. In addition, import prices from all other third countries as well were on average higher over the period considered than Indian price levels, again clearly identifying India as main source of price pressure. Volume wise, the observation is correct that India was not the only source of significant imports during all the time of the period considered. However, it is recalled that India is the only country subject to measures. This, of course, had an impact on the trade flow of the product concerned. Moreover, despite measures, Indian imports grew strongly since 2001 and India recovered its position as second largest exporter in 2002 to become during the IP even the biggest. Therefore, the small decrease in Indian imports between 2002 and the IP had no effect on the market, which eventually rewarded the Indian pricing policy. Consequently, these arguments cannot be accepted. It was therefore confirmed that imports from third countries could not have caused any injury to the Community industry which would break the causal link between the subsidised imports from India and the injury suffered by the Community industry.
2. Development of consumption of the Community market
(238)
Consumption of the product under investigation on the Community market increased by 51 % during the period considered. Thus, the injury suffered by the Community industry cannot be attributed to a contraction of demand on the Community market.
3. Export activity of the Community industry
(239)
The export performance of the Community industry grew by 16 % during the period considered. The Community industry’s export prices were on average 10 to 15 % higher than the sales prices in the Community. Thus, the Community industry’s export activity could not contribute to its injurious situation.
(240)
In this context it was submitted by the GOI and one exporter that the Community industry in their questionnaire replies mentioned stiff competition due to Indian competitors on third country markets resulting for the Community industry in low prices and loss of market share in third countries, which prima facie would contradict above finding. Thus, on the basis of this assessment of the Community industry there would be no injury on the Community market or no causal link with Indian imports.
(241)
In this respect, it is noted that given the worldwide growth of the market for such products, there is no contradiction between any decrease of export prices and loss of market share of the Community industry in third countries and the fact that the volume of such exports had actually increased and that their prices were higher than the Community industry’s prices for sales in the Community. Therefore, although the export performance of the Community industry could have been better without a low priced subsidised Indian exports competition in third countries markets, there is no indication that, because of its export performance, the Community industry was not subject to injurious price competition on the Community market essentially caused by the low priced subsidised imports from India. Thus the argument should be rejected.
4. Competitiveness of the Community industry
(242)
The Community industry is an important competitor for the product under consideration as demonstrated by its market share and has constantly invested to maintain the state-of-the-art in its production. The drop in productivity per worker on a per kg basis after 2001 can be exclusively attributed to the start-up phase of a new production plant of one Community producer. It is therefore only of a temporary nature. Consequently, no evidence was found that lack of competitiveness could have broken the causal link between imports from India and the injury suffered by the Community industry.
5. Captive Use
(243)
As stated in recital 226 above, it is considered that the captive use did not contribute to the injurious situation. To the contrary, without a captive market the injurious situation of the Community industry might even have been worse.
G. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF INJURY
(244)
In accordance with Article 18(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the expiry of the measures in force would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of injury.
(245)
As set out under recitals 161 to 243 above, it was established that during the review investigation period and despite the measures in force, the Community industry continued to sustain injury caused by the subsidised imports of the product concerned. The injury elimination level found during the present investigation ranged between 17,3 and 48,1 % and is higher than that established during the original investigation (between 12,6 and 28,9 %), despite the fact that in this review the reasonable profit margin for the Community industry was reduced by one third as compared with the original investigation (see recital 260 below). Furthermore, the investigation established that, despite domestic sales and exports to other countries, there is still significant spare capacity for the products under investigation in India, in particular with exporters which are subject to relatively high duty rates in the Community. It was, therefore, considered reasonable to conclude that subsidised low priced imports from India would further increase and, consequently, injury would be likely to continue in the future, should the measures lapse.
(246)
Since the Community industry continues to suffer material injury due to the subsidised imports despite the existence of measures, it was not necessary to analyse further the likelihood of recurrence of injury.
H. COMMUNITY INTEREST
I. Introduction
(247)
It was examined whether compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Community interest to continue applying measures in this particular case. For this purpose, and pursuant to Article 31(1) of the basic Regulation, the likely impact of measures for all parties concerned in the investigation was considered. In order to assess whether it is in the interest of the Community that measures be continued, questionnaires were sent to users and importers of the product concerned and to upstream suppliers of raw materials used in producing the like product.
II. Interest of the Community Industry
(248)
As has been shown above, the Community industry producing the like product has been continuously increasing its production. This was possible thanks to the constant growth of investments made by the Community industry in order to keep its ability to compete, as it belongs to the main competitors for the product under investigation. It is recalled that during the review investigation period, the Community industry expanded its production facilities, set up one new factory within the Community and prepared plans for setting up of a further new facility in the Community. This process of continuing investments by the Community industry is being undermined in particular by the unsatisfactory development of its profitability, caused by the continuous price pressure exerted by the Indian imports of the product concerned on the Community market.
It is considered that without measures in place to correct the effects of the subsidised imports, the Community industry will continue to face price undercutting and thus price depression with its negative impact on profitability, return on investments and cash flow. Eventually, this could even put the viability of the Community industry at risk. Consequently, it was considered, that a lapse of the measures would not be in the interest of the Community industry.
III. Interest of the importers/traders
(249)
Questionnaires were sent to all known importers/traders of the product concerned but only one out of nineteen replied. However, the cooperating importer did not comment on the likely impact of the continuation of measures on its business. On the basis of the information received, it appears that importers/traders in the Community purchase the product under investigation from a variety of sources. Since there are no fundamental quality differences between the product imported from India and the one obtained from any other sources, it is considered that the importers/traders in the Community would, if measures are to continue, have no difficulty obtaining the product from a variety of other sources. Furthermore, the cooperating importer is actively involved in trading a big variety of other products and is therefore not vitally depending on the product concerned. Although its sales of the product concerned over the period considered increased strongly (seven times in volume), these sales only represent a small part of its total turnover (ca. 1,4 % in the review investigation period). Finally, the importer did not indicate that the continuation of measures would have any impact on employment, since import activities are not labour intensive.
(250)
Although importers/traders may not be in favour of measures, it can be concluded on the basis of the information available, that such possible interest in allowing measures to expire does not outweigh the actual interest of the Community industry to continue redressing unfair and injurious Indian trading practices as summarised in recital 248.
IV. Interest of up-stream suppliers
(251)
In order to assess the likely effect that the continuation of countervailing measures could have on the up-stream suppliers of the Community industry, questionnaires were sent to all such known suppliers. In total six questionnaires were sent out and two replies were received. These up-stream suppliers, which provide in particular glucose and dextrose to the Community industry, are in favour of the continuation of measures. Although the Community industry does not belong to the most important customers of these up-stream suppliers, this business still contributes to the employment and profitability of the up-stream suppliers. If the Community industry would curb or even stop production of the like product, such beneficial business-relation would be at risk.
(252)
Therefore, and in the absence of any information to the contrary, it is concluded that the continuation of measures would comply with interests of up-stream suppliers.
V. Interest of users
(253)
Questionnaires were also sent to five known Community users of the product concerned, i.e. pharmaceutical companies. The Commission requested, amongst other information, their comments on whether the maintenance of the measures in force would be in the interest of the Community and how these measures would continue to affect them. However, no questionnaire replies were received and thus no comments were made known. Taking into consideration that users could obtain the product under investigation not only from India but from other sources as well, and given the lack of any information on the economic impact of measures on the user’s businesses (e.g. employment, profitability, investment policy), it was not possible to establish any user’s interest of tantamount importance.
(254)
Although, despite their silence, users might not be in favour of measures, on the basis of the information available by cooperating interested parties, no substantiated user interest in discontinuing measures could overweight the actual interest of the Community industry to continue redressing unfair and injurious Indian trading practices as summarized in recital 248.
(255)
One exporter claimed that Community consumers’ interests have not been properly taken into account and that therefore the Community interests analysis would not be fully in accordance with Article 31 of the basic Regulation. It is argued that consumers’ interests could be negatively affected, if producers of formulations passed through any alleged price increase due to increased costs in producing final dosage forms.
(256)
In response to this submission it should be recalled that no consumer organisation has made any comments in the course of this investigation. In addition, Community consumers are in general medically insured. No substantiated evidence is at hand, if medical insurance fees could be adversely affected to any significant extent by an alleged increase in the costs of certain antibiotics formulations. Furthermore, it is unclear to which extend manufactures of certain antibiotics formulations, i.e. users, are in the position to pass through an increase of costs. Under such circumstances, it is not possible to establish any adverse Community consumers’ interests of tantamount importance.
VI. Conclusion
(257)
Having examined the various interests involved, it is considered that from an overall Community interest perspective, no interest overweighs the Community industry’s interest to uphold measures. The effects of the continuation of the measures can be expected to afford the Community industry the opportunity to improve its profitability to a reasonable level and carry on its investment program within the Community with the resulting positive effects on employment and market competitiveness. On the other hand, on the basis of the information available, no opposing interests of other Community parties concerned (i.e. importers/traders, upstream suppliers, users and consumers) of tantamount importance were found.
I. COUNTERVAILING MEASURES
(258)
In view of the conclusions reached with regard to continued subsidisation, injury and Community interest, it is considered appropriate to maintain countervailing measures on imports of the product concerned from India. For the purpose of determining the level of these measures, account was taken of the subsidy rates found during the review investigation period and of the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Community industry.
I. Injury elimination level
(259)
The necessary price increase to eliminate injury was determined on a per-company basis by comparing the weighted average import price of the product concerned with the non-injurious price of the like product sold by the Community industry on the Community market. The price difference was expressed as a percentage of the CIF import value.
(260)
The non-injurious price has been obtained by taking the weighted average cost of production of the Community industry together with a profit margin of 10 %. This profit margin, which is one-third less than that taken in the original investigation (see recital 205 above), reflects the achievable profit margin for similar product groups of the Community industry not subject to unfair competition. In view of increased competition, it was considered an appropriate and reasonable minimum instead of the 15 % profit margin established in the original investigation. This profit would allow the Community industry to further invest in research and development in order to remain competitive.
II. Form and level of measures
(261)
In the absence of particular circumstances, the imposition of the standard duty type, i.e. ad valorem, was considered appropriate.
(262)
With regard to the level of duty, in the case of four of the cooperating exporters the subsidy rate was higher than the injury elimination level. Thus in accordance with Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, the lesser duty reflecting the injury elimination level was considered adequate to remove such injury to the Community industry insofar as imports from these four exporters are concerned. The rates of duty applicable to imports from these exporters should range from 17,3 to 30,3 %. As far as the other three exporters are concerned, the injury elimination levels were higher than the subsidy rates established, so that measures in respect of those companies should be based on the latter. The rates of duty applicable to imports from these exporters should range from 25,3 to 32 %. Given the fact that the level of cooperation of Indian exporters was high (over 80 %), the level of duty for all other companies should be set at the level of the company with the highest individual duty rate, i.e. 32 %.
(263)
The individual company countervailing duty rates specified in this Regulation reflect the situation found during the review with respect to the cooperating exporters. Thus, they are solely applicable to imports of the product concerned produced by these companies. Imports of the product concerned manufactured by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.
(264)
Any claim requesting the application of these individual countervailing duty rates (e.g. following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting up of new production or sales entities) should be addressed to the Commission (10) forthwith with all relevant information, in particular any modification in the company’s activities linked to production, domestic and export sales associated with, for instance, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities. If appropriate, and after consultation of the Advisory Committee, the Regulation will be amended accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A definitive countervailing duty is hereby imposed on imports of amoxicillin trihydrate, ampicillin trihydrate and cefalexin not put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale falling within CN codes ex 2941 10 10 (TARIC code 2941101010), ex 2941 10 20 (TARIC code 2941102010) and ex 2941 90 00 (TARIC code 2941900030) originating in India.
2. The rate of duty applicable to the net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty for imports produced in India by the companies listed below, shall be as follows:
-
17,3 % for KDL Biotech Ltd, Mumbai (TARIC additional code: A580),
-
28,1 % for Nectar Lifesciences Ltd, Chandigarh (TARIC additional code: A581),
-
25,3 % for Nestor Pharmaceuticals Ltd, New Delhi (TARIC additional code: A582),
-
30,3 % for Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, New Delhi (TARIC additional code: 8221),
-
28,1 % for Torrent Gujarat Biotech Ltd, Ahmedabad (TARIC additional code: A583),
-
28,1 % for Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Chandigarh (TARIC additional code: A584),
-
32 % for all other companies (TARIC additional code: 8900).
3. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 May 2005.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1169/2005
of 19 July 2005
opening a standing invitation to tender for the export of rye held by the German intervention agency
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 (2) lays down the procedure and conditions for the disposal of cereals held by intervention agencies.
(2)
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3002/92 (3) lays down common detailed rules for verifying the use and/or destination of products from intervention.
(3)
Given the current market situation, a standing invitation to tender should be opened for the export of 500 000 tonnes of rye held by the German intervention agency.
(4)
Special rules must be laid down to ensure that the operations are properly carried out and monitored. To that end, securities should be lodged to ensure that the goals of the operation are achieved without excessive cost to the operators. Derogations should accordingly be made to certain rules, in particular those laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93.
(5)
With a view to modernising the management of the system, provision should be made for the electronic transmission of the information required by the Commission.
(6)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Subject to this Regulation, the German intervention agency shall issue a standing invitation to tender in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 for the export of rye held by it.
Article 2
The invitation to tender shall cover a maximum quantity of 500 000 tonnes for rye for export to all third countries.
Article 3
1. No export refund or tax or monthly increase shall be granted on exports carried out under this Regulation.
2. Article 8(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 shall not apply.
3. Notwithstanding the third paragraph of Article 16 of Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93, the price to be paid for the export shall be that quoted in the tender, without monthly increase.
Article 4
1. Export licences shall be valid from their date of issue within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 until the end of the fourth month thereafter.
2. Tenders submitted in response to this invitation to tender need not be accompanied by export licence applications submitted under Article 49 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 (4).
Article 5
1. Notwithstanding Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93, the time limit for the submission of tenders under the first partial invitation to tender shall be 9.00 (Brussels time) on 28 July 2005.
The time limit for submitting tenders under subsequent partial invitations to tender shall be 9.00 (Brussels time) each Thursday thereafter, with the exception of 4 August 2005, 18 August 2005, 1 September 2005, 3 November 2005, 29 December 2005, 13 April 2006, 25 May 2006 and 15 June 2006, i.e. weeks in which no invitation to tender shall be made.
The last partial invitation to tender shall expire at 9.00 (Brussels time) on 22 June 2006.
2. Tenders must be lodged with the German intervention agency:
Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (BLE)
Deichmannsaue 29
D-53179 Bonn
Fax
00 49 228 6845 3985
00 49 228 6845 3276
Article 6
The intervention agency, the storer and the successful tenderer shall, at the request of the latter and by common agreement, either before or at the time of removal from storage as the tenderer chooses, take reference samples for counter-analysis at the rate of at least one sample for every 500 tonnes and shall analyse the samples. The intervention agency may be represented by a proxy, provided this is not the storer.
Reference samples for counter-analysis shall be taken and analysed within seven working days of the date of the successful tenderer's request or within three working days if the samples are taken on removal from storage.
In the event of a dispute, the analysis results shall be forwarded electronically to the Commission.
Article 7
1. The successful tenderer must accept the lot as established if the final result of the sample analyses indicates a quality:
(a)
higher than that specified in the notice of invitation to tender;
(b)
higher than the minimum characteristics laid down for intervention but below the quality described in the notice of invitation to tender, providing that the differences do not exceed the following limits:
-
one kilogram per hectolitre as regards specific weight, which must not, however, be less than 68 kg/hl,
-
one percentage point as regards moisture content,
-
half a percentage point as regards the impurities referred to in points B.2 and B.4 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 824/2000 (5),
-
half a percentage point as regards the impurities referred to in point B.5 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 824/2000, the percentages admissible for noxious grains and ergot remaining unchanged, however.
2. If the final result of the analyses carried out on the samples indicates a quality higher than the minimum characteristics laid down for intervention but below the quality described in the notice of invitation to tender and the difference exceeds the limits set out in paragraph 1(b), the successful tenderer may:
(a)
accept the lot as established, or
(b)
refuse to take over the lot concerned.
In the case of (b) above, the successful tenderer shall be discharged of all obligations relating to the lot in question and the securities shall be released provided the Commission and the intervention agency are immediately notified using the form in Annex I.
3. If the final result of the sample analyses indicates a quality below the minimum characteristics laid down for intervention, the successful tenderer cannot remove the lot in question. The successful tenderer shall be discharged of all obligations relating to the lot in question and the securities shall be released provided the Commission and the intervention agency are immediately notified using the form in Annex I.
Article 8
Should the cases mentioned in Article 7(2)(b) and 7(3) arise, the successful tenderer may ask the intervention agency to supply an alternative lot of rye of the requisite quality, at no extra cost. In that case, the security shall not be released. The lot must be replaced within three days of the date of the successful tenderer's request. The successful tenderer shall immediately inform the Commission thereof using the form in Annex I.
If, following successive replacements, the successful tenderer has not received a replacement lot of the quality laid down within one month of the date of the request for a replacement, the successful tenderer shall be discharged of all obligations and the securities shall be released, provided the Commission and the intervention agency have been immediately informed using the form in Annex I.
Article 9
1. If the rye is removed before the results of the analyses provided for in Article 6 are known, all risks shall be borne by the successful tenderer from the time the lot is removed, without prejudice to any means of redress the tenderer might have against the storer.
2. The costs of taking the samples and conducting the analyses provided for in Article 6, with the exception of those referred to in Article 7(3), shall be borne by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) for up to one analysis per 500 tonnes, with the exception of the cost of inter-bin transfers. The costs of inter-bin transfers and any additional analyses requested by a successful tenderer shall be borne by that tenderer.
Article 10
Notwithstanding Article 12 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3002/92, the documents relating to the sale of rye under this Regulation, and in particular the export licence, the removal order referred to in Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 3002/92, the export declaration and, where applicable, the T5 copy shall carry one of the entries set out in Annex II.
Article 11
1. The security lodged under Article 13(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 shall be released once the export licences have been issued to the successful tenderers.
2. Notwithstanding Article 17(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93, the obligation to export shall be covered by a security equal to the difference between the intervention price applying on the day of the award and the price awarded but not less than EUR 25 per tonne. Half of the security shall be lodged when the licence is issued and the balance shall be lodged before the cereals are removed.
Article 12
Within two hours of the expiry of the time limit for the submission of tenders, the German intervention agency shall electronically notify the Commission of tenders received. This notification shall be made by e-mail, using the form in Annex III.
Article 13
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 July 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3491/92 of 2 December 1992 concerning the grant in the Azores of flat-rate aid for the production of sugarbeet and special aid for the processing of sugarbeet into white sugar
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products (1), and in particular Article 25 (3) thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EEC) No 1676/85 of 11 June 1985 on the value of the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2205/90 (3), and in particular Article 12 thereof,
Whereas Article 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 provides for the grant, subject to certain conditions, of aid at a flat rate per hectare for the development of sugarbeet production in the Azores and special aid for the processing into white sugar of sugarbeet harvested in the Azores;
Whereas, in order to ensure that the aid is effective, conditions should be laid down for their application, in particular the minimum conditions for their grant together with the administrative formalities to be completed for that purpose;
Whereas provision should be made in respect of aid paid without due entitlement;
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 entered into force on 1 July 1992; whereas since Portugal has already applied the criteria and conditions laid down in this Regulation in respect of the 1992/93 marketing year, the Regulation should be made applicable with effect from that year;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Subject to the conditions in this Regulation, Portugal shall pay to producers of sugarbeet harvested in the Azores and to processors of such sugarbeet into white sugar in the Azores respectively the flat-rate aid per hectare and the special aid for processing referred to in Article 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92.
Article 2
1. For the grant of the flat-rate aid per hectare, sugarbeet producers shall, prior to the harvesting of the areas sown, make a declaration to the competent authorities designated by Portugal and shall at the same time present their aid application in writing.
2. The areas eligible for aid shall consist for each producer of at least:
(a) 0,1 hectare for the 1992/93 marketing year;
(b) 0,2 hectare for the 1993/94 marketing year;
(c) 0,3 hectare for subsequent marketing years.
3. Aid applications shall be admissible only if the production of sugarbeet per hectare is at least 25 tonnes.
4. The aid referred to in paragraph 1 shall be paid only after the harvesting and the delivery of the sugarbeet in question to the processor, who shall notify the competent authorities of the quantity of sugarbeet delivered by each sugarbeet producer.
Article 3
1. For the grant of the special processing aid, the processing undertaking shall submit an application in writing to the competent authorities.
The application shall indicate the quantity of white sugar produced from sugarbeet harvested in the Azores and shall be accompanied by:
(a) proof of purchase of the sugarbeet in respect of each producer who delivered the processed sugarbeet and
(b) from the 1993/94 marketing year onwards, a written undertaking not to refine raw sugar during the period of processing of the sugarbeet into white sugar.
2. The aid referred to in paragraph 1 shall be paid only after it has been established that white sugar has been produced from the sugarbeet harvested in the Azores.
Article 4
1. Portugal shall take all the measures necessary to ensure that the aid is granted only up to a maximum corresponding to the production in the Azores of 10 000 tonnes of white sugar per marketing year.
2. Portugal shall take all the additional measures necessary for the application of this Regulation and in particular those concerning the form of the aid applications, the checking of supporting documents as well as the checking of land areas and the quantities of sugarbeet harvested and white sugar produced.
Article 5
Portugal shall notify the Commission:
(a) within three months following the entry into force of this Regulation, of the additional measures adopted pursuant to Article 4 (2);
(b) within 45 working days of the end of each marketing year:
- of the areas and the overall amount for which the flat-rate aid per hectare has been requested and paid,
- of the quantities of white sugar produced and the overall amount of the special processing aid paid.
Article 6
The conversion into Portuguese escudos shall be made:
(a) in the case of the aid referred to in Article 2, by applying the agricultural conversion rate applicable on the date of the last delivery of sugarbeet to the processor;
(b) in the case of the aid referred to in Article 3, by applying the agricultural conversion rate applicable on the date of the establishment by Portugal of the definitive production of the processing undertaking in question.
Article 7
1. Where aid has been paid without due entitlement, the competent authorities shall recover the amounts paid out, with interest from the date on which the aid was paid to the date on which it is actually recovered. The interest rate applicable shall be that in force for similar recovery operations under Portuguese law.
2. The aid recovered together with the interest shall be paid to the paying departments and agencies and deducted by them from the expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in proportion to the Community contribution.
Article 8
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from the 1992/93 marketing year. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 December 1992.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1834/95 of 26 July 1995 on the transitional measures applicable in Austria in the wine sector for the 1995/96 wine year
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden and in particular Article 149 (1) thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organization of the market in wine (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1544/95 (2), lays down the basic rules for the management of the market in that sector; whereas, in particular, Article 1 (6) thereof lays down that the wine year lasts from 1 September to 31 August;
Whereas, by virtue of the abovementioned Act of Accession, the common organization of the market in wine has applied in Austria since the moment of accession; whereas, however, the Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 3299/94 of 21 December 1994 on transitional measures applicable in Austria in the wine-growing sector (3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 670/95 (4), postponed the application of important market management measures until the 1995/96 wine year because they could not usefully be initiated during the 1994/95 wine year;
Whereas the compulsory distillation measures imposed on Community table wine producers pursuant to Article 39 of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 require the setting up of a large administrative organization; whereas, moreover, if the measure in question were to be initiated in Austria its impact would be negligible given the small proportion of tabel wine by comparison with quality wine; whereas, therefore, producers should be exempted from that distillation obligation for the 1995/96 wine year; whereas, however, given that they could be eligible for other forms of voluntary distillation, a distillation price and an ad hoc wine quantity should be fixed for Austrian producers taking account of the possibility that compulsory distillation may not be applied;
Whereas, to smooth the transition from the former national arrangements to the Community arrangements and to ensure stability on the market in Austrian wines, wine producers in Austria should be exempted from the distillation obligation laid down in Articles 35 and 39 of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 and at the same time special provisions appropriate to that situation should be adopted;
Whereas, to respond to the current absence of suitable distillation structures for wine-making by-products in Austria, that Member State's producers should be exempted from the distillation obligation laid down by Article 35 of the above Regulation and at the same time, in order to establish equitable treatment for all Community producers, they should be obliged to withdraw those by-products under supervision;
Whereas the overpressing of grapes, whether crushed or not, and of wine lees should also be avoided; whereas the marcs and lees withdrawn under supervision must present the minimum characteristics required by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3105/88, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3186/92 (5), whereas the impact of that operation should be equivalent to that of normal legal instruments;
Whereas the development of the situation on the Austrian wine market, and in particular the current phase of transition to the Community arrangements, should be monitored with a view to facilitating that transition;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Without prejudice to the special transitional measures laid down in the Act of Accession, the measures provided for in Articles 35 and 39 of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 shall not apply in Austria in the 1995/96 wine year.
2. However, notwithstanding paragraph 1, any legal or natural person or group of persons processing grapes harvested in Austria shall be obliged to withdraw under supervision the by-products of such processing. Such by-products shall present the minimum characteristics required by Regulation (EEC) No 3105/88. The competent Austrian authorities shall adopt suitable national measures to ensure the proper application of this measure.
3. Where the voluntary distillation measures laid down in Articles 38 and 42 of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 are initiated, the Commission shall, in establishing the quantities of wine concerned, the prices and aids in Austria, take account of the impact of compulsory distillation on producers' incomes in that Member State.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 September 1995.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 July 1995.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3950/86
of 23 December 1986
authorizing the conclusion of long-term private storage contracts for table wine, grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must in respect of the 1986/87 wine year
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 of 5 February 1979 on the common organization of the market in wine (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3805/85 (2), and in particular Articles 7 (5) and 65 thereof,
Whereas the forward estimate drawn up for the 1986/87 wine year indicates that the amounts of table wine available at the beginning of the wine year exceeds by more than four months' supply those normally used up over the year; whereas the conditions for authorization of long-term storage contracts specified in Article 7 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 are therefore met;
Whereas the forward estimate indicates the existence of surpluses for all types of table wine and for table wines which stand in close economic relationship to those types of table wine; whereas it should therefore be made possible for long-term contracts to be concluded for those types of table wine; whereas it is necessary for the same reasons to open this possibility for grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must;
Whereas Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 provides that only producers fulfilling the obligations laid down in Article 39 and, where appropriate, Articles 40 and 41 of that Regulation during a reference period to be determined may qualify for the intervention measures; whereas that period must therefore be specified;
Whereas the first subparagraph of Article 6 (2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 of 29 April 1983 on storage contracts for table wine, grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3949/86 (4), specifies that table wines eligible for long-term storage contracts shall be classified into two categories on the basis of their characteristics with regard to quality; whereas minimum quality characteristics commensurate with the quality of the 1986 harvest should be fixed for each category;
Whereas it is necessary, for the purposes of possible implementation of Article 12a of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79, to know the maximum quantity of table wine subject to storage contract which may be distilled as provided for in the said Article; whereas producers should therefore be requried to provide intervention agencies with the necessary information, which they are then to pass on to the Commission;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. During the period 16 December 1986 to 15 February 1987 private long-term storage contracts may be concluded, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83, for:
- all types of table wine and for table wines in close economic relationship to such table wine, provided that the conditions of Article 6 of that Regulation are met, and
- grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must.
2. In accordance with Article 6 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79, producers who were subject to the obligations referred to in Articles 39, 40 or 41 of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 during the 1985/86 wine year shall not be entitled to benefit from the measures provided for in this Regulation unless they provide evidence that they have complied with their obligations during the reference periods laid down in Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2260/85 (5), Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2261/85 (6) and Article 22 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 854/86 (7).
Article 2
The minimum quality conditions that must be met for the two categories of wine referred to in Article 6 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83 are set out in the Annexes to this Regulation.
Article 3
1. Producers who, within the limits specified in the first subparagraph of Article 5 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1059/83, wish to conclude a long-term storage contract for a table wine shall, when submitting the application for conclusion of a contract, advise the intervention agency of the total quantity of table wine they have produced during the current wine year.
For this purpose the producer shall submit a copy of the production declaration(s) drawn up pursuant to Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2102/84 (1).
2. The Member States shall communicate to the Commission, not later than 10 May 1987, the maximum quantity of table wine subject to long-term storage contract which may be distilled as provided for in Article 12a (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79.
Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 16 December 1986.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 December 1986.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1208/84
of 27 April 1984
amending Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 on the common organization of the market in wine
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 43 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3),
Whereas experience has shown that the ratio between the guide price and the activating price referred to in Articles 2 and 3, respectively, of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1595/83 (5), has remained fairly steady from one year to another; whereas the buying-in price for wine delivered for the various distillation operations is a percentage of the guide price fixed by the Council; whereas, therefore, instead of activating prices being fixed annually, an appropriate constant ratio between the two prices should be laid down;
Whereas the system of short-term private storage aid for table wine and must, which was intended to stabilize the market at a period when supply and demand were more or less in balance, plays practically no role in the situation of constant surpluses which has prevailed in the wine sector since 1979; whereas the measure's effectiveness no longer justifies the appreciable financial burden it entails and the measure should therefore be abolished;
Whereas the second subparagraph of Article 11 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 lays down that the buying-in price for wine delivered for preventive distillation as provided for in that Article is to be raised from 60 to 65 % of the guide price where compulsory distillation as referred to in Article 41 has not been decided upon; whereas the last two wine years have shown that the uncertainty as to whether distillation as referred to in Article 41 would be decided upon has tended to deter producers from concluding contracts for delivery into preventive distillation, thus jeopardizing the market; whereas these measures must be kept separate if they are to fulfil their purpose of improving the market situation; whereas the buying-in price for wines delivered for preventive distillation should be fixed at 65 % of the guide price, in order that the measure should possess the desired incentive effect;
Whereas the situation should be avoided where, at the time of distillation, producers who increase the alcoholic strength of their wine by the addition of saccharose or grape must which has benefited from the aid referred to in Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 gain an undue economic advantage from such operation; whereas, therefore, an abatement of the purchase price should be provided for, corresponding to the said advantage for all the distillations provided for, with the exception of those referred to in Articles 39 and 40 for which the price level justifies exemption;
Whereas, in years where there is a surplus, the results achieved by preventive distillation play a major role in establishing balance on the market at the beginning of the marketing year; whereas steps should be taken to ensure that all the quantities of wine covered by delivery contracts are distilled; whereas, therefore, where high-price distillation as referred to in Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 is decided upon, provision should be made for restricting it to producers who have concluded contracts or made declarations of delivery for preventive distillation;
Whereas the fourth subparagraph of Article 17 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 lays down that, where wines are presented in containers of two litres or less, the reference price is to be increased; whereas, in order for this measure to achieve its purpose, the price should also be increased where the wine is presented in containers of slightly more than two litres; whereas provision should also be made for altering the reference price for those non-European geographical areas of the Community whose distance involves additional costs in bringing Community wines to the same marketing stage as imported wine;
Whereas, in order to make it possible to assess the yield per hectare of each wine producer, as laid down in Article 41 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79, even
where the producer makes the wine from grapes which he has bought in, producers of grapes for vinification should also be required to submit the annual harvest declaration;
Whereas, since the present table grape production potential exceeds requirements, the ban on new planting should be extended to all vines; whereas it is, however, appropriate that provision be made for derogations to be granted for areas intended for the production of quality wine psr for which demand could by far exceed supply;
Whereas, the situation of the wine market, characterized by a large surplus, is becoming, very rapidly worse and is likely, in particular in the Community's present financial situation, to place in jeopardy the attainment of the objectives of Article 39 of the Treaty because of the excessive pressure brought to bear on producers' incomes; whereas, this being so, limits on the planting rights acquired under authorizations already granted are justified;
Whereas, in order to avoid difficulties of interpretation, the procedures for laying down rules disposing of alcohol referred to in Article 40a of Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 should be set out more precisely; whereas the sectors in which alcohol may be disposed of should also be more closely defined;
Whereas application of the provisions governing the activation of compulsory distillation and the fixing of the quantities of wine to be distilled is likely to give rise to difficulties which might interfere with disposal of all the year's surpluses; whereas, in order to resolve such difficulties, the criteria for determining the quantity of wine which must be distilled should be laid down; whereas, on this occasion, some technical adjustments to improve management of the measures should be introduced in Articles 15 and 41 of the said Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 is hereby amended as follows:
1. Article 3 is replaced by the following:
'Article 3
A threshold price activating the intervention system, hereinafter called "activating price", shall apply for each wine year to each type of wine for which a guide price is fixed. It shall be valid at the same stage as the guide price. For each type of table wine it shall be 92 % of the guide price.'
2. Article 7 is replaced by the following:
'Article 7
1. A system of aid is hereby instituted for the private storage of:
- table wine,
- grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must.
2. The aid referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted subject to the conclusion with intervention agencies, between 16 December and 15 February of the following year and on conditions to be determined, of a long-term storage contract.
3. Long-term storage contracts for table wine shall be concluded for a period of nine months.
Long-term storage contracts for grape must, concentrated grape must and rectified concentrated grape must shall be concluded for a period ending on 15 September following their conclusion.
4. Long-term storage contracts may be concluded if the estimates for a wine-growing year show that the quantity of table wine available at the beginning of that year exceeds by more than four months' consumption the normal utilization for that year.
It may be decided that:
(a) long-term storage contracts for table wine may be concluded only for table-wines to be determined;
(b) grape must covered by a long-term storage contract may be processed, wholly or in part, into concentrated grape must or rectified concentrated grape must during the period of validity of the contract;
(c) grape must and concentrated grape must intended for the manufacture of grape juice may not be the subject of long-term storage contracts.
5. Decisions to permit the conclusion of long-term storage contracts shall be taken in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 67. According to the same procedure: (a) it shall be decided, if the development of the situation of the market and, in particular, the rate at which the conclusion of contracts justify it, to discontinue even before 15 February, the possibility of concluding long-term storage contracts;
(b) the other methods of applying this Article shall be adopted.'
3. Article 8 is deleted.
4. The second subparagraph of Article 9 (4) is deleted.
5. Article 10 is replaced by the following:
'Article 10
1. Where the foreseeable size of stocks held by producers at the end of the marketing year and the prospects for the following harvest indicate that difficulties may arise in storing that harvest, it may be decided to grant aid for the re-storage of table wines which are the subject of long-term storage contracts.
2. Detailed rules for the application of paragraph 1, in particular as regards the period of application, the amount of aid and the conditions of re-storage, shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 67.'
6. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 11 are replaced by the following:
'1. When necessary, having regard to harvest forecasts or in order to improve the quality of products put on the market, preventive distillation of table wines and wines suitable for yielding table wines may be decided upon during each wine year, from 1 September until a date to be determined.
2. The buying-in price for wines delivered for distillation under paragraph 1 shall be:
- 65 % of the guide price for each type of table wine fixed for the year concerned, for table wines of these types and table wines having a close economic relationship therewith,
- 65 % of the guide price for table wine of type A I fixed for the year concerned, for wines suitable for yielding table wine.
The price paid by the distiller may not be lower than the buying-in price.'
7. The following Article 14b is inserted:
'Article 14b
For the wines obtained by producers who increased the alcoholic strength by the addition of saccharose or must having benefited from the aid referred to in Article 14, the purchase price fixed for each distillation, with the exception of those referred to in Articles 39 and 40, shall be reduced in a manner which corresponds to the economic advantage thus acquired. The methods of applying this Article shall be adopted according to the procedure provided for by Article 67.'
8. Article 15 is amended as follows:
(a) the following paragraph 2a is added:
'2a Entitlement to distillation as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 above may be restricted to producers who, during the same wine year, have delivered wine for distillation as referred to in Article 11.'
(b) paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:
'6. If the situation on the market in table wine so requires, the measures referred to in this Article may be restricted:
- to certain table wines determined according to type,
- to one or more wine-growing zones or parts of wine-growing zones.
(c) paragraph 8 is replaced by the following:
'8. The Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt general rules concerning the distillation referred to in this Article, in particular:
- the conditions under which distillation is to be carried out,
- the criteria for fixing the amount of the aid, so as to enable the products obtained to be disposed of.'
9. The fourth subparagraph of Article 17 (1) is replaced by the following:
'Where wines are presented in containers of:
- two litres or less,
- more than two litres but not more than 20 litres,
the reference price shall be increased by a fixed amount corresponding to the normal packaging costs.
The reference price may be varied for those non-European geographical areas of the Community whose distance from the regions of production leads to an increase in the cost of bringing Community wines to the same marketing stage as imported wines.' 10. Article 28 (1) (a) is replaced by the following:
'(a) Producers of grapes for wine-making and producers of must and wine shall declare the quantities produced from the last harvest.'
11. Article 30 is replaced by the following:
'Article 30
1. All new plantings of vines shall be prohibited until 31 August 1990.
However, authorizations for new plantings may be granted by Member States for areas intended for the production of quality wines psr for which the Commission has recognized that production, because of their qualitative features, is far below demand.
2. By derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may grant authorizations for new planting in respect of:
- areas intended for the cultivation of parent vines for root-stock,
- areas intended for new planting carried out in the context of reallocation measures or measures concerning compulsory purchase in the public interest adopted under national legislation,
- in Member States whose production of quality wines psr during the 1975/76, 1976/77 and 1977/78 wine-growing years was less than 60 % of total wine production, areas intended for new planting to be carried out under development plans meeting the conditions laid down in Directive 72/159/EEC,
- areas intended for wine-growing experiments.
3. The recognition referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall be decided upon, at the request of a Member State, according to the procedure provided for in Article 67.
The detailed rules for the application of this Article shall be adopted according to the same procedure.'
12. In Article 30b (1), 'in Article 30 (2)' is replaced by 'in Article 30'.
13. Article 30f is replaced by the following:
'Article 30f
By way of derogation from Articles 30 (1) and 30c (3), rights for new vine planting on areas intended for the production of quality wines psr acquired by 1 May 1984 may be exercised:
- until 31 August 1984, without restriction,
- from 1 September 1984, subject to confirmation from the Member State concerned. Such confirmation may concern only quality wines psr for which an authorization has been granted by the Commission according to the procedure provided for in Article 67.'
14. Article 40a shall be replaced by the following:
'Article 40a
1. Disposal of the products of the distillation operations referred to in Articles 39 and 40 which are held by the intervention agencies shall not cause any disturbance of the markets in alcohol and spirituous beverages produced in the Community.
To this end, they shall be disposed of in other sectors, and in particular in the fuel sector, each time disposal is likely to bring about such disturbance.
2. The costs of the measures provided for disposal in sectors other than those of alcohol and spirituous beverages shall be borne by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.
The Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt the general rules for the application of this Article.
The detailed rules of application shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 67.'
15. Article 41 is amended as follows:
(a) the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:
'In calculating availabilities at the beginning of the wine year, as referred to in the first subparagraph, account shall be taken of the quantities to be distilled under Articles 11 and 12a.
However, compulsory distillation shall be decided on only if such distillation does not entail a disproportionate administrative burden, taking into account the quantity of wine to be distilled calculated in accordance with paragraph 2.'
(b) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:
'2. The total quantity to be distilled must be such as to leave foreseeable end-of-year stocks at a level corresponding to five months' normal utilization calculated for the wine-growing year in question.
To this quantity shall be added that subject to preventive distillation as referred to in Article 11.'
(c) the second and third subparagraphs of paragraph 3 are replaced by the following:
'This percentage:
- shall be fixed no later than 20 January following the decision to carry out distillation, - shall be varied, in order to curb the increase in Community production, according to the yield per hectare of each producer in relation to the normal yield for the various Community wine-growing zones or parts of zones, taking into account the information provided by each Member State, and the type of table wine.
The quantity of table wine to be delivered for distillation by each producer shall be equal to that determined in accordance with the second subparagraph minus the quantity of table wine or wine suitable for yielding table wine delivered for distillation as referred to in Article 11.'
(d) paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:
'4. The buying-in price for the quantity of table wine to be delivered for distillation under paragraph 1, in excess of that delivered for distillation as referred to in Article 11, shall be 60 % of the guide price for each type of table wine. This price shall also apply to wines in a close economic relationship with each of the types of the table wine. The price paid by the distiller may not be lower than the buying-in price.'
Article 2
Short-term storage contracts which are being performed on 1 September 1984 shall come to an end on the expiry date established when they were concluded.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 September 1984, with the exception of Article 1 (11), (12) and (13) which shall apply from 1 May 1984.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 April 1984.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2002
of 9 October 2002
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1498/98(2), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.
(2) In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 October 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 October 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1983/98 of 17 September 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 determining the intervention centres for cereals
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 923/96 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
Whereas the intervention centres are determined in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1877/97 (4); whereas some Member States have asked for that Annex to be amended; whereas those requests should be acceded to;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 is amended as follows:
1. in the 'France` section, the amendments are as follows:
TABLE
2. in the 'Österreich` section:
- the 'Absdorf-Hippersdorf` centre becomes 'Absdorf`,
- the 'Palterndorf-Dobermannsdorf` centre becomes 'Dobermannsdorf`,
- the 'Siebenbrunn-Leopoldsdorf` centre becomes 'Untersiebenbrunn`;
3. in the 'Suomi` section, the 'Mustio` centre becomes 'Mustio-kirkniemi`.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 17 September 1998.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1963/2004
of 15 November 2004
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.
(2)
In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 16 November 2004.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 November 2004.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2269/2001
of 22 November 2001
opening an invitation to tender for the resale on the internal market of approximately 329 tonnes of paddy rice held by the Italian intervention agency
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1987/2001(2), and in particular the final indent of Article 8(b) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Approximately 329 tonnes of paddy rice held by the Italian intervention agency should be placed on sale on the Community market. The sale should be carried out in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 75/91 of 11 January 1991 laying down the procedures and conditions for the disposal of paddy rice held by intervention agencies(3).
(2) As a result of the product's deterioration due to natural disasters, a minimum selling price should be determined, taking account of its specific characteristics, in accordance with Article 2(3)(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3597/90 of 12 December 1990 on the accounting rules for intervention measures involving the buying in, storage and sale of agricultural products by intervention agencies(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1392/97(5).
(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The Italian intervention agency shall open, on the conditions laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 75/91, an invitation to tender for the resale on the internal market of approximately 329 tonnes of paddy rice held by that agency.
Article 2
Notwithstanding Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 75/91, tenders must relate to an entire lot.
Article 3
1. The closing date for the initial submission of tenders shall be 5 December 2001; for the final submission of tenders it shall be 19 December 2001.
2. Tenders must be submitted to the Italian intervention agency: Ente nazionale risi Piazza Pio XI - 1 I - 20123 Milano Tel. (39-02) 8 855 111 Fax (39-02) 861 372.
3. The products are stored in the following warehouses:
- Corso Dante, 24 - Balzola (AL)
- Via Roma, 128 - Casalvolone (NO).
Article 4
The following minimum selling price shall be respected:
TABLE
- Store Casalvolone: No 14
- Store Balzola: Nos 47, 86
Article 5
By Tuesday of the week following the closing date for the submission of tenders, the Italian intervention agency shall notify the Commission of the quantities and prices of the lots sold.
Article 6
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 November 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 971/2009
of 16 October 2009
on the issuing of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of October 2009 under tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for poultry meat
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 of 4 June 2007 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas for poultry meat originating in Brazil, Thailand and other third countries (3), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of products in the poultry meat sector.
(2)
The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of October 2009 for the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2010 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined and an allocation coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for.
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2010 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 October 2009.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 October 2009.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2236/2003
of 23 December 2003
laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 establishing a quota system in relation to the production of potato starch
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 of 27 July 1994 establishing a quota system in relation to the production of potato starch(1), and in particular Article 8 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 97/95(2) laid down rules concerning the application of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94. By reason of the amendments of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 by the Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, and by the Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, Regulation (EC) No 97/95 should be adapted in order to take into account those amendments. For the sake of clarity and legal certainty, it is therefore necessary to repeal Regulation (EC) No 97/95 and to replace it by a new text.
(2) In order to benefit from the Community aid under the system of quotas laid down by Regulation (EC) No 1868/94, undertakings producing potato starch should conclude cultivation contracts with potato producers.
(3) It is necessary to specify what matters should be covered by a cultivation contract between an undertaking producing potato starch and a producer so as to prevent the conclusion of contracts in excess of the undertaking's subquota. Such undertakings should be prohibited from accepting delivery of potatoes not covered by a cultivation contract, as this would put at risk the effectiveness of the quota system and the requirement that the minimum price set out in Article 4a of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 be paid for all potatoes intended for starch production. Nevertheless, it should be possible, where climatic reasons lead to production in the areas covered by the cultivation contract of a larger quantity of potatoes or of potatoes with a higher starch content than was originally foreseen, for an undertaking producing potato starch to accept such potatoes provided that it pays the minimum price.
(4) Potatoes having a starch content of less than 13 % cannot be considered potatoes intended for the manufacture of potato starch. Potatoes with a starch content of less than 13 % should not be accepted by starch-producing undertakings. The Commission should, where climatic reasons lead to a lower starch content, and at the request of a Member State, be able to authorise the acceptance of potatoes having a starch content lower than 13 % under certain conditions.
(5) It is necessary to define acceptable methods for determining the underwater weight of potatoes and to provide a table showing the corresponding starch content and aid payable.
(6) Inspection measures should be introduced to ensure that only starch produced in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation gives rise to payment of the premium. In order to protect producers of potatoes intended for the production of starch, it is essential for the minimum price set out in Article 4(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 to be paid for all potatoes. It is therefore necessary to provide for sanctions where the minimum price has not been paid, or where starch-producing undertakings have accepted potatoes not covered by a cultivation contract.
(7) Rules are necessary to ensure that potato starch produced in excess of a starch-producing undertaking's subquota is exported without export refund, as is required by Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94. Sanctions should be applied in the event of any breach.
(8) It is necessary to specify what will happen to the subquota of starch-producing undertakings which merge, change ownership or cease trading.
(9) It is necessary to enable the Member States and the Commission to control the operation of the quota system. The information to be communicated by undertakings producing potato starch to the Member State, and by the Member State to the Commission, should be specified.
(10) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
CHAPTER I DEFINITIONS - QUOTA SYSTEM
Article 1
For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) quota: the quota laid down for each Member State by Article 2(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94;
(b) subquota: that part of the quota allocated by the Member State to a starch-producing undertaking;
(c) starch-producing undertaking: any natural or legal person established on the territory of the Member State concerned which receives the subquota and premium referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94;
(d) producer: any natural or legal person or group of such persons, which delivers to a starch-producing undertaking potatoes produced by itself or its members, in its own name and on its own behalf under a cultivation contract concluded by itself or in its own name;
(e) cultivation contract: any contract concluded between a producer or group of producers and the starch-producing undertaking;
(f) potatoes: potatoes intended for the manufacture of potato starch as referred to in Article 93 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and having a starch content of at least 13 %;
(g) unprocessed starch: starch produced under CN code 1108 13 00 which has not undergone any processing;
(h) merger of starch-producing undertakings: the consolidation into a single undertaking of two or more starch-producing undertakings;
(i) transfer of ownership of a starch-producing undertaking: the assignment or absorption of the assets of an undertaking holding a subquota, to one or more starch-producing undertakings;
(j) transfer of ownership of a starch factory: the assignment of ownership of a technical unit, including all the plant required to manufacture starch, to one or more undertakings, resulting in the partial or total absorption of the outpost of the undertaking making the assignment;
(k) lease of a factory: the leasehold contract of a technical unit including all the plant required for the manufacture of starch, with a view to its operation, concluded for a period of at least three consecutive marketing years with an undertaking which is established within the same Member State as the factory in question, if, after the lease takes effect, the undertaking which rents the factory can be considered a single starch-producing undertaking for its entire production;
(l) aid for starch potato: aid established for farmers producing potatoes intended for the manufacturing of potato starch referred to in Article 93 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003.
Article 2
Where Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 applies, the subquotas allocated shall be adjusted accordingly at the beginning of the marketing year following that in which the quota was exceeded.
CHAPTER II PRICE AND PAYMENT SYSTEM
Article 3
1. A cultivation contract shall be concluded for each marketing year. Each contract shall have an identification number and include at least the following information:
(a) the name and address of the producer or group of producers;
(b) the name and address of the starch-producing undertaking;
(c) the areas cultivated, expressed in hectares with two decimals and identified in conformity with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001(3) on the integrated administration and control system (IACS);
(d) the foreseen quantity of potatoes in tonnes to be harvested there and delivered to the starch-producing undertaking;
(e) the foreseen average starch content of the potatoes, based on the average starch content of the potatoes delivered by the producer to the starch-producing undertaking over the last three marketing years or, if such information is not available, on the average content for the area of supply;
(f) a commitment by the starch-producing undertaking to pay the producer the minimum price referred to in Article 4a of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94.
2. Each starch-producing undertaking shall forward to the competent authority before the beginning of the marketing year a summary of the contracts, including for each contract, the identification number, the name of the producer, the areas cultivated, and the tonnage contracted, expressed in terms of starch equivalent, before a date to be fixed by the Member State before the beginning of the marketing year, in order to ensure the necessary controls.
3. The total in starch equivalent of the quantities listed in the cultivation contracts shall not exceed the subquota established for that starch-producing undertaking.
4. Where the quantity actually produced under the cultivation contract in starch equivalent exceeds the quantity stated in the contract, that quantity may be delivered, if the starch-producing undertaking so chooses, provided the minimum price referred to in Article 4a of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 is paid for it.
5. A starch-producing undertaking may not take delivery of potatoes not covered by a cultivation contract.
Article 4
1. Delivery of potatoes shall take place either at the starch-producing undertakings themselves or at their delivery points.
2. The determination the weight of the potatoes and the starch content, in conformity with Articles 5 and 7, shall be carried out at the time of delivery and under the authority of an inspector approved by the Member State.
Article 5
1. Where so required for the purposes of one of the methods referred to in Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 2235/2003(4), the gross weight of the potatoes shall be determined for each load at the time of delivery by comparative weighing of the means of transport used, loaded and empty.
2. The net weight of the potatoes shall be determined by one of the methods described in Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 2235/2003.
3. Accepted consignments must have a starch content of not less than 13 %.
However, starch-producing undertakings may accept consignments of potatoes with a starch content below 13 %, provided that the quantity of starch that can be manufactured from these potatoes does not exceed 1 % of the subquota. The minimum price to be paid in this case shall be that valid for a starch content of 13 %.
Article 6
The starch content of the potatoes shall be determined on the basis of an underwater weight valid for 5050 grams of potatoes supplied.
The water used shall be clean and without additives and its temperature shall be less than 18 °C.
Article 7
1. The premium shall be granted to starch-producing undertakings in respect of starch produced from potatoes of sound and fair marketable quality, on the basis of the quantity of potatoes used and their starch content, at the rates laid down in Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 2235/2003 up to the quantity of starch for which they hold a subquota. No premium shall be granted for starch produced from potatoes that are not of sound and fair marketable quality nor for starch produced from potatoes whose starch content is below 13 %, except where the second subparagraph of Article 5(3) applies.
Where the starch content of the potatoes is calculated by Reimann's or Parrow's scale and corresponds to a figure appearing on two or three lines in the second column in Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 2235/2003, the rates applicable shall be those for the second or third line.
2. Where the batches delivered contain 25 % or more of potatoes which can pass through a screen with a square mesh of 28 mm (hereinafter described as "tailings"), the net weight used for determining the minimum price to be paid by the starch manufacturer shall be reduced as follows:
TABLE
If the batches contain more than 50 % of tailings, they shall be dealt with by mutual agreement and no premium shall be paid thereon.
The percentage of tailings shall be determined at the same time as the net weight.
3. Observance of the limits of the subquota by the starch-producing undertakings shall be determined on the basis of the quantity and starch content of the potatoes used, in accordance with the rates laid down in Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 2235/2003.
Article 8
1. A receipt form shall be drawn up under the joint responsibility of the starch-producing undertaking, the approved inspector and the supplier. The starch-producing undertaking shall deliver a copy to the producer and retain the original so that it may, if necessary, be submitted to the agency responsible for the monitoring of premiums.
2. The receipt form shall contain at least the following information where this appears from operations carried out pursuant to Articles 4 to 7:
(a) date of delivery;
(b) delivery number;
(c) number of the cultivation contract;
(d) name and address of the potato producer;
(e) weight of the means of transport on arrival at the starch factory or delivery point;
(f) weight of the means of transport after unloading and removal of residual earth;
(g) gross weight of the delivery;
(h) reduction for extraneous matter and weight of water absorbed during washing, expressed as a percentage and applied to the gross weight of the delivery;
(i) reduction, expressed in weight, applied to the gross weight of the delivery as a result of extraneous matter;
(j) percentage of tailings;
(k) total net weight of the delivery (gross weight less the reduction, including the correction for tailings);
(l) starch content, expressed as a percentage or underwater weight;
(m) unit price to be paid.
Article 9
For each producer, the starch-producing undertaking shall draw up a summary payment slip containing the following particulars:
(a) business name of the starch-producing undertaking;
(b) name and address of the potato producer;
(c) cultivation contract number;
(d) date and number of the receipt forms;
(e) net weight of each delivery after any reductions as provided for in Article 8(2);
(f) unit price per delivery;
(g) total amount due to the grower;
(h) sums paid to the potato producer and date of payments;
(i) signature and stamp of the starch manufacturer.
CHAPTER III PAYMENTS - PENALTIES
Article 10
1. The payment of the premium referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 shall be subject to the condition that the starch-producing undertaking provides proof that following requirements have been fulfilled:
- the starch in question has been produced during the marketing year concerned,
- the price which has been paid to the producers is not less than that referred to in Article 4a of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 at the delivered-to-factory stage for the whole quantity of potatoes produced in the Community and used for the production of starch,
- the starch in question was produced using potatoes covered by the cultivation contracts referred to in Article 3.
2. The proof referred to in paragraph 1 shall be furnished by submission of the summary payment slip provided for in Article 9, accompanied either by certification of payment by the producer or by a voucher issued by the financial undertaking that made the payment on the order of the starch manufacturer, certifying that such payment has been made.
3. The premium for starch producing undertakings shall be paid by the Member State on whose territory the potato starch was manufactured within four months following the date on which the proof referred to in paragraph 1 was furnished.
Article 11
1. The Member States shall introduce inspection arrangements for on-the-spot verification of the operations conferring entitlement to the premium and compliance with the subquota laid down for each starch-producing undertaking. In order to carry out such checks, inspectors shall have access to the stock records and accounts of undertakings and to manufacturing and storage premises.
During each processing period, inspection shall cover the entire processing of at least 10 % of the potatoes supplied to the starch-producing undertaking.
2. Member States shall inform each starch-producing undertaking, as appropriate, of the amounts of starch by which it has exceeded its subquota.
3. Should the competent body establish that the requirement specified in the second indent of Article 10(1) has not been respected by the starch-producing undertaking, that undertaking shall, in the absence of force majeure, lose entitlement to premiums, in whole or in part, as follows:
- if the requirement has not been observed in respect of a quantity of starch less than 20 % of the total quantity of starch produced by the undertaking, the premium granted shall be reduced by five times the percentage in question,
- if the percentage in question is 20 or more, no premium shall be granted.
4. If contravention of the prohibition contained in Article 3(5) is established, the premium paid for the subquota shall be reduced as follows:
- if the check shows a quantity of starch equivalent accepted by the undertaking of less than 10 % of its subquota, the total premiums to be paid to the undertaking for the marketing year in question shall be reduced by 10 times the percentage recorded,
- if the quantity not covered by production contracts is greater than the amount specified in the first indent, no premium shall be granted for the marketing year in question; furthermore, no premium shall be paid to the undertaking for the following marketing year.
5. If, contrary to Article 5(3), the starch that can be manufactured from consignments accepted with a starch content below 13 %:
- exceeds 1 % of the processing undertaking's subquota, no premium shall be granted for the excess quantity; furthermore, the premium granted for the subquota shall be reduced by ten times the excess percentage recorded;
- exceeds 11 % of the processing undertaking's subquota; no premium shall be granted for the marketing year in question; furthermore, the processing undertaking shall be ineligible for the premium for the following marketing year.
6. Inspections undertaken pursuant to this Article shall be without prejudice to any further verification by the competent authorities.
Article 12
1. The export operation referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 shall be regarded as having taken place when:
(a) the competent body of the Member State of production, irrespective of the Member State from which the starch was exported, has received the proof referred to in Article 13(2);
(b) the Member State of exportation has accepted the relevant export declaration before 1 January following the end of the marketing year during which the starch was produced;
(c) the starch in question has left the customs territory of the Community no later than 60 days after 1 January as specified in point (b);
(d) the product has been exported without refund.
Except in cases of force majeure, if all the conditions set out in the first subparagraph are not complied with, any quantity of starch which exceeds the subquota shall be regarded as having been disposed of on the internal market.
2. In cases of force majeure, the competent body of the Member State on whose territory the starch was produced shall adopt measures appropriate to the circumstances cited by the party concerned.
Where the starch is exported from the territory of a Member State other than the one where it was produced, these measures shall be taken after receiving the views of the competent authorities of that Member State.
3. For the purposes of this Regulation, Article 36 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999(5) may be not invoked.
Article 13
1. By way of derogation from Article 12 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1342/2003(6) the security for export licences shall be EUR 23 per tonne.
2. Proof that the starch-producing undertaking in question has complied with the conditions laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 12(1) shall be furnished to the competent body of the Member State on whose territory the starch was produced, before 1 April of the calendar year following the end of the marketing year during which it was produced.
3. Such proof shall be furnished by the production of:
(a) an export licence issued to the starch-producing undertaking in question by the competent authority of the Member State referred to in paragraph 2 bearing one of the following statements, by way of derogation from Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1518/95(7):
- "Para exportación sin restitución, de conformidad con el artículo 6 del Reglamento (CE) n° 1868/94"
- "Skal eksporteres uden restitution, jf. artikel 6 i forordning (EF) nr. 1868/94"
- "Ausfuhr ohne Erstattung gemäß Artikel 6 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1868/94"
- "Προς εξαγωγή χωρίς επιστροφή σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 6 του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) αριθ. 1868/94"
- "For export without refund under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94"
- "À exporter sans restitution conformément à l'article 6 du règlement (CE) n° 1868/94"
- "Da esportare senza restituzione a norma dell'articolo 6 del regolamento (CE) n. 1868/94"
- "Overeenkomstig artikel 6 van Verordening (EG) nr. 1868/94 zonder restitutie uit te voeren"
- "A exportar sem restituição em conformidade com o artigo 6.o do Regulamento (CE) n.o 1868/94"
- "Viedään tuetta asetuksen (EY) N:o 1868/94 6 artiklan mukaisesti"
- "För export utan exportbidrag enligt artikel 6 i förordning (EG) nr 1868/94"
(b) the documents referred to in Articles 32 and 33 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000(8) required for the release of the security;
(c) a statement by the starch-producing undertaking certifying that it produced the starch.
4. When the unprocessed starch produced by a starch-producing undertaking is stored for export in a silo, warehouse or bin outside the factory of the manufacturer in the Member State of production, or in any other Member State, where other unprocessed starch produced by other undertakings or by the same one is also stored so that the products so stored cannot be physically distinguished, all such products shall be placed under administrative supervision offering guarantees equivalent to those of the customs services until the export declaration referred to in Article 12(1)(b) has been accepted, and shall be placed under customs supervision as soon as the declaration is accepted.
In the circumstances referred to in the first subparagraph when withdrawal from stock occurs before acceptance of the export declaration referred to in Article 12(1)(b), a proof shall be provided by the competent authorities of the Member State where storage took place.
When withdrawal from stock occurs after acceptance of the export declaration referred to in Article 12(1)(b), a proof within the meaning of Article 33(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 shall be provided by the customs authorities of the Member State where storage took place.
The proof referred to in the second and third subparagraphs shall testify to the withdrawal from stock of the product in question or the corresponding substitute quantity within the meaning of the first subparagraph.
Article 14
Where unprocessed starch produced by a starch-producing undertaking is stored loose under the customs warehousing or free-zone procedure for the advance refund as defined in Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/80(9), that starch may, in addition to the operations referred to in Article 29(4) of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999, also be mixed in the same storage place with other starches falling within the same subheading of the nomenclature used for the refunds, which have the same technical characteristics and fulfil the conditions required for the granting of export refunds and are also placed under the arrangements provided for by Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 or Regulation (EEC) No 565/80.
Article 15
1. The Member State concerned shall impose on the quantities which are considered to have been disposed of on the internal market, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 12(1), in the case of unprocessed starch or any derived product listed in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1518/95(10) or falling within the scope of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000(11), a flat rate amount calculated by tonne of unprocessed starch and equal to the Common Customs Tariff applicable by tonne of starch under CN code 1108 13 00 during the marketing year during which the starch or derived products were produced, plus 10 %.
2. The Member State concerned shall, before 1 May following 1 January as specified in Article 12(1)(b), notify the starch-producing undertakings of the total amount to be paid.
That total amount shall be paid by the starch-producing undertakings in question no later than 20 May of that year.
Article 16
1. In the event of the merger of starch-producing undertakings, the Member State shall allocate to the undertaking resulting from the merger a subquota equal to the sum of the subquotas allocated prior to the merger to the starch-producing undertakings concerned;
In the event of the transfer of ownership of a starch-producing undertaking, the Member State shall allocate to the transferee undertaking the subquota of the undertaking transferred. Where there is more than one transferee undertaking, the subquota shall be allocated in proportion to the production of starch which each has absorbed;
In the event of the transfer ownership of a starch factory, the Member State shall reduce the subquota of the undertaking transferring ownership of the factory and increase the subquota of the starch-producing undertaking or undertakings purchasing the factory in question by the quantity deducted, in proportion to the production absorbed.
2. In the event of the closure, in circumstances other than those referred to in paragraph 1, of a starch-producing undertaking, or of one or more factories of a starch-producing undertaking, the Member State may allocate the subquotas involved by such closure to one or more starch-producing undertakings.
3. In the event of the lease of a factory belonging to a starch-producing undertaking, the Member State shall reduce the subquota of the undertaking which offers the factory for rent and shall allocate the portion by which the subquota was reduced to the undertaking which rents the factory in order to produce starch in it.
If the lease is terminated before the term referred to in Article 1(k), the adjustment of the subquota pursuant to the preceding subparagraph shall be cancelled retroactively by the Member State as from the date on which the lease took effect.
4. If following the application of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 production ceases in the factories of one or more of the starch-producing undertakings that have merged, thus seriously threatening the continuing production of potatoes for the manufacture of starch in the area which had previously supplied this undertaking or these undertakings, the Member State may direct the merged undertaking to transfer to the Member State the subquota initially allocated to the enterprise whose factories have since ceased production. Any quota transferred in accordance with the first subparagraph may be reallocated by the Member State to any starch-producing undertaking that undertakes to manufacture the starch in the area concerned.
Article 17
When the closure of the undertaking or factory, the merger or transfer occurs between 1 July and 31 March of the following year, the measures referred to in Article 16 shall take effect for the marketing year current during that period.
When the closure of the undertaking or factory, the merger or transfer occurs between 1 April and 30 June of the same year, the measures referred to in Article 16 shall take effect for the marketing year following that period.
CHAPTER IV NOTIFICATIONS
Article 18
By 30 April of each marketing year at the latest, the starch-producing undertakings shall notify the competent authorities of:
- the quantities of starch potatoes which have benefited from the aid provided for in Article 93 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003,
- the quantities of potato starch on which the premium provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 has been paid.
Article 19
1. By 30 June of each marketing year at the latest, the Member States shall notify the Commission of:
(a) the quantities of starch potatoes which have qualified under Article 93 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003;
(b) the quantities of starch on which the premium provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 has been paid;
(c) the quantities and subquotas for the starch-producing undertakings concerned by Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 during the marketing year and the subquotas available for the following marketing year;
(d) the quantities to be exported without attracting refunds in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94;
(e) the quantities referred to in Article 11(3) and (4) of this Regulation;
(f) the quantities referred to in Article 15 of this Regulation.
2. Where Article 16 applies, by 30 June of each marketing year at the latest, the Member States shall supply the Commission with all the detailed information relating thereto, together with supporting documents showing that the conditions laid down have been observed.
CHAPTER V GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 20
The conversion rate to be used to express the minimum price referred to in Article 4a of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 and the premium referred to in Article 5 of that Regulation in national currency shall be the most recently published by the European Central Bank prior to the day on which the potatoes are received by the starch manufacturer.
Article 21
Regulation (EC) No 97/95 is hereby repealed with effect from 1 July 2004.
Article 22
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from the marketing year 2004/05.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 December 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 2 September 1992 concerning animal health conditions and veterinary certificates for the import of domestic animals of the bovine and porcine species from Sweden (92/461/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon the import of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine and fresh meat or meat products from third countries (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3763/91 (2), and in particular Article 8 and 11 thereof,
Whereas Member States shall import domestic animals of the bovine and porcine species in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 91/496/EEC (3) which lays down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries;
Whereas the geographical proximity of Sweden to the Community has implications for trade in live animals;
Whereas following Community veterinary missions it appears that animal health in Sweden is controlled by veterinary services which can offer satisfactory guarantees concerning diseases which might be transmitted through the import of domestic animals of the bovine or porcine pecies;
Whereas the responsible Swedish veterinary authorities have confirmed that Sweden has during the last 24 months been free from foot-and-mouth disease and during the last 12 months been free from rinderpest, contagious bovine pleuro-pneumonia, vesicular stomatitis, bluetongue, classical swine fever, African swine fever, porcine enteroviral encephalomyelitis (Teschen disease), swine vesicular disease and vesicular exanthema and that no vaccinations have been carried out against any of those diseases during the past 12 months;
Whereas the responsible Swedish veterinary authorities have undertaken to notify the Commission and the Member States, by telex or telefax, within 24 hours, of the confirmation of the occurrence of any of the abovementioned diseases or of the adoption of vaccination against any of them or, within an appropriate period, of any proposed changes in the Swedish import rules concerning bovine animals or swine or the semen or embryos thereof;
Whereas bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis have been eradicated from Sweden, vaccination against bovine brucellosis is not permitted and the measures taken by the responsible Swedish authorities to prevent a recrudescence of these diseases are sufficient to equate the status of Swedish herds, other than those under official restriction, with that of herds in the Community having the status of officially tuberculosis-free or officially brucellosis-free;
Whereas the responsible Swedish veterinary authorities have undertaken to supervise officially the issue of certificates arising from this Decision and to ensure that all relevant certificates, declarations and statements on which export certification may have been based remain on official file for at least 12 months following the dispatch of the animals to which they refer;
Whereas the responsible Swedish veterinary authorities have undertaken not to permit the issue of the certificates described in the Annexes to this Decision in respect of animals which have been imported into Sweden unless such animals were imported in accordance with veterinary conditions at least as strict as the relevant requirements laid down in Directive 72/462/EEC, including any relevant subsidiary decisions;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. Without prejudice to paragraphs 2 and 4, Member States shall authorize the import from Sweden of the following animals:
(a) domestic animals of the bovine species for breeding or production which meet the requirements set out in the animal health certificate in Annex A to this Decision and are accompanied by such a certificate;
(b) domestic animals of the bovine species for slaughter which meet the requirements set out in the animal health certificate in Annex B to this Decision and are accompanied by such a certificate;
(c) domestic animals of the porcine species for breeding or production which meet the requirements set out in the animal health certificate in Annex C to this Decision and are accompanied by such a certificate;
(d) domestic animals of the porcine species for slaughter which meet the requirements set out in the animal health certificate in Annex D to this Decision and are accompanied by such a certificate.
2. Member States may only authorize the importation from Sweden of the domestic animals of the bovine or porcine species indicated in paragraph 1 which have been imported into Sweden if such animals were imported from the Community or from a third country included in the list set out in the Annex to Council Decision 79/542/EEC (4) in so far as it covers domestic animals of these species and only if the import was effected in accordance with veterinary conditions at least as strict as the requirements of Chapter II of Directive 72/462/EEC, including any relevant subsidiary decisions.
3. Member States shall require that animals which are submitted to tests in application of this Decision are continuously isolated under conditions approved by an official Swedish veterinarian from all cloven-hoofed animals not forming part of a consignment intended for export to the Community or not of equivalent health status to such animals, from the time of the first test to the time of loading.
4. Member States may only permit the entry onto their territory from Sweden of bovine animals if such animals:
(a) come from herds declared by the Swedish veterinary authorities to be enzootic bovine leukosis-free as defined in Annex E to this Decision and have been subjected, within 30 days before export and with negative result, to an individual test for enzootic bovine leukosis carried out according to the Protocol in Annex I to Commission Decision 91/189/EEC (5);
or
(b) are intended for meat production, are not more than 30 months of age, come from herds which are included in a national programme for the eradication of enzootic bovine leukosis and in which there has been no evidence whatever of that disease for at least two years and are permanently marked as described in Annex F to this Decision;
or
(c) come from herds which are included in a national programme for the eradication of enzootic bovine leukosis, are consigned directly to a slaughterhouse and are slaughtered within three working days of their arrival there.
In the case of the animals referred to at (b) and (c), Member States shall ensure, by inspection, that such animals are clearly identified, shall supervise them until slaughter and shall take all measures necessary to prevent contamination of indigenous herds.
5. Member States shall not authorize the import of domestic animals of the bovine or porcine species other than as indicated in this Article.
Article 2
Pending the entry into force of any measures adopted by the Community for the eradication, prevention or control of a contagious or infectious bovine or porcine disease other than rabies, tuberculosis, brucellosis, foot-and-mouth disease, anthrax, rinderpest, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia, enzootic bovine leukosis, porcine enteroviral encephalomyelitis (Teschen disease), classical swine fever, African swine fever or swine vesicular disease, Member States may apply in respect of animals imported from Hungary such additional health conditions as they apply to other animals within the framework of a national programme, submitted to and approved by the Commission, for the eradication, prevention or control of such disease.
As a temporary measure until 31 December 1992, Member States may apply this Article in respect of national programmes which have been submitted to but not yet approved by the Commission but in that case they must, without delay, provide the Commission and the other Member States with details of the relevant health conditions.
Article 3
1. Member States shall render the introduction into their territory of bovine or porcine animals from Sweden subject to the provision of a guarantee that the animals to be imported have not been vaccinated against foot-and-mouth disease.
2. Member States shall render the introduction into their territory of pigs from Sweden subject to the provision of a guarantee that have not been vaccinated against classical swine fever and, in the case of pigs intended for breeding or production, a guarantee that they have shown a negative result to a test for the antibody produced by the virus of classical swine fever.
Article 4
This Decision shall enter into force 30 days after its notification to the Member States.
Article 5
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 September 1992.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 3418/88
OF 28 OCTOBER 1988
FIXING THE FREE-AT-FRONTIER REFERENCE PRICES APPLICABLE TO IMPORTS OF CERTAIN WINE PRODUCTS WITH EFFECT FROM 1 SEPTEMBER 1988
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
HAVING REGARD TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY,
HAVING REGARD TO COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 822/87 OF 16 MARCH 1987 ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN WINE ( 1 ), AS LAST AMENDED BY REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2964/88 ( 2 ), AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 54 ( 8 ) THEREOF,
WHEREAS ARTICLE 54 OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 822/87 LAYS DOWN SPECIAL RULES FOR IMPORTS OF CERTAIN WINE PRODUCTS; WHEREAS COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1393/76 ( 3 ), AS LAST AMENDED BY REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2135/84 ( 4 ), LAID DOWN DETAILED RULES FOR IMPLEMENTING THOSE PROVISIONS;
WHEREAS THE LIST OF FREE-AT-FRONTIER REFERENCE PRICES MUST BE STRUCTURED TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF TRADING REQUIREMENTS AND THE NEED TO SIMPLIFY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES;
WHEREAS COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2658/87 OF 23 JULY 1987 ON THE TARIFF AND STATISTICAL NOMENCLATURE AND ON THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF ( 5 ), AS LAST AMENDED BY REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1858/88 ( 6 ), INTRODUCED A NEW COMBINED NOMENCLATURE WHICH MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF AND THE COMMUNITY'S EXTERNAL TRADE STATISTICS AND WHICH REPLACES THE EXISTING NOMENCLATURE; WHEREAS, CONSEQUENTLY, THE STRUCTURE OF THE LIST OF FREE-AT-FRONTIER REFERENCE PRICES SHOULD BE BASED ON THE COMBINED NOMENCLATURE CODES, ACCOUNT BEING TAKEN OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTEGRATED CUSTOMS TARIFF OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ( TARIC ); WHEREAS, TO THIS END, THE LIST SHOULD CONTAIN THE SUBDIVISIONS NECESSARY FOR APPLYING THE MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS;
WHEREAS UNDER THE TERMS OF
_ ARTICLE 20 ( 4 ) OF THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND ALGERIA ( 7 ), AS AMENDED BY THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL OF 25 JUNE 1987 ( 8 ),
_ ARTICLE 21 ( 1 ) OF THE PROTOCOL OF 19 OCTOBER 1987 LAYING DOWN THE CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SECOND STAGE OF THE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND CYPRUS ( 9 ),
_ ARTICLE 20 ( 4 ) OF THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND TUNISIA ( 10 ), AS AMENDED BY THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL OF 26 MAY 1987 ( 11 ), AND
_ ARTICLE 22 ( 6 ) OF THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND YUGOSLAVIA ( 12 ), AS AMENDED BY THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL OF 10 DECEMBER 1987 ESTABLISHING NEW TRADE ARRANGEMENTS ( 13 ),
LOWER REFERENCE PRICES ARE TO BE FIXED, SUBJECT TO ANNUAL QUOTAS AND AT A SPECIFIED RATE, FOR CERTAIN WINES ORIGINATING IN THE SAID COUNTRIES AND PRESENTED IN CONTAINERS HOLDING TWO LITRES OR LESS;
WHEREAS COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2714/86 ( 14 ) FIXED THE FREE-AT-FRONTIER REFERENCE PRICES APPLICABLE WITH EFFECT FROM 1 SEPTEMBER 1986; WHEREAS THAT REGULATION MUST BE REPEALED,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION :
ARTICLE 1
THE FREE-AT-FRONTIER REFERENCE PRICES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 54 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 822/87 SHALL BE THOSE OBTAINED BY DEDUCTING THE AMOUNT OF THE CUSTOMS DUTY APPLICABLE TO THE COUNTRY CONCERNED FROM THE REFERENCE PRICE SHOWN FOR THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION IN THE ANNEX HERETO .
ARTICLE 2
REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2714/86 IS HEREBY REPEALED .
ARTICLE 3
THIS REGULATION SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE ON THE DAY OF ITS PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .
IT SHALL APPLY WITH EFFECT FROM 1 SEPTEMBER 1988 .
THIS REGULATION SHALL BE BINDING IN ITS ENTIRETY AND DIRECTLY APPLICABLE IN ALL MEMBER STATES .
DONE AT BRUSSELS, 28 OCTOBER 1988 .
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2387/92 of 13 August 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1116/92 continuing market research measures within and outside the Community in respect of milk and milk products
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1079/77 of 17 May 1977 (1) on a co-responsibility levy and on measures for expanding the markets in milk and milk products, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1374/92 (2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas Article 5 (1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1116/92 (3) provides that the competent authorities are to examine the proposals received and forward them to the Commission together with a reasoned proposal by 1 September 1992; whereas this deadline should be extended by one month in view of the large number of proposals received by the competent authorities and the need to gather additional information so that they can give a reasoned opinion with full knowledge of the facts;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In Article 5 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1116/92 the date '1 September 1992' is replaced by '1 October 1992'.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 August 1992.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 19 July 1999
establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to copying paper
(notified under document number C(1999) 2144)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(1999/554/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 880/92 of 23 March 1992 on a Community eco-label award scheme(1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 5(1) thereof,
(1) Whereas the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 880/92 provides that the conditions for the award of the Community eco-label shall be defined by product group;
(2) Whereas Article 10(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 880/92 states that the environmental performance of a product shall be assessed by reference to the specific criteria for product groups;
(3) Whereas, by Decision 96/467/EC(2), the Commission established ecological criteria for the award of Community Eco-label to copying paper, which, according to Article 3 thereof, expire 16 July 1999;
(4) Whereas it is appropriate to revise the definition of the product group and the ecological criteria that were established by Decision 96/467/EC in order to reflect the developments in the market;
(5) Whereas it is appropriate to adopt a new Decision establishing the specific ecological criteria for this product group, which will be valid for a further period of three years after the expiry of the period of validity of the previous criteria;
(6) Whereas in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 880/92 the Commission has consulted the principal interest groups within a consultation forum;
(7) Whereas the measures set out in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the committee set up under Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 880/92,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The product group "copying paper" (hereinafter referred to as "the product group") shall mean: "Sheets or reels of unprinted paper in different formats, which are used for copying, fax machines or office printers. Thermally sensitive paper and carbonless paper are excluded".
Article 2
The environmental performance of the product group as defined in Article 1 shall be assessed by reference to the specific ecological criteria set out in the Annex.
Article 3
The product group definition and the criteria for the product group shall be valid from 17 July 1999 until 1 July 2002. If, however, on 1 July 2002 a new Decision establishing the ecological criteria for this product group has not yet been adopted, this period of validity shall instead end either on 1 July 2003 or on the date of adoption of the new Decision, whichever is sooner.
Article 4
For administrative purposes the code number assigned to the product group shall be "011".
Article 5
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 July 1999.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 12 February 2007
laying down general principles and criteria for the selection and funding of actions under the Public Health Programme
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2007/103/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to Decision No 1786/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 adopting a programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008) (1), and in particular Article 8(1), thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 8(1) of Decision No 1786/2002/EC provides for the adoption by the Commission of an annual plan of work for the implementation of the programme of public health, setting out priorities and actions to be undertaken, including allocation of resources, and for adoption of the arrangements, criteria and procedures for selecting and financing the actions of the programme.
(2)
By Commission Decision 2007/102/EC (2) the work plan for 2007 has been adopted.
(3)
Article 115 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3) and Article 167 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (4) require that the eligibility, selection and award criteria are specified in advance in the call for proposals with the aim of making it possible to assess the quality of the proposals submitted in the light of the objectives and priorities set out in the annual work programme.
(4)
The ‘General principles and criteria for the selection and funding of actions under the Public Health Programme’ referred to in the Annex of this decision should therefore be adopted. Annex II of Decision C(2005) 29 of 14 January 2005 adopting the work plan for 2005 for the implementation of the programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008), including the annual work programme for grants and the general principles and criteria for the selection and funding of actions under the Public Health Programme is therefore replaced by the Annex to this Decision.
(5)
The ‘General principles and criteria for the selection and funding of actions under the Public Health Programme’, as set out in the Annex are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the programme of Community action in the field of public health,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The ‘General principles and criteria for the selection and funding of actions under the Public Health Programme (2003-2008)’, as set out in Annex, are hereby adopted.
Done at Brussels, 12 February 2007.
|
[
1,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1547/95 of 29 June 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2332/92 as regards sparkling wines produced in the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 4252/88 on the preparation and marketing of liqueur wines produced in the Community
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 43 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3),
Whereas Articles 11 and 16 of Regulation (EEC) No 2332/92 (4) and Article 6 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4252/88 (5) fix the maximum sulphur dioxide content of sparkling wines and of liqueur wines; whereas those Articles provide for the presentation by 1 April 1995 of a report from the Commission to the Council on those contents, together, where appropriate, with proposals; whereas the measures proposed should be consistent with others that the Commission is required to draft in the near future; whereas the abovementioned deadline should be postponed to that end; whereas the same is true of the deadline of 1 September 1995 laid down in Article 17 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2332/92,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 2332/92 is hereby amended as follows:
1. In Article 11 (3), '1 April 1995` and '1 September 1995` shall be replaced respectively by '1 April 1996` and '1 September 1996`.
2. In Article 16 (3), '1 April 1995` and '1 September 1995` shall be replaced respectively by '1 April 1996` and '1 September 1996`.
3. In Article 17 (3), '1 September 1995` shall be replaced by '1 September 1996`.
Article 2
Regulation (EEC) No 4252/88 is hereby amended as follows:In Article 6 (2) '1 April 1995` and '1 September 1995` shall be replaced respectively by '1 April 1996` and '1 September 1996`.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from 1 September 1995.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 29 June 1995.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 732/2005
of 13 May 2005
fixing the maximum aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for the 163nd individual invitation to tender under the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2571/97
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
The intervention agencies are, pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 of 15 December 1997 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice cream and other foodstuffs (2), to sell by invitation to tender certain quantities of butter of intervention stocks that they hold and to grant aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter. Article 18 of that Regulation stipulates that in the light of the tenders received in response to each individual invitation to tender a minimum selling price shall be fixed for butter and maximum aid shall be fixed for cream, butter and concentrated butter. It is further stipulated that the price or aid may vary according to the intended use of the butter, its fat content and the incorporation procedure, and that a decision may also be taken to make no award in response to the tenders submitted. The amount(s) of the processing securities must be fixed accordingly.
(2)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The maximum aid and processing securities applying for the 163nd individual invitation to tender, under the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2571/97, shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 May 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 May 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1738/2003
of 30 September 2003
amending the corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1104/2003(2), and in particular Article 13(8) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals was fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1694/2003(3).
(2) On the basis of today's cif prices and cif forward delivery prices, taking foreseeable developments on the market into account, the corrective amount at present applicable to the refund on cereals should be altered.
(3) The corrective amount must be fixed according to the same procedure as the refund. It may be altered in the period between fixings,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The corrective amount referred to in Article 1(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 which is applicable to the export refunds fixed in advance in respect of the products referred to, except for malt, is hereby altered to the amounts set out in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 October 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 September 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION 2005/890/CFSP
of 12 December 2005
implementing Common Position 2004/179/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to Common Position 2004/179/CFSP (1), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof, in conjunction with Article 23(2) of the Treaty on European Union,
Whereas:
(1)
On 23 February 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/179/CFSP.
(2)
On 26 August 2004, the Council adopted Common Position 2004/622/CFSP in order to extend the scope of the restrictive measures imposed by Common Position 2004/179/CFSP to persons responsible for the design and implementation of the intimidation and closure campaign against Latin-script Moldovan schools in the Transnistrian region.
(3)
On 21 February 2005, the Council adopted Common Position 2005/147/CFSP (2) extending and amending Common Position 2004/179/CFSP.
(4)
Annex II to Common Position 2004/179/CFSP should be amended in recognition of the improvements in the situation of Latin-script schools in some areas of the Transnistrian region,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
Annex II to Common Position 2004/179/CFSP shall be replaced by the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.
Article 3
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Done at Brussels, 12 December 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 16 April 1997 on the recognition of the international standard ISO 14001:1996 and the European standard EN ISO 14001:1996, establishing specification for environmental management systems, in accordance with Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 of 29 June 1993, allowing voluntary participation by companies in the industrial sector in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (Text with EEA relevance) (97/265/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 of 29 June 1993, allowing voluntary participation by companies in the industrial sector in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (1), and in particular Article 12 thereof,
Whereas Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 establishes that companies implementing national, European or international standards for environmental management systems and audits and certified, according to appropriate certification procedures, as complying with those standards shall be considered as meeting the corresponding requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93, provided that, in particular, the standards and procedures are recognized by the Commission acting in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 19 of the same Regulation;
Whereas Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 states that the references of the recognized standards and criteria shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities;
Whereas the Commission has been requested to recognize the international standard ISO 14001:1996 and the European standard EN ISO 14001:1996, establishing specification for environmental management systems;
Whereas the international standard ISO 14001:1996 and the European standard EN ISO 14001:1996 are identical and include specification for environmental management systems and audit corresponding to certain requirements of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93;
Whereas recognition can only be granted in this Decision where the requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 are covered explicitly in the international standard ISO 14001:1996 and the European standard EN ISO 14001:1996;
Whereas the use of the specification of the international standard ISO 14001:1996 or the European standard EN ISO 14001:1996 together with their associated guidance may lead to greater degree of correspondence with the requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93;
Whereas the accredited environmental verifier will continue to check compliance with those elements of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 which are not covered explicitly in the international standard ISO 14001:1996 and the European standard EN ISO 14001:1996, in particular at the document review stage, the accredited environmental verifier should confirm that the elements of Article 3 and Annex I, not mentioned in the Annex of this Decision, are covered;
Whereas certification undertaken according to certification procedures recognized, by the Commission, will ensure that the requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 Annex II-A to G will have been met;
Whereas the measures set out in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set under Article 19 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
For the purposes of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 the Commission hereby recognises that the international standard ISO 14001:1996 and the European standard EN ISO 14001:1996, establishing specification for environmental management systems, contain requirements corresponding to those of the above mentioned Regulation, as specified in the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 April 1997.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION ATALANTA/4/2009
of 27 May 2009
on the appointment of an EU Operation Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta)
(2009/413/CFSP)
THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,
Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 25 thereof,
Having regard to Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (1) (Atalanta), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
According to Article 3 of Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP Rear Admiral Philip Jones was appointed as EU Operation Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.
(2)
Pursuant to Article 6(1) of Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Operation Commander.
(3)
The United Kingdom has announced the availability of Rear Admiral Peter HUDSON to replace Rear Admiral Philip JONES as EU Operation Commander.
(4)
The EU Military Committee has supported that nomination.
(5)
In accordance with Article 6 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the European Union which have defence implications,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
Rear Admiral Peter HUDSON is hereby appointed EU Operation Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.
Article 2
This Decision shall take effect on 3 June 2009.
Done at Brussels, 27 May 2009.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1070/2008
of 30 October 2008
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Rogal świętomarciński (PGI))
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, and in accordance with Article 17(2) thereof, Poland’s application to register the name ‘Rogal świętomarciński’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).
(2)
As no objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 October 2008.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 3519/83
of 12 December 1983
laying down certain measures for acid oils from refining of by-products of olive oil or olive-residue oil
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 235 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 3172/80 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2551/83 (4), provides that for the purposes of controlling the quality of oil packaged by approved plants, by-products of the refining of olive oil and olive-residue oil produced in the Community should have added to them a defined quantity of certain non-olive products;
Whereas these checks are not applicable at present to acid oils from refining derived from by-products of olive oil and olive-residue oil;
Whereas there is always the risk that esterified oils showing the characteristics of olive oil, produced from these acid oils from refining, may be fraudulently employed as olive oils for human consumption and thus benefit from consumption aid; whereas in order to prevent such a risk, acid oils from refining should be treated in the same way as by-products from refining,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Acid oils from refining of by-products of olive oil or olive-residue oil falling within subheading 15.10 C of the Common Customs Tariff may be subject to the same treatment as by-products from refining of olive oil or olive-residue oil falling within subheading 15.17 B of the Common Customs Tariff.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 December 1983.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 82/96 of 22 January 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1552/95 (2), and in particular Article 11 thereof,
Whereas the Annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 470/94 (4), contains a specimen of the annual questionnaire on the application of the additional levy arrangements; whereas the fourth indent of Article 8 fixes the date by which the Member States are to forward to the Commission the duly completed questionnaire at 1 September of each year; whereas experience has shown that the replies to the questionnaire should be updated regularly to improve administration of these arrangements and whereas it is useful to clarify the wording of several points of the questionnaire;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 is hereby amended as follows:
1. the following paragraph is added to the fourth indent of Article 8:
'Where the information changes, in particular as a result of the checks provided for in Article 7, an update shall be communicated to the Commission before 1 December, 1 March and 1 July of each year.`
2. the Annex is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 January 1996.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Council Decision
of 28 February 2002
on the granting of exceptional national aid by the Government of the French Republic for the distillation of certain wine sector products
(2002/193/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 88(2), third subparagraph, thereof,
Having regard to the request made by the Government of the French Republic on 21 January 2002,
Whereas:
(1) Article 29 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1) allows Community support for the distillation of wines in order to support the wine market and, as a consequence, facilitate the continuation of supplies of wine distillate.
(2) Article 30 of the above Regulation allows a crisis distillation measure if there is an exceptional case of wine market disturbance caused by serious surpluses and/or problems of quality.
(3) The 2000/01 wine year in France brought a further worsening of the market situation, with an increase in table wine stocks and a fall in the volumes sold compared with the 1999/2000 wine year. On 31 July 2001 stocks of this type of wine stood at approximately 17,5 million hectolitres, which is an increase of 62 % compared with the previous two years.
(4) This situation on the French market is attributable to more plentiful Community production over the last two wine years, in spite of the drop in French production in 2000/01, and to lower consumption of ordinary table wines; at the same time, local wines made from a single grape variety (vins de pays de cépages) are facing competition from new wine-producing countries.
(5) These are the circumstances responsible for the particularly dire situation in the 2001/02 wine year, which has led to a sharp fall in incomes and prices in the sector, down 18 % in 2001 and 25 % in 2002.
(6) Implementation of distillation arrangements under the said Article 29 did not succeed in restoring the balance of the French market, owing in particular to the relatively low take-up rate at the proposed price, with wine prices on the French market remaining higher than the distillation price, despite the worsened situation and owing to a high abatement rate in the contracts concluded at Community level.
(7) This imbalance on the table wine market has led the French Government to request a crisis distillation measure under Article 30 of the said Regulation for 4,5 million hectolitres of table wine. Opening of that crisis distillation measure involves a price to be paid to the producer. The price adopted previously was EUR 1,914 per % vol, per hectolitre, which the French Government considers quite insufficient to restore market balance.
(8) To deal with the situation, the French Government is planning, within the 4 million hectolitre quota approved on 8 February 2002 by the Management Committee for Wine and on a proposal from the Commission, to grant exceptional national aid to producers who supply wine for the distillation referred to in Article 30 of the said Regulation, so as to bring the price paid to the producer for distillation purposes to a level not exceeding EUR 2,744 per % vol, per hectolitre, subject to a maximum cost of this national measure of EUR 39,84 million.
(9) Exceptional circumstances therefore exist, making it possible to consider such aid, by way of derogation and to the extent strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance which has arisen, to be compatible with the common market on the terms specified in this Decision,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Exceptional aid by the French Government for the distillation of 4 million hectolitres of table wine on French territory totalling not more than EUR 39,84 million, for the amount necessary to bring the price of wine up to EUR 2,744 per % vol per hectolitre in the context of the implementation of crisis distillation under Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, shall be considered compatible with the common market.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the French Republic.
Done at Brussels, 28 February 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) No 3444/90
of 27 November 1990
laying down detailed rules for granting private storage aid for pigmeat
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in pigmeat ( 1 ), as last amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 1249/89 ( 2 ), and in particular Articles 5(4 ) and 7(2 ) and the second subparagraph of Article 22 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1676/85 of 11 June 1985 on the rates of exchange to be applied in agriculture ( 3 ), as last amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 2205/90 ( 4 ), and in particular Articles 5(3 ) and 12 thereof,
Whereas detailed rules for granting private storage aid for pigmeat must be adopted in addition to the general rules laid down by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2763/75 ( 5 );
Whereas, if it is to achieve its purpose, such aid should be granted only to natural or legal persons established in the Community whose activities and experience in the sector offer sufficient certainty that storage will be effected in a satisfactory manner and who have adequate cold storage capacity within the Community;
Whereas, for the same reason, aid should be granted only for the storage of products in frozen condition, of sound and fair merchantable quality and of Community origin as defined by Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 964/71 ( 6 ), with a level of radioactivity not exceeding the maximum levels permitted under Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 737/90 of 22 March 1990 on the conditions governing imports of agricultural products originating in third countries following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station ( 7 );
Whereas the market situation and its future development could make it opportune to invite the contracting party to designate his stocks for export from the moment of placing in storage and that it is appropriate under this hypothesis to determine the conditions under which the meat which is the object of a storage contract could be simultaneously placed under the regime as referred to in Article 5 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 565/80 of 4 March 1980 on the advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural products ( 8 ), as amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 2026/83 ( 9 ), in order to benefit from advance payment of export refunds;
Whereas, to make the scheme more effective, contracts must relate to a certain minimum quantity, differentiated by product, as appropriate and the obligations to be fulfilled by the contracting party, in particular those enabling the intervention agency to make an effective inspection of storage conditions, must be specified;
Whereas the amount of the security designed to ensure compliance with the contractual obligations should be fixed at a percentage of the amount of the aid;
Whereas, pursuant to Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products ( 10 ), as last amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 3745/89 ( 11 ), the primary requirements to be met for the release of the security should be defined; whereas storing the contracted quantity for the agreed period constitutes one of the primary requirements for the granting of private storage aid for pigmeat; whereas, to take account of commercial practice and for practical reasons, a certain tolerance in respect of the said quantity should be permitted;
Whereas a measure of proportionality should apply in the release of the security and the granting of aid where certain requirements relating to the quantities to be stored are not met;
Whereas, in order to improve the efficiency of the scheme, the contracting party should be enabled to receive an advance payment of aid subject to a security
and rules should be laid down regarding the submission of applications for aid, the supporting documents to be produced and the time limit for payment;
Whereas, pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1676/85, it should be specified that, in the case of private storage aid, the operative event to determine the amount of the security and the aid in national currency is the day of conclusion of the storage contract or the final day for submission of tenders in response to an invitation to tender;
Whereas previous experience with other schemes for private storage of agricultural products has shown the need to specify to what extent Council Regulation ( EEC, Euratom ) No 1182/71 ( 1 ) applies to the determination of periods, dates and time limits referred to under such schemes and to define precisely the dates when contractual storage begins and ends;
Whereas, in particular, Article 3(4 ) of Regulation ( EEC, Euratom ) No 1182/71 specifies that where the last day of a period is a public holiday, Sunday or Saturday, the period should end on the expiry of the last hour of the following working day; whereas the application of this provision to storage contracts may not be in the interest of storers and may even result in inequality of treatment; whereas, therefore, a derogation should be made with regard to the determination of the last day of storage under contract;
Whereas provision should be made for a measure of proportionality in the granting of aid where the storage period is not fully observed; whereas provision should also be made for the storage period to be shortened where meat removed from storage is intended for export; whereas proof that the meat has been exported must be supplied, as in the case of refunds, in accordance with Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products ( 2 ), as last amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 1615/90 ( 3 );
Whereas Article 4 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2763/75 provides that the amount of aid for private storage may be determined by means of a tendering procedure; whereas Articles 4 and 5 of the same Regulation contain rules to be observed in connection with this procedure; whereas, however, more detailed rules are necessary for that purpose;
Whereas the purpose of the tendering procedure is to determine the amount of the aid; whereas, in the selection of successful tenderers, preference should be given to those most advantageous for the Community; whereas, therefore, a maximum amount of aid may be set for which tenders would be accepted; whereas, if no tender is acceptable, none need be accepted;
Whereas provision should be made for a system of checks to ensure that aid is not granted unduly; whereas for this purpose it is appropriate that the Member States make checks appropriate to the various stages of storage;
Whereas there is reason to prevent and to sanction against irregularities and fraud; whereas for this purpose, it is appropriate to exclude in the case of false declaration the contracting party from the granting of aids for private storage for the calendar year following that of the constitution of a false declaration;
Whereas, to give the Commission an overall view of the effect of the private storage scheme, the Member States should supply it with the necessary information;
Whereas Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1092/80 of 2 May 1980 laying down detailed rules for granting private storage aid for pigmeat ( 4 ), as last amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 3498/88 ( 5 ), has been amended substantially; whereas, now that further amendments are to be made, the relevant legislation should be entirely recast; whereas, however, the new provisions should apply only to contracts concluded after the entry into force of this Regulation;
Whereas the Management
Committee for Pigmeat has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION :
Article 1
The grant of private storage aid, as provided for in Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2759/75, shall be subject to the conditions set out in this Regulation .
TITLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 2
1 . Contracts for the private storage of pigmeat shall be concluded between the intervention agencies of the Member States and natural or legal persons, hereafter referred to as the "contracting party ':
_ carrying on business in the meat and livestock sectors since at least twelve months and officially registered in a Member State,
and
_ having suitable storage facilities at their disposal within the Community .
2 . Private storage aid may be granted only for fresh meat of sound and fair merchantable quality coming from animals raised in the Community since at least the last two months and slaughtered not more than ten days before the date on which the products are placed in storage as referred to in Article 4 ( 2 ).
3 . No meat with a radioactive content exceeding the maximum levels permitted under Community regulations may be the subject of a storage contract . The levels applicable to products of Community origin shall be as fixed in Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 737/90 . The level of radioactive contamination of the product shall be checked only if the situation so requires and for the necessary period . Where necessary, the duration and scope of the checks shall be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 24 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2759/75 .
4 . Contracts may not relate to less than a minimum quantity to be determined for each product .
5 . The meat must be placed in storage in fresh state and stored in frozen state .
Article 3
1 . Contract applications or tenders, and contracts shall relate to only one of the products for which aid may be granted .
2 . Contract applications or tenders shall not be acceptable unless they include the particulars referred to in paragraph 3 ( a ), ( b ), ( d ) and ( e ), and proof has been furnished that a security has been provided .
3 . Contracts shall include the following particulars :
( a ) a declaration by which the contracting party engages himself to place in storage and to stock products which fulfill the conditions as referred to in Article 2 ( 2 ) and ( 3 );
( b ) the description and the quantity of the product to be stored;
( c ) the time limit for placing in storage, referred to in Article 4 ( 3 ), of the total quantity referred to under ( b );
( d ) the duration of storage;
( e ) the amount of the aid per unit of weight;
( f ) the amount of the security;
( g ) a provision enabling the storage period to be shortened or extended uner the conditions laid down in Community regulations .
4 . Contracts shall impose at least the following obligations on the contracting party :
( a ) to place the agreed quantity of product in storage within the time limits laid down in Article 4 and to store it at his own risk and expense in conditions ensuring the maintenance of the characteristics of the products referred to in Article 2 ( 2 ) for the contractual period, without altering, substituting or transferring to another warehouse the stored products; however, in exceptional cases and on duly motivated request the intervention agency may authorize a relocation of the stored products;
( b ) to advise the intervention agency with which he has concluded the contract, in due time before the entry into storage of each individual lot, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 4 ( 1 ), of the date and place of storage as well as the nature and quantity of the product to be stored; the intervention agency may require that this information is given at least two working days before the placing in storage of each individual lot;
( c ) to send to the intervention agency the documents relating to the operations for placing in storage not later than 1 month after the date referred to in Article 4 ( 3 );
( d ) to store the products in accordance with the requirements for identification referred to in Article 13 ( 4 );
( e ) to permit the agency to check at any time that all the obligations laid d
in the contract are being observed .
Article 4
1 . Placing in storage must be completed not later than 28 days after the date of conclusion of the contract .
The products may be placed in storage in individual lots, each lot representing the quantity placed in storage on a given day by contract and by warehouse .
2 . Placing in storage begins, for each individual lot of the contractual quantity, on the day on which it comes under the control of the intervention agency .
( 1 ) OJ No L 282, 1 . 11 . 1975, p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 129, 11 . 5 . 1989, p . 12 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 164, 29 . 6 . 1985, p . 1 .
( 4 ) OJ No L 201, 31 . 7 . 1990, p . 9 .
( 5 ) OJ No L 282, 1 . 11 . 1975, p . 19 .
( 6 ) OJ No L 104, 11 . 5 . 1971, p . 12 .
( 7 ) OJ No L 82, 29 . 3 . 1990, p . 1 .
( 8 ) OJ No L 62, 7 . 3 . 1980, p . 5 .
( 9 ) OJ No L 199, 22 . 7 . 1983, p . 12 .
( 10 ) OJ No L 205, 3 . 8 . 1985, p . 5 .
( 11 ) OJ No L 364, 14 . 12 . 1989, p . 54 .
( 1 ) OJ No L 124, 8 . 6 . 1971, p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 351, 14 . 12 . 1987, p . 1 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 152, 16 . 6 . 1990, p . 33 .
( 4 ) OJ No L 114, 3 . 5 . 1980, p . 22 .
( 5 ) OJ No L 306, 11 . 11 . 1988, p . 32 .
That day shall be the day on which the net weight of the fresh or chilled product is determined,
_ at the place of storage, where the meat is frozen on the premises,
_ at the place of freezing, where the meat is frozen in suitable facilities outside the place of storage .
However, in the case of boneless products placed in storage, weighing may be done at the place of boning .
The determination of weights of products to be placed in storage shall not take place before the conclusion of a contract .
3 . Placing in storage ends on the day on which the last lot of the contractual quantity is placed in storage .
That day shall be the day on which all the products under contract have entered the place of final storage, whether fresh or frozen .
4 . When the products placed in storage are put under the regime laid down in Article 5 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 565/80 :
_ notwithstanding Article 28 ( 5 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3665/87, the time limit provided for by that provision is increased to cover the duration of the maximum period under contractual storage, increased by one month;
_ Member States may require that the placing in storage and the placing under the regime as referred to in Article 5 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 565/80 shall commence simultaneously . In this case when a contract for private storage is concluded for a quantity which consists of several lots which are placed in storage on different dates, each of the said lots may be the subject of a separate payment declaration . The payment declaration as referred to in Article 25 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3665/87 shall be submitted for each lot on the day of its entry in storage .
Article 5
1 . The amount of the security referred to in Article 3 ( 2 ) shall not exceed 30 % of the amount of aid applied for .
2 . The primary requirements within the meaning of Article 20 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2220/85 shall be :
_ not to withdraw a contract application or a tender;
_ to keep in storage at least 90 % of the contractual quantity for the contractual storage period, at the contracting party's own risk and under the conditions referred to in Article 3 ( 4 ) ( a ), and
_ where Article 9 ( 4 ) applies, to export the meat in accordance with one of the three possibilities listed there .
3 . Subject to Article 9 ( 4 ) of this Regulation, Article 27 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2220/85 shall not apply .
4 . Securities shall be released immediately where contract applications or tenders are not accepted .
5 . Where the time limit for placing in storage as referred to in Article 4 ( 1 ) is exceeded by 10 days, the contract shall be annulled and the security shall be forfeit in accordance with Article 23 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2220/85 .
Article 6
1 . The aid shall be fixed per unit of weight and shall relate to the weight determined in accordance with Article 4 ( 2 ).
2 . Subject to paragraph 3 hereafter and Article 9 ( 4 ), contracting parties shall be entitled to aid if the primary requirements referred to in Article 5 ( 2 ) are met .
3 . Aid shall be paid at most for the contractual quantity provided .
If the quantity actually stored during the contractual storage period is less than the contractual quantity and :
( a ) not less than 90 % of that quantity, the aid shall be reduced proportionately;
( b ) less than 90 % but not less than 80 % of that quantity, the aid for the quantity actually stored shall be reduced by half;
( c ) less than 80 % of that quantity, the aid shall not be paid .
4 . After three months of storage under contract, a single advance payment may be made, at the contracting party's request, provided that he lodges a security equal to the
advance payment plus 20 %.
The advance payment shall not exceed the amount of aid corresponding to a storage period of three months . Where products under contract are exported in accordance with Article 9 ( 4 ) prior to the advance payment, the actual storage period for those products shall be taken into account when calculating the amount of advance payment .
Article 7
1 . Except in cases of force majeure the application for payment of the aid and the supporting documents must be lodged with the competent authority within six months following the end of the maximum period of contractual storage . Where the supporting documents could not be produced within the stipulated time limit although the contracting party acted promptly to obtain them on time, additional time limits, which may not exceed a total of six months, may be granted for their production . Where Article 9 ( 4 ) is applied, the necessary
proof must be produced within the time limits specified in Article 47 ( 2 ), ( 4 ), ( 6 ) and ( 7 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3665/87 .
2 . Subject to the cases of force majeure referred to in Article 10 and in cases where an inquiry was opened into entitlement to the aid, the aid shall be paid by the competent authority as soon as possible and not later than three months from the day of deposit of an application for payment, with the required supporting documents, by the contracting party .
Article 8
The conversion rate to be applied to the amounts of aid and securities shall be the agricultural conversion rate in force, in cases of aid fixed at a flat rate in advance, on the day a contract is concluded or, in the case of aid granted by tender, on the last day for the submission of tenders .
Article 9
1 . The periods, dates and time limits referred to in this Regulation shall be determined in accordance with Regulation ( EEC, Euratom ) No 1182/71 . However, Article 3 ( 4 ) of that Regulation shall not apply to the determination of the storage period as referred to in Article 3 ( 3 ) ( d ) of this Regulation or as amended under Article 3 ( 3 ) ( g ) or under paragraph 4 of this Article .
2 . The first day of the contractual storage period shall be the first day following that on which placing in storage was completed .
3 . Removal from storage may commence on the day following the last day of the contractual storage period .
4 . On the expiry of a storage period of two months, the contracting party may remove from storage all or part of the quantity of products under a given contract, subject to a minimum of 5 tonnes per contracting party and per warehouse or, if less than this quantity is available, the total quantity under contract in a warehouse, provided that, within 60 days following their removal from storage, the products have :
_ left the Community's customs territory without further processing,
_ reached their destination without further processing, in the cases referred to in Article 34 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3665/87,
or
_ been placed without further processing in a victualling warehouse approved pursuant to Article 38 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3665/87 .
The contractual storage period shall end for each individual lot intended for export on the day before
_ the day of removal from storage,
or
_ the day of acceptance of the export declaration, where a product has not been moved .
The amount of aid shall be reduced in proportion to the reduction in the storage period according to the amounts fixed in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2763/75 .
For the purposes of this paragraph, proof of export shall be furnished in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3665/87 .
5 . Where paragraphes 3 and 4 of this Article are applied, the contracting party shall advise the intervention agency in good time before the intended commencement of removal from storage; the intervention agency may require that this information is given at least two working days before that date .
Where the obligation to notify the intervention agency is not complied with but where sufficient evidence has been furnished, within 30 days following removal from the warehouse, to the satisfaction of the competent authority as to the date of removal from storage and the quantities concerned :
_ the aid shall be granted, without prejudice to Article 6 ( 3 ),
and
_ 15 % of the security shall be declared forfeit in respect of the quantity concerned .
For all other cases of non-compliance with this requirement :
_ no aid shall be paid in respect of the contract concerned,
and
_ the whole of the security shall be declared forfeit in respect of the contract concerned .
6 . Subject to the
cases of force majeure referred to in Article 10, where the contracting party fails to respect the end of the contractual storage period or the two-month time limit referred to in paragraph 4 for the totality of the quantity stored, each calendar day of non-compliance shall entail a reduction of 10 % in the amount of aid for the contract in question .
Article 10
In cases of force majeure where the performance of the contractual obligations of a contracting party are affected, the competent authority of the Member State concerned shall decide on the measures which it deems necessary having regard to the circumstances invoked . That authority shall inform the Commission of each case of force majeure and of the action taken in respect thereof .
TITLE II
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
Article 11
Where the aid if fixed at a flat rate in advance :
( a ) the contract application must be lodged with the competent intervention agency in accordance with Article 3 ( 1 ) and ( 2 );
( b ) the intervention agency concerned must, within five working days following the day on which a contract application is lodged with the agency, advise the applicant of the decision concerning that application by registered letter, by telex, by telefax or against written acknowledgement .
Where the application is accepted, the contract shall be deemed to have been concluded on the day of departure of the notification of the decision referred to in the first subparagraph under ( b ). The intervention agency shall specify the date referred to in Article 3 ( 3 ) ( c ) accordingly .
Article 12
1 . Where the aid is granted by tender :
( a ) the Commission shall announce in the Official Journal of the European Communities the opening of a procedure to tender, specifying in particular the products to be stored, the time limit ( date and hour ) for the submission of tenders and the minimum quantities in respect of which a tender may by submitted;
( b ) tenders must be made in ecus and submitted to the intervention agency concerned in accordance with Article 3 ( 1 ) and ( 2 );
( c ) tenders shall be examined in private session by the appropriate agencies of the Member States; persons present at the examination shall be sworn to secrecy;
( d ) tenders submitted must be forwarded anonymously to the Commission by way of the Member States, to arrive not later than the second working day following the final date for submission as specified in the invitation;
( e ) where no tenders are submitted, Member States shall inform the Commission of this within the time limit as specified under ( d );
( f ) on the basis of the tenders received, the Commission shall decide in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 24 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2759/75, either to fix a maximum amount of aid, taking account of the conditions laid down in Article 4 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2763/75, or to make no award;
( g ) where a maximum amount of aid is fixed, tenders not exceeding this amount shall be accepted .
2 . Within five working days following the day on which the Member States are notified of the Commission's decision, the intervention agency concerned shall inform all tenderers of the decision taken by registered letter, by telex, by telefax or against written acknowledgement .
Where a tender is accepted, the contract shall be deemed to have been concluded on the date of departure of the notification of the intervention agency to the tenderer as referred to in the first subparagraph . The intervention agency shall specify the date referred to in Article 3 ( 3 ) ( c ) accordingly .
TITLE III
CHECKING AND SANCTIONS
Article 13
1 . Member States shall ensure that the conditions giving rise to entitlement to aid are fulfilled . For this purpose they shall designate the national authority to be responsible for checking storage operations .
2 . The contracting party shall make available to the authority charged with the checking operations of all documentation, for each contract, permitting in particular the following information on the products placed in private storage to be verified :
( a ) the ownership at the time of placing in storage;
( b ) the date of placing in storage;
( c ) the weight and the number of boxes or pieces otherwise packaged;
( d ) the presence of products in the warehouse;
( e ) the calculated date of the end of the minimum contractual storage period and, where Article 9 ( 4 ) or ( 6 ) is applied, completed by the actual date of removal .
3 . The contracting party or, where applicable, the operator of the warehouse, shall keep stock accounts available at the warehouse
covering, by contract number :
( a ) the identification of the products placed in private storage;
( b ) the date of placing in storage and the calculated date of the end of the minimum contractual storage period, completed by the actual date of removal from storage;
( c ) the number of half-carcases, boxes or other pieces stored individually, a description of the products and the weight of each pallet or the other pieces stored individually, registered, where applicable, by individual lots;
( d ) the location of the products in the warehouse .
4 . Products stored must be easily identifiable and must be identified individually by contract . Each pallet and, where applicable, each piece individually stored must be marked so that the contract number, the description of the product and the weight are shown . The date of placing in storage must be shown on each individual lot placed in storage on a given day .
When the products are placed in storage, the authority charged with the checking operations shall verify the identification referred to in the first subparagraph and may seal the products in storage .
5 . The authority charged with the checking operations shall undertake :
( a ) for each contract, a check on the compliance with all the obligations laid down in Article 3 ( 4 );
( b ) an obligatory check to ensure that the products are present in the warehouse during the final week of the contractual storage period;
( c ) _ either the sealing of all the products stored under a contract in accordance with the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 4
or
_ an unannounced sample check to ensure that the products are present in the warehouse . The sample taken must be representative and must correspond to at least 10 % of the overall quantity placed in storage in each Member State under a private storage aid measure . Such checks shall include, in addition to an examination of the accounts referred to in paragraph 3, a physical check of the weight and type of the products and their identification . Such physical checks must relate to at least 5 % of the quantity subject to the unannounced check .
The sealing or handling costs of the check are borne by the contracting party .
6 . Checks pursuant to paragraph 5 must be the subject of a report stating :
_ the date of the check,
_ its duration
and
_ the operations conducted .
The report on the check must be signed by the official responsible and countersigned by the contracting party or, where applicable, by the operator of the warehouse and must be included in the payment file .
7 . In the case of significant irregularities affecting at least 5 % of the quantities of products covered by a single contract subject to the checks, the verification shall be extended to a larger sample to be determined by the authority responsible for the checks .
Member States shall notify such cases to the Commission within four weeks .
Article 14
In the case where it is established and verified by the responsible authority charged with checking operations that the declaration as referred to in Article 3 ( 3 ) ( a ) is a false declaration made either deliberately or through serious negligence, the contracting party in question shall be excluded from the private storage aid regime until the end of the calendar year following that of this finding .
TITLE IV
FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 15
1 . Member States shall inform the Commission of all provisions adopted in application of this Regulation .
2 . Member States shall notify the Commission by telex or by telefax :
( a ) before Thursday of each week and broken down by storage period, of the products and quantities which have been the subject of contract applications, and of the products and quantities for which contracts have been concluded during the preceding week, giving a summary of the products and quantities for which contracts have been concluded;
( b ) every month, of the products and total quantities placed in storage;
( c ) every month, of the products and total quantities actually in storage and of the products and total quantities in respect of which the contractual storage period has ended;
( d ) every month, if the storage period has been shortened or extended in accordance with Article 3 ( 3 ) ( g ) or reduced in accordance with Article 9 ( 4 ) or ( 6 ), of the products and quantities in respect of which the storage period has been revised and of the original and revised months for removal from storage .
3 . The application of the measures provided for in this Regulation shall be subject to regular examination in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation ( EEC ) N
2759/75 .
Article 16
1 . Regulation ( EEC ) No 1092/80 is hereby repealed .
2 . References to the Regulation repealed by paragraph 1 shall be construed as references to this Regulation .
References to Articles of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1092/80 are to be read in accordance with the correlation table given in the Annex .
Article 17
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities .
It shall apply to contracts concluded as from that date .
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States .
Done at Brussels, 27 November 1990 .
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 17 March 1988
authorizing the Kingdom of Spain to apply intra-Community surveillance to imports of motor vehicles for the transport of persons or goods, originating in Romania and placed in free circultation in the Community
(Only the Spanish text is authentic)
(88/232/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular the first paragraph of Article 115 thereof,
Having regard to Commission Decision 87/433/EEC of 22 July 1987 on surveillance and protective measures which Member States may be authorized to take pursuant to Article 115 of the EEC Treaty (1), and in particular Articles 1 and 2 thereof,
Whereas Decision 87/433/EEC requires Member States to have prior authorization from the Commission before introducing intra-Community surveillance of the imports concerned;
Whereas on 8 March 1988 the Spanish Government, under Article 2 of Decision 87/433/EEC, asked the Commission for authorization to introduce intra-Community surveillance for motor vehicles for the transport of persons or goods, falling within CN codes 8702, 8703 and 8704, originating in Romania and placed in free circulation in one of the Member States;
Whereas imports into Spain of the products in question originating in Romania are subject to quantitative restrictions under Article 2 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3420/83 (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2273/87 (3);
Whereas there are disparities in the conditions governing these imports in the Member States; whereas these disparities could cause deflection of trade which might aggravate or cause economic difficulties affecting the industry concerned;
Whereas the Spanish authorities informed the Commission that, since the beginning of the year, Spain has been receiving a flow of indirect trade in the products in question originating in Romania and in free circulation in other Member States;
Whereas the Commission examined the request from the Spanish Government; whereas it found that the deflection of trade could increase and cause or aggravate economic difficulties in the industry concerned;
Whereas in these circumstances, foreseeable imports should be monitored closely; whereas the imports in question originating in Romania should therefore be made subject to prior intra-Community surveillance in accordance with Article 2 of Decision 87/433/EEC,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The Kingdom of Spain is hereby authorized to apply intra-Community surveillance in accordance with Article 2 of Decision 87/433/EEC to the following imports until 31 December 1988:
1.2.3 // // // // CN code // Description // Country of origin // // // // // // // 8702 8703 8704 // Motor vehicles for the transport of persons or goods // Romania // // //
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.
Done at Brussels, 17 March 1988.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 783/86
of 6 March 1986
on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco concerning the import into the Community of preserved fruit salads originating in Morocco (1986)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,
Having regard to the recommendation from the Commission,
Whereas the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco (1) was signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 1 November 1978;
Whereas the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco concerning the import into the Community of preserved fruit salads originating in Morocco should be approved,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco concerning the import into the Community of preserved fruit salads originating in Morocco is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.
The text of the Agreement is annexed to this Regulation.
Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement for the purpose of binding the Community.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 March 1986.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 900/2007
of 27 July 2007
on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar until the end of the 2007/2008 marketing year
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular Articles 23(4) and 40(1)(g) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
In view of the situation on the Community and world sugar markets, a standing invitation to tender should be opened for the export of white sugar until the end of the 2007/2008 marketing year which, having regard to possible fluctuations in world prices for sugar, must provide for the determination of export refunds.
(2)
The general rules governing invitations to tender for the purpose of determining export refunds for sugar established by Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 should be applied.
(3)
In order to prevent any abuse associated with the re-import or re-introduction into the Community of sugar sector products that have qualified for export refunds, no export refund should be fixed for the countries of the western Balkans.
(4)
In line with Articles 32 and 33 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006, export refunds may be set to cover the competitive gap between Community and third countries' exports. Community exports to certain close destinations and to third countries granting Community products a preferential import treatment are currently in a particular favourable competitive position. Therefore, refunds for exports to those destinations should be abolished.
(5)
In view of the specific nature of the operation, appropriate provisions should be laid down with regard to export licences issued in connection with the standing invitation to tender, in particular as regards the deadline for the issue of the licences, their period of validity, the amount of the security and the quantity for which the obligation to export resulting from the licence is met. However, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 of 9 June 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (2) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 120/89 of 19 January 1989 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the export levies and charges on agricultural products (3) must continue to apply.
(6)
The provisions of this Regulation replace, as regards the partial invitations to tender as from August 2007, those of Commission Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 of 28 June 2006 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2006/2007 marketing year (4). For the sake of transparency and legal clarity, therefore, that Regulation should be repealed with effect from 1 August 2007.
(7)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. A standing invitation to tender shall be opened in order to determine export refunds on white sugar covered by CN code 1701 99 10 for all destinations excluding Andorra, Gibraltar, Ceuta, Melilla, the Holy See (Vatican City State), Liechtenstein, Communes of Livigno and Campione d'Italia, Heligoland, Greenland, Faroe Islands, the areas of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control, Albania, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia (5), Montenegro and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. During the period of validity of this standing invitation, partial invitations to tender shall be issued.
2. The standing invitation to tender shall be open until 25 September 2008.
Article 2
1. The notice of invitation to tender shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. On this basis, the Member States shall draw up a notice of invitation to tender which they may publish or have published elsewhere.
2. The notice shall indicate, in particular, the terms of the invitation to tender.
3. The notice may be amended during the period of validity of the standing invitation to tender. It shall be so amended if the terms of the invitation to tender are modified during that period.
Article 3
1. The period during which tenders may be submitted in response to the first partial invitation to tender shall:
(a)
begin on 1 August 2007;
(b)
end on 9 August 2007 at 10.00, Brussels local time.
2. The periods during which tenders may be submitted in response to the second and subsequent partial invitations shall:
(a)
begin on the first working day following the end of the preceding period;
(b)
end at 10.00, Brussels local time, on:
-
30 August 2007,
-
13 and 27 September 2007,
-
11 and 25 October 2007,
-
8 and 22 November 2007,
-
6 and 20 December 2007,
-
10 and 31 January 2008,
-
14 and 28 February 2008,
-
13 and 27 March 2008,
-
10 and 24 April 2008,
-
8 and 29 May 2008,
-
12 and 26 June 2008,
-
10 and 24 July 2008,
-
7 and 28 August 2008,
-
11 and 25 September 2008.
Article 4
1. Tenders in connection with this tendering procedure shall be addressed to the competent authority in a Member State by fax or electronic mail provided the competent agency accepts these forms of transmission.
The competent authorities of the Member State may require that electronic tenders be accompanied by an advance electronic signature within the meaning of Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6).
2. Tenders shall be valid only if the following conditions are met:
(a)
Tenders shall indicate:
(i)
the procedure to which the tender relates (No 1/2007) and the partial invitation;
(ii)
the name, address and VAT number of the tenderer;
(iii)
the quantity of white sugar to be exported;
(iv)
the amount of the export refund, per 100 kilograms of white sugar, expressed in euro to three decimal places;
(v)
the amount of the security to be lodged in accordance with Article 5(1) covering the quantity of sugar indicated in (iii), expressed in the currency of the Member State in which the tender is submitted;
(b)
proof is furnished before expiry of the time-limit for the submission of tenders that the tenderer has lodged the security indicated in the tender;
(c)
the quantity to be exported is not less than 250 tonnes of white sugar;
(d)
tenders include a declaration by the tenderer that if their tender is successful they will, within the period laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 11(2), apply for an export licence or licences in respect of the quantities of white sugar to be exported;
(e)
tenders include a declaration by the tenderer that the product for exports is white sugar of fair, sound and marketable quality, falling within CN code 1701 99 10;
(f)
tenders include a declaration by the tenderer that if their tender is successful they will:
(i)
where the obligation to export resulting from the export licence referred to in Article 11(2) is not fulfilled, supplement the security by the payment of the amount referred to in Article 12(3);
(ii)
within 30 days following the expiry of the export licence in question, notify the agency which issued the licence of the quantity or quantities in respect of which the licence was not used.
3. A tender which is not submitted in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2, or which contains conditions other than those indicated in the present invitation to tender, shall not be considered.
4. Once submitted, a tender may not be withdrawn.
5. A tender may stipulate that it is to be regarded as having been submitted only if one or both of the following conditions is/are met:
(a)
the maximum export refund is fixed on the day of the expiry of the period for the submission of the tenders in question;
(b)
the tender, if successful, relates to all or a specified part of the tendered quantity.
Article 5
1. A security of EUR 11 per 100 kilograms of white sugar to be exported under this invitation to tender must be lodged by each tenderer.
Without prejudice to Article 12(3), where a tender is successful this security shall become the security for the export licence at the time of the application referred to in Article 11(2).
2. The security referred to in paragraph 1 may be lodged at the tenderer’s choice, either in cash or in the form of a guarantee given by an establishment complying with criteria laid down by the Member State in which the tender is submitted.
3. The security referred to in paragraph 1 shall be released:
(a)
in the case of unsuccessful tenderers in respect of the quantity for which no award has been made;
(b)
in the case of successful tenderers who have not applied for the relevant export licence within the period referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11(2), at a rate of EUR 10 per 100 kilograms of white sugar;
(c)
in the case of successful tenderers for the quantity for which they have fulfilled, within the meaning of Articles 31(b) and 32(1)(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000, the export obligation resulting from the licence referred to in Article 11(2) of this Regulation in accordance with the terms of Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000.
In the case referred to under (b) of the first subparagraph, the releasable part of the security shall be reduced, as applicable, by the difference between the maximum amount of the export refund fixed for the partial invitation concerned and the maximum amount of the export refund fixed for the following partial invitation, when the latter amount is higher than the former.
Except in cases of force majeure, the part of the security or the security which is not released shall be forfeit in respect of the quantity of sugar for which the corresponding obligations have not been fulfilled.
4. In cases of force majeure, the competent authority of the Member State concerned shall take such action for the release of the security as it considers necessary having regard to the circumstances invoked by the party concerned.
Article 6
1. Tenders shall be examined in private by the competent authority concerned. The persons present at the examination shall be under an obligation not to disclose any particulars relating thereto.
2. Tenders submitted in accordance with this Regulation shall be communicated, if eligible, to the Commission by the Member States without the tenderers being mentioned by name and must be received by the Commission within one hour and thirty minutes of the expiry of the deadline for the weekly submission of tenders stipulated in the notice of invitation to tender.
Where no tenders are submitted, the Member States shall notify the Commission of this within the same time-limit.
Article 7
1. After the tenders received have been examined, a maximum quantity may be fixed for the partial invitation concerned.
2. A decision may be taken to make no award under a specific partial invitation to tender.
Article 8
1. If the Commission decides to make an award under the partial tendering procedure, it shall fix, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 39(2) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006, the maximum amount of the export refund. This amount shall be fixed in the light of the current state and foreseeable development of the Community and world sugar markets.
2. Without prejudice to Article 9, a contract shall be awarded to every tenderer whose tender quotes a rate of refund equal to or less than such maximum refund.
Article 9
1. Where a maximum quantity has been fixed for a partial invitation to tender, contracts shall be awarded to the tenderer whose tender quotes the lowest refund. If the maximum quantity is not fully covered by that award, awards shall be made to other tenderers in ascending order of export refunds quoted until the entire maximum quantity has been accounted for.
2. Where an award to a particular tenderer in accordance with paragraph 1 would result in the maximum quantity being exceeded, that award shall be limited to such quantity as is still available. Where two or more tenders quote the same refund, and awards to all of them would result in the maximum quantity being exceeded, the quantity available shall be allocated to the tenderers concerned in one of the following ways:
(a)
by division among the tenderers concerned in proportion to the total quantities in each of their tenders; or
(b)
by apportionment among the tenderers concerned by reference to a maximum tonnage to be fixed for each of them; or
(c)
by drawing of lots.
Article 10
1. The competent authority of the Member State concerned shall immediately notify applicants of the result of their participation in the invitation to tender. It shall also send statements of award to the successful tenderers.
2. Statements of award shall indicate at least:
(a)
the procedure to which the tender relates;
(b)
the quantity of white sugar to be exported;
(c)
the amount, expressed in euro, of the export refund to be granted per 100 kilograms of white sugar of the quantity referred to in (b).
Article 11
1. Every successful tenderer shall have the right to receive, in the circumstances referred to in paragraph 2, an export licence covering the quantity awarded, indicating the export refund quoted in the tender.
2. Every successful tenderer shall be obliged to lodge, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000, an application for an export licence in respect of the quantity that has been awarded to it, the application not being revocable in derogation from Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 120/89.
The application shall be lodged not later than:
(a)
the last working day preceding the date of the partial invitation to tender to be held the following week;
(b)
if no partial invitation to tender is due to be held that week, the last working day of the following week.
3. Every successful tenderer shall be obliged to export the tendered quantity and, if this obligation is not fulfilled, to pay, where necessary, the amount referred to in Article 12(3).
4. The rights and obligations referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not be transferable.
Article 12
1. For the purposes of determining the period of validity of the licences, Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 shall apply.
2. Export licences issued in connection with a partial invitation to tender shall be valid from the day of issue until the end of the fifth calendar month following that in which the partial invitation was issued.
3. Except in cases of force majeure, the holder of the licence shall pay the competent authority a specific amount in respect of the quantity for which the obligation to export resulting from the export licence referred to in Article 11(2) has not been fulfilled, if the security referred to in Article 5(1) is less than the difference between the export refund referred to in Article 33(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 in force on the last day of validity of the licence, and the refund indicated on that licence.
The amount to be paid referred to in the first subparagraph shall be equal to the difference between the difference referred to in the first subparagraph and the security referred to in Article 5(1).
Article 13
Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 is hereby repealed with effect from 1 August 2007.
Article 14
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 July 2007.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1297/2005
of 8 August 2005
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.
(2)
In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 August 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 8 August 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 107/87
of 15 January 1987
on special conditions for the granting of private storage aid for pigmeat
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in pigmeat (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1475/86 (2), and in particular Articles 4 (6), 5 (4) and 7 (2) thereof,
Whereas intervention measures may be taken in respect of pigmeat if, on the representative markets of the Community, the average price for pig carcases is less than 103 % of the basic price and is likely to remain below that level;
Whereas the market situation has been characterized by a marked fall in prices below the level mentioned; whereas, in view of seasonal and cyclical trends, this situation could persist;
Whereas intervention measures must be taken; whereas these can be limited to the granting of private storage aid;
Whereas Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2763/75 (3) provides that the period of storage can be curtailed or extended if the market situation so requires; whereas Article 8 (4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1092/80 (4), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 201/85 (5), provides for early withdrawal from store for export; whereas the period of storage may also be curtailed in case of force majeure as referred to in Article 9 of the said Regulation; whereas, therefore, provision should be made to fix not only the amounts of aid for a specific period of storage but also the amounts to be added or deducted if this period is curtailed or extended;
Whereas, in order to facilitate administrative and control work resulting from the conclusion of contracts, minimum quantities should be fixed;
Whereas the security should be fixed at a level such as will oblige the storer to fulfil the obligations undertaken by him;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. As from 19 January 1987, applications for private storage aid may be introduced in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1092/80. The list of products which qualify for aid and the relevant amounts are set out in the Annex hereto.
2. If the period of storage is extended or curtailed, the amount of the aid shall be adjusted accordingly. The amounts of the supplements and deductions per month and per day are set out in columns 7 and 8 of the said Annex.
Article 2
The minimum quantities per contract and per product shall be as follows:
(a) 10 tonnes for boned products;
(b) 15 tonnes for all the other products.
Article 3
The security shall be 20 % of the amounts of aid set out in the Annex.
Article 4
By way of derogation from Article 8 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1092/80, the minimum quantity for carcases or half carcases is fixed at 9 tonnes.
Article 5
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 January 1987.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1165/2003
of 30 June 2003
fixing the export refunds on beef and veal
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2345/2001(2), and in particular Article 33(12) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1 of that Regulation and prices for those products within the Community may be covered by an export refund.
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 32/82(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 744/2000(4), Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82(5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2772/2000(6), Regulation (EEC) No 2388/84(7), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3661/92(8), Regulation (EEC) No 2973/79(9), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3434/87(10), and Regulation (EC) No 2051/96(11), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2333/96(12), lay down the conditions for granting special export refunds on certain cuts of beef and veal and certain preserved beef and veal products.
(3) It follows from applying those rules and criteria to the foreseeable situation on the market in beef and veal that the refund should be as set out below.
(4) With regard to live animals, for reasons of simplification export refunds should no longer be granted for categories with insignificant trade with third countries. Moreover, in light of the general concern of animal welfare, export refunds for live animals for slaughter should be limited as much as possible. Consequently, export refunds for such animals should only be granted for third countries which for cultural and/or religious reasons traditionally import substantial numbers of animals for domestic slaughter. As to live animals for reproduction, in order to prevent any abuse export refunds for pure-bred breeding animals should be limited to heifers and cows of no more than 30 months of age.
(5) Export refunds should be granted for certain destinations on some fresh or chilled meat listed in the Annex under CN code 0201, on some frozen meat listed in the Annex under CN code 0202, on some meat or offal listed in the Annex under CN code 0206 and on some other prepared or preserved meat or offal listed in the Annex under CN code 1602 50 10.
(6) In the case of meat of bovine animals, boned or boneless, salted and dried, there are traditional trade flows to Switzerland. To allow this trade to continue, the refund should be set to cover the difference between prices on the Swiss market and export prices in the Member States.
(7) In the case of certain other cuts and preserves of meat or offal shown in the Annex under CN codes 1602 50 31 to 1602 50 80, the Community presence of international trade may be maintained by granting a refund corresponding to that at present available.
(8) In the case of other beef and veal products, a refund need not be fixed since the Community's share of world trade is not significant.
(9) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87(13), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 118/2003(14), establishes the agricultural product nomenclature for the purposes of export refunds.
(10) In order to simplify customs export formalities for operators, the refunds on all frozen cuts should be brought into line with those on fresh or chilled cuts other than those from adult male bovine animals.
(11) Checks on products covered by CN code 1602 50 should be stepped up by making the granting of refunds on these products conditional on manufacture under the arrangements provided for in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/80 of 4 March 1980 on the advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural products(15), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 444/2003(16).
(12) Refunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Community. Therefore, to be eligible for a refund, products should be required to bear the health mark laid down in Council Directive 64/433/EEC(17), as last amended by Directive 95/23/EC(18), Council Directive 94/65/EC(19) and Council Directive 77/99/EEC(20), as last amended by Directive 97/76/EC(21), respectively.
(13) Under Article 6(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82, the special refund is to be reduced if the quantity of boned meat to be exported amounts to less than 95 %, but not less than 85 %, of the total weight of cuts produced by boning.
(14) The negotiations on the adoption of additional concessions, held within the framework of the Europe Agreements between the European Community and the associated central and eastern European Countries, aim in particular to liberalise trade in products covered by the common organisation of the market in beef and veal. To this end, it was decided to abolish export refunds on products intended for export to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Rumania and Slovakia. These countries should therefore be excluded from the list of destinations giving rise to the grant of a refund, while ensuring that the abolition of refunds for these countries may not lead to the creation of a differentiated refund for exports to other countries.
(15) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. The list of products on which export refunds as referred to in Article 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 are granted and the amount thereof and the destinations shall be as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
2. The products must meet the relevant health marking requirements of:
- Chapter XI of Annex I to Directive 64/433/EEC,
- Chapter VI of Annex I to Directive 94/65/EC,
- Chapter VI of Annex B to Directive 77/99/EEC.
Article 2
In the case referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 the rate of the refund on products falling within product code 0201 30 00 91/00 shall be reduced by EUR 14,00/100 kg.
Article 3
The fact that no refund has been fixed for exports to Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia shall not be considered to mean that there is a differentiated refund.
Article 4
This Regulation shall enter into force on 7 July 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 June 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 468/94 of 2 March 1994 amending Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring hereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2608/93 (2), and in particular Article 13 thereof,
Whereas according to Article 16 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 any use of substances not listed in Annex VI is excluded 12 months after the establishment of Annex VI, even where before such substances were authorized according to existing national provisions;
Whereas certain Member States have considered that certain products should be added to Annex VI and have presented requests to the Commission to support these considerations;
Whereas it has appeared from these requests that certain ingredients of non-agricultural origin are indispensable to make it possible for certain foodstuffs to be appropriately produced or preserved; whereas these compounds also are very commonly present in nature;
Whereas it has appeared from these requests that certain agricultural products need to be added to section C of Annex VI and are required because these products appear not to be produced in sufficient quantities in the Community according to the organic production method while, on the contrary, that certain other products need to be deleted;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the committee referred to in Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 is amended as defined in the Annex to the present Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force 15 days from the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 March 1994.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 24 October 2006
authorising the placing on the market of ‘rapeseed oil high in unsaponifiable matter’ as a novel food ingredient under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council
(notified under document number C(2006) 4975)
(Only the French text is authentic)
(2006/722/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
On 24 October 2001 the company Laboratoires Pharmascience (now Laboratoires Expanscience) made a request to the competent authorities of France to place ‘rapeseed oil high in unsaponifiable matter’ on the market as a novel food ingredient.
(2)
On 8 January 2002 the competent authorities of France forwarded their initial assessment report to the Commission. The report came to the conclusion that ‘rapeseed oil high in unsaponifiable matter’ proposed as a food ingredient at a daily intake of 1,5 g per day would make it possible to supplement vitamin E intake and also concluded that the levels of phytosterol were not sufficient to reduce cholesterolaemia.
(3)
The Commission forwarded the initial assessment report to all Member States on 18 February 2002.
(4)
Within the 60-day period laid down in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97, reasoned objections to the marketing of the product were raised in accordance with that provision.
(5)
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was therefore consulted on 30 January 2004.
(6)
On 6 December 2005, EFSA adopted the ‘Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies on a request from the Commission related to “rapeseed oil high in unsaponifiable matter” as a novel food ingredient’.
(7)
The opinion came to the conclusion that the proposed use level of 1,5 g per day of ‘rapeseed oil high in unsaponifiable matter’ was safe.
(8)
It is recognised that ‘rapeseed oil high in unsaponifiable matter’ at the intended use level of 1,5 g is a safe source of Vitamin E. For labelling and presentation, Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (2) applies.
(9)
On the basis of the scientific assessment, it is established that ‘rapeseed oil high in unsaponifiable matter’ complies with the criteria laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97.
(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
‘Rapeseed oil high in unsaponifiable matter’, as specified in the Annex may be placed on the market in the Community as a novel food ingredient for use in food supplements.
Article 2
The maximum amount of ‘rapeseed oil high in unsaponifiable matter’ present in a portion recommended for daily consumption by the manufacturer shall be 1,5 g.
Article 3
The designation of the novel food ingredient shall be ‘rapeseed oil extract’.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to Laboratoires Expanscience, Siège Social, 10, Avenue de l’Arche, F-92419 Courbevoie Cedex.
Done at Brussels, 24 October 2006.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 3 December 2002
terminating the accelerated review of Council Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of stainless steel wire with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in India
(2002/951/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community(1) (hereinafter referred to as "the basic Regulation"), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1973/2002(2), and in particular Article 20 thereof,
After consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
A. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE
(1) By Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999(3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 164/2002(4), the Council imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of stainless steel wire having a diameter 1 mm or more (hereinafter referred to as "the product concerned") falling within CN code ex 7223 00 19 originating in India. The measures took the form of ad valorem duties of between 0 % and 35,4 % on individual exporters, with a residual duty of 48,8 %.
B. CURRENT PROCEDURE
1. Request for review
(2) Subsequent to the imposition of definitive measures, the Commission received a request for the initiation of an accelerated review of Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999, pursuant to Article 20 of the basic Regulation, from one Indian producer, Garg Sales Co. PVT Ltd (the applicant). The applicant claimed that it was not related to any other exporters of the product concerned in India. Furthermore, it claimed that it had not exported the product concerned during the original period of investigation (1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998), but had exported the product concerned to the Community after that period. On the basis of the above, it requested that an individual duty rate be established for it.
2. Initiation of an accelerated review
(3) The Commission examined the evidence submitted by the applicant and considered it sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accordance with the provisions of Article 20 of the basic Regulation. After consultation of the Advisory Committee and after the Community industry concerned had been given the opportunity to comment, the Commission initiated, by a notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities(5), an accelerated review of Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 with regard to the company concerned and commenced its investigation.
3. Non cooperation by the exporting producer
(4) In order to obtain the information it deemed necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant. However, the Commission did not receive any reply to the questionnaire within the deadline set for that purpose. Neither did the applicant request an extension of that deadline. The Commission informed the applicant that in these circumstances it was intended to proceed with the termination of the review investigation without examining further its request for establishing an individual duty rate. The applicant was given a period of 10 days to comment. No comments from the applicant were received on the disclosure of the Commission's intention to terminate the review investigation.
(5) Consequently, it must be concluded that Garg Sales Co. PVT Ltd has failed to cooperate in the investigation by not replying to the questionnaire sent by the Commission. The accelerated review should therefore be terminated,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Sole Article
The accelerated review of Council Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 concerning imports of stainless steel wire with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in India is hereby terminated.
Done at Brussels, 3 December 2002.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 19 June 1997 amending Annex I of Decision No 89/651/EEC relating to the definitions of the characteristics and to the list of agricultural products regarding the surveys on the structure of agricultural holding (Text with EEA relevance) (97/418/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 571/88 of 29 February 1988 on the organisation of Community surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2467/96 (2) and in particular Article 8 (1) and Article 15 thereof,
Whereas, in accordance with Article 8 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 571/88, any changes to the list of survey characteristics, as well as to the definitions of the survey characteristics and to the delimitation of the regions, survey districts and other territorial units, are laid down under the procedure given in Article 15 of this Regulation, i.e. by Commission decision following the Opinion delivered by the Standing Committee on Agricultural Statistics;
Whereas the results of the Community surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 571/88 can be in concordance throughout the European Community only if the terms contained in the list of characteristics are understood and applied in a uniform manner;
Whereas the list of survey characteristics has been last amended by Commission Decision 96/170/EC (3) and whereas Commission Decision 89/651/EEC (4), as also last amended by Decision 96/170/EC, lays down the definitions, regions and survey districts to be applied in the framework of the 1988 to 1997 structure surveys; whereas as a consequence Commission Decision 89/651/EEC has to be adapted and supplemented;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Agricultural Statistics,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Annex I of Decision 89/651/EEC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 June 1997.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 982/2001
of 19 May 2001
applying a reduction coefficient to refund certificates for goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, as provided for by Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 of 6 December 1993 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2580/2000(2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 of 13 July 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds(3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2390/2000(4), and in particular Article 8(5),
Whereas:
(1) The total amount of applications for refund certificates valid from 1 June 2001 exceeds the maximum referred to in Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000.
(2) A reduction coefficient shall be calculated on the basis of Article 8(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000. Such coefficient should therefore be applied to amounts requested in the form of refund certificates valid from 1 June 2001 as established in Article 8(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The amounts for applications of refund certificates valid from 1 June 2001 are subject to a reduction coefficient of 0,33.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 May 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 May 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 22 April 1991 amending the Seventh Decision, 85/355/EEC, on the equivalence of field inspections carried out in third countries on seed producing crops and the Seventh Decision, 85/356/EEC, on the equivalence of seed produced in third countries (91/239/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 66/400/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of beet seed (1), as last amended by Directive 90/654/EEC (2), and in particular Article 16 (1) (a) and (b) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 66/401/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of fodder plant seed (3), as last amended by Directive 90/654/EEC, and in particular Article 16 (1) (a) and (b) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 66/402/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of cereal seed (4), as last amended by Directive 90/654/EEC, and in particular Article 16 (1) (a) and (b) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 69/208/EEC of 30 June 1969 on the marketing of seed of oil and fibre plants (5), as last amended by Directive 90/654/EEC, and in particular Article 15 (1) (a) and (b) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas, in its seventh Decision, 85/355/EEC (6), as last amended by Decision 90/402/EEC (7), the Council determined that field inspections carried out in certain third countries on seed-producing crops of certain species satisfied the conditions laid down in Directives 66/400/EEC, 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC and 69/208/EEC;
Whereas, in its seventh Decision, 85/356/EEC (8), as last amended by Decision 90/402/EEC, the Council determined that seed of certain species produced in certain third countries is equivalent to corresponding seed harvested in the Community;
Whereas, in the case of certain third countries, additional detailed information was requested and the equivalence granted in respect of those countries was limited to a period thought necessary to examine and assess that additional information; whereas that period expires with regard to Austria on 31 March 1991;
Whereas, in the case of Austria, the examination and assessment of the information requested is, for the present, complete for all species other than maize; whereas it is therefore appropriate, as far as species other than maize are concerned, to extend the abovementioned period until 30 June 1995, the date on which Decisions 85/355/EEC and 85/356/EEC expire in respect of the majority of third countries;
Whereas in the case of Austria and as far as maize is concerned further information is awaited; whereas it is therefore appropriate in this case, to grant a shorter extension of the abovementioned period, to allow time for this information to be supplied and assessed,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1
Article 3 of Decision 85/355/EEC is hereby replaced by the following:
'Article 3
This Decision shall apply from 1 July 1990 to 31 March 1992 in the case of Austria for the species Zea mays (maize), from 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1995 in the case of Austria for all other species listed in respect of that country in the table in Part I, point 2 of the Annex, from 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1992 in the case of Australia for the species Medicago sativa (lucerne) and Helianthus annuus (sunflower), from 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1995 in the case of Australia for all other species listed in respect of that country in the table in Part I, point 2 of the Annex and from 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1995 in the case of the other third countries listed in Part 1 of the Annex.' Article 2 Article 5 of Decision 85/356/EEC is replaced by the following:
'Article 5
This Decision shall apply from 1 July 1990 to 31 March 1992 in the case of Austria for the species Zea mays (maize), from 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1995 in the case of Austria for all other species listed in respect of that country in the table in Part 1, point 2 of the Annex, from 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1992 in the case of Australia for the species Medicago sativa (lucerne) and Helianthus annuus (sunflower), from 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1995 in the case of Australia for all other species listed in respect of that country in the table in Part I, point 2 of the Annex and from 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1995 in the case of the other third countries listed in Part 1 of the Annex.' Article 3 This Decision is addressed to the Member States. Done at Luxembourg, 22 April 1991.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 17 December 1982
concerning the establishments in the Republic of Guatemala from which Member States may authorize the importation of fresh meat
(82/923/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine animals and swine and fresh meat from third countries (1), and in particular Articles 4 (1) and 18 (1) (a) and (b) thereof,
Whereas establishments in third countries cannot be authorized to export fresh meat to the Community unless they satisfy the general and special conditions laid down in Directive 72/462/EEC;
Whereas Guatemala has forwarded, in accordance with Article 4 (3) of Directive 72/462/EEC, a list of establishments authorized to export to the Community;
Whereas Community on-the-spot visits have shown that the case of these establishments has to be reexamined on the basis of additional information regarding their hygiene standards and their ability to adapt quickly to the Community rules;
Whereas, in the meantime and so as to avoid any abrupt interruption of existing trade flows, these establishments may be authorized temporarily to continue their exports of fresh meat to those Member States prepared to accept them;
Whereas it will therefore be necessary to re-examine and, if necessary, amend this Decision in the light of measures taken to this end and improvements made;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, Member States shall prohibit the importation of fresh meat coming from establishments in Guatemala.
2. The Member States may continue to authorize, until 31 July 1983, imports of fresh meat coming from establishments which have been officially proposed by the Guatemalan authorities as of 1 February 1982 pursuant to Article 4 (3) of Directive 72/462/EEC, unless a decision is taken to the contrary, in accordance with Article 4 (1) of the abovementioned Directive, before 1 August 1983.
The Commission shall forward the list of these establishments to the Member States.
Article 2
This Decision shall apply from 1 January 1983.
Article 3
This Decision shall be reviewed and if necessary amended before 1 May 1983.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 17 December 1982.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
****
( 1 ) OJ NO L 94 , 28 . 4 . 1970 , P . 13 .
( 2 ) OJ NO L 367 , 31 . 12 . 1980 , P . 87 .
( 3 ) OJ NO L 216 , 5 . 8 . 1978 , P . 1 .
( 4 ) OJ NO L 28 , 5 . 2 . 1980 , P . 1 .
( 5 ) OJ NO L 130 , 29 . 5 . 1979 , P . 4 .
COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1303/81
OF 12 MAY 1981
AMENDING REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1883/78 LAYING DOWN GENERAL RULES FOR THE FINANCING OF INTERVENTIONS BY THE EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL GUIDANCE AND GUARANTEE FUND , GUARANTEE SECTION
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES ,
HAVING REGARD TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY ,
HAVING REGARD TO COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 729/70 OF 21 APRIL 1970 ON THE FINANCING OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY ( 1 ), AS LAST AMENDED BY REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 3509/80 ( 2 ), AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) THEREOF ,
HAVING REGARD TO THE PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMISSION ,
WHEREAS REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1883/78 ( 3 ), AS LAST AMENDED BY REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 249/80 ( 4 ), LISTS IN ITS ANNEX MEASURES COMPLYING WITH THE CONCEPT OF INTERVENTION INTENDED TO STABILIZE THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 729/70 ; WHEREAS THIS ANNEX SHOULD BE UPDATED , AS A NUMBER OF MEASURES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED , EXTENDED OR REPEALED SINCE IT WAS LAST AMENDED ;
WHEREAS CERTAIN SECTORS HAVE DEVELOPED CONSIDERABLY SINCE 1978 AND HAVE HAD THEIR RULES CONSOLIDATED ; WHEREAS THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED ; WHEREAS THE ABOVEMENTIONED ANNEX HAS ALREADY BEEN AMENDED BY REGULATIONS ( EEC ) NO 1030/79 ( 5 ) AND ( EEC ) NO 249/80 ; WHEREAS , THEREFORE , THE WHOLE OF THE ANNEX SHOULD BE COLLECTED TOGETHER IN A SINGLE LIST ;
WHEREAS , FOR THE MEASURES WHICH DO NOT APPEAR IN THE NEW ANNEX , BUT IN RESPECT OF WHICH IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EXPENDITURE IS BEING INCURRED , THE FORMER ANNEXES CONTINUE TO APPLY ,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION :
SOLE ARTICLE
THE ANNEX TO REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1883/78 IS HEREBY REPLACED BY THE ANNEX TO THIS REGULATION .
THIS REGULATION SHALL BE BINDING IN ITS ENTIRETY AND DIRECTLY APPLICABLE IN ALL MEMBER STATES .
DONE AT BRUSSELS , 12 MAY 1981 .
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 16 November 2000
defining the specifications of projects of common interest identified in the sector of the trans-European energy networks by Decision No 1254/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
(notified under document number C(2000) 2683)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2000/761/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Decision No 1254/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 1996, laying down a series of guidelines for trans-European energy networks(1), as last amended by Decision No 1741/1999/EC(2), and in particular Article 6(4) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The projects of common interest identified by Decision No 1254/96/EC should be specified by indicating their location and, where required, their main characteristics.
(2) By Decision No 97/548/EC(3), the Commission has defined the specifications of the projects of common interest identified by Decision No 1254/96/EC.
(3) Since projects of common interest have developed and new projects of common interest have been introduced by amendments to Decision No 1254/96/EC, those specifications should be adapted accordingly. It is therefore expedient to replace Decision No 97/548/EC.
(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 9 of Decision No 1254/96/EC,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The specification of the projects of common interest identified by Decision No 1254/96/EC shall be as set out in the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
Decision No 97/548/EC is repealed.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 November 2000.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Directive 2003/16/EC
of 19 February 2003
adapting to technical progress Annex III to Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products(1), as last amended by Commission Directive 2003/1/EC(2), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,
After consulting the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-food Products Intended for Consumers (SCCNFP),
Whereas:
(1) The Scientific Committee for Cosmetic Products and Non-food Products Intended for Consumers (SCCNFP) recommends that musk xylene can be safely used in cosmetic products, excluding oral care products, up to a maximum daily theoretically absorbed dose of about 10μg/kg/day.
(2) The SCCNFP recommends that musk ketone can be safely used in cosmetic products, excluding oral care products, up to a maximum daily theoretically absorbed dose of about 14μg/kg/day.
(3) Pending completion of the risk assessment of these two substances in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances(3), these two substances have been provisionally included, until 28 February 2003, in Part 2 of Annex III to Directive 76/768/EEC.
(4) The risk assessment has not yet been completed in accordance with the abovementioned Regulation. Therefore, the period of inclusion of musk xylene and musk ketone in Part 2 of Annex III to Directive 76/768/EEC should be extended.
(5) The measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the adaptation to technical progress of Directives on the removal of technical barriers to trade in the cosmetic products sector,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The date "28.2.2003" is replaced by "30.9.2004" for reference numbers 61 and 62 in Part 2, column g, of Annex III to Directive 76/768/EEC.
Article 2
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 28 February 2003 at the latest. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.
Article 3
This Directive shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 4
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 February 2003.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1090/2005
of 12 July 2005
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.
(2)
In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 July 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 July 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 894/2009
of 28 September 2009
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,
Whereas:
Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 29 September 2009.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 September 2009.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC, EURATOM) No 202/2005
of 18 January 2005
amending Regulation No 422/67/EEC, No 5/67/Euratom determining the emoluments of the President and Members of the Commission and of the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice and of the President, Members and Registrar of the Court of First Instance
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 210 thereof,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 123 thereof,
Having regard to Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (1),
Whereas:
(1)
The Council, pursuant to Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom, attached to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities a judicial panel to hear disputes involving the civil service, known as the ‘European Union Civil Service Tribunal’.
(2)
Article 225a, sixth paragraph, of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 140b, sixth paragraph, of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community provide that the provisions of those Treaties relating to the Court of Justice are to apply to the judicial panels.
(3)
It is necessary to determine the salaries, pensions and allowances of the President, Members and Registrar of this Tribunal.
(4)
It is accordingly necessary to amend Council Regulation No 422/67/EEC, No 5/67/Euratom (2),
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation No 422/67/EEC, 5/67/Euratom is hereby amended as follows:
1.
the title shall be replaced by the following:
2.
the following Article shall be inserted:
‘Article 21c
1. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, the provisions of this Regulation concerning the President, Members and Registrar of the Court of Justice and the President, Members and Registrar of the Court of First Instance shall apply to the President, Members and Registrar of the Civil Service Tribunal.
2. The basic monthly salary of the President, Members and Registrar of the Civil Service Tribunal shall be equal to the amount resulting from application of the following percentages to the basic salary of an official of the European Communities on the third step of grade 16 (the third step of grade A*16 until 30 April 2006):
-
:
President
:
104 %,
-
:
Members
:
100 %,
-
:
Registrar
:
90 %.
3. The monthly entertainment allowance referred to in Article 4(3) shall amount to:
-
:
President
:
EUR 554,
-
:
Members
:
EUR 500,
-
:
Registrar
:
EUR 400.
The President of the Civil Service Tribunal and the Presidents of the chambers of three judges shall in addition receive, during their term of office, a special duty allowance of EUR 500 per month’.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 January 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.