utterance
stringlengths 594
850k
| label
listlengths 11
11
|
|---|---|
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 165/86
of 27 January 1986
adopting exceptional measures for the market in pigmeat in Italy
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 3768/85 (2), and in particular Article 20 thereof,
Whereas because of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in a production region in Italy the consigning of live pigs originating in that region is temporarily prohibited from any part of the territory situated within a radius of 10 km around any outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease recorded after 1 November 1985; whereas these restrictions also apply in trade in live animals and meat with the other Member States pursuant to Commission Decision 85/632/EEC of 18 December 1985 on certain protective measures against foot-and-mouth disease in Italy (3), as amended by Decision 86/7/EEC (4);
Whereas pigmeat may be consigned for storage outside that region on condition that the provisions of Council Directive 72/461/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat (5), as last amended by Directive 85/322/EEC (6), are complied with;
Whereas, in order to take account of the limitations to free circulation resulting from the situation, exceptional measures to support the market in that specific region must be taken;
Whereas it is therefore appropriate to fix private storage aid for certain sensitive products in accordance with detailed implementing rules for the granting of private storage aid in the pigmeat sector adopted by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1092/80 (7), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 201/85 (8);
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 27 January until 1 March 1986 applications for private storage aid in the pigmeat sector may be made to the Italian intervention agency in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1092/80 and of this Regulation.
Only products coming from pigs reared within a radius of 10 km around any outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease recorded after 1 November 1985 in the province of Reggio Emilia, Local Health Units 9, 11 and 12; in the province of Modena, Local Health Units 14, 16 and the northern part of Local Health Unit 17 delimited in the south by a line drawn from east to west from the junction of its border with that of Local Health Units 12 and 13 and in the province of Bologna, Local Health unit 26, can be subject to this aid. Storage may take place outside the restricted zone as defined above provided that the provisions of Directive 72/461/EEC on health problems are complied with.
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 aid shall be adjusted accordingly. The amounts of the supplements per month and the deductions per day are set out in columns 6 and 7 of the Annex.
Article 2
The minimum quantities per contract and per product shall be 2 tonnes.
Article 3
The security shall be 20 % of the amounts of aid set out in the Annex.
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 27 January 1986.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 January 1986.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organization of the market in raw tobacco
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 42 and 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 the operation and development of the common market for agricultural products must be accompanied by the establishment of a common agricultural policy to include in particular a common organization of markets which may take various forms depending on the product;
Whereas it is the purpose of the common agricultural policy to achieve the objectives of Article 39 of the Treaty, and, in particular in the raw tobacco sector, the stabilization of markets and a fair standard of living for the agricultural population concerned; whereas these objectives may be achieved by adapting resources to requirements, in particular by means of a quality policy;
Whereas the present situation on the tobacco market, on which supply does not correspond to demand, calls for a substantial overhaul of the Community arrangements which have governed the market hitherto, while ensuring the continuation of tobacco growing by the traditional producers; whereas such an overhaul requires simplification of the market management mechanisms, limitation of production in line with the requirements of the market and the demands of the budget, and stronger means of control to ensure that the management mechanisms fully achieve the objectives of the common market organization;
Whereas tobacco varieties can be classified in groups according to cultivation technique and production costs, taking account of the descriptions used in international trade;
Whereas competition on the tobacco market calls for some support of traditional tobacco producers; whereas such support should be based on a premium system allowing the disposal of tobacco in the Community;
Whereas the premium system can be managed efficiently by means of cultivation contracts between growers and first processors which guarantee stable outlets to the growers and regular supplies to the processor; whereas payment of a sum equivalent to the premium by the processor to the producer at the time of delivery of the tobacco covered by the contract, subject to compliance with the quality requirements, provides support for the growers while facilitating management of the premium system;
Whereas, in order to limit Community tobacco production and to discourage the production of varieties which are not readily disposed of, a maximum global guarantee threshold should be laid down for the Community and divided annually into specific guarantee thresholds for the respective groups of varieties;
Whereas, to ensure that the guarantee thresholds are observed, a processing quota system must be instituted for a limited period; whereas for a transitional period the Member States must allocate, within the guarantee thresholds, processing quotas to the firms concerned, the Community rules laid down for the purpose being applied to ensure fair allocation on the basis of quantities processed in the past, but disregarding any abnormal production levels; whereas the necessary measures will be taken to permit the quotas to be allocated to the producers subsequently, under satisfactory conditions; whereas Member States possessing the necessary data to allocate quotas to producers on the basis of past performance, should be authorized to do so;
Whereas first processors must not conclude cultivation contracts for quantities exceeding the quotas allocated; whereas reimbursement of the premium must be limited to an amount corresponding to the quota;
Whereas provision should be made initially for the premium and production limitation systems to run until 1997 so that they can be reviewed in the light of experience and possibly adapted for the subsequent period;
Whereas measures to orientate production can help to stabilize the tobacco market and improve the quality of production; whereas specific aid will enable producer groups to contribute towards the improvement of the organization and orientation of production; whereas a research programe financed with the proceeds of a deduction from the premium will enable tobacco growing to be brought more closely into line with Community requirements as regards public health; whereas, lastly, a conversion programme for growers of Mavra, Tsebelia, Forchheimer Havanna IIc and hybrids of Geudertheimer tobacco is necessary because of the importance of these varieties for the economy of certain Community regions;
Whereas the establishment of a single market requires a single system of trade at the external frontiers;
Whereas quantitative restrictions at the Community's external frontiers can be dispensed with; whereas, however, should exceptional circumstances arise, in order not to leave the Community market without protection against any disturbance, the Community should be able to take all the necessary measures without delay;
Whereas unforeseen market circumstances may necessitate the adoption by the Commission of exceptional market support measures;
Whereas the achievement of a single market would be jeopardized by the grant of certain aids; whereas the Treaty provisions governing the appraisal of aids granted by Member States and the prohibition of aids incompatible with the common market should be applied to the tobacco sector;
Whereas, in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (4), the Community should bear financial responsibility for expenditure incurred by Member States pursuant to this Regulation;
Whereas experience shows that more stringent controls in the tobacco sector are essential, whereas in appropriate cases certain powers of control could be assigned to an independent supervisory agency to deal with the specific requirements of the tobacco market;
Whereas the common organization of the tobacco market must take account, simultaneously and appropriately, of the objectives laid down in Article 39 and 110 of the Treaty;
Whereas the transition from the arrangements instituted by Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on the common organization of the market in raw tobacco (5), to the arrangements provided for herein must take place in the best possible conditions; whereas transitional measures may prove necessary to ensure this; whereas the new arrangements should not become fully applicable until the 1993 harvest,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The common organization of the market in raw tobacco shall comprise rules on:
- a premium system,
- measures to orientate and limit production,
- arrangements for trade with third countries.
The common organization shall cover raw or unmanufactured tobacco and tobacco refuse falling within CN heading 2401.
Article 2
Raw tobacco varieties shall be classified in the following groups:
(a) flue-cured:
tobacco dried in ovens with controlled air circulation, temperature and humidity;
(b) light air-cured:
tobacco dried in the air under cover, not left to ferment;
(c) dark air-cured:
tobacco dried in the air under cover, left to ferment naturally before being marketed;
(d) sun-cured:
tobacco dried in the sun;
(e) fire-cured:
tobacco dried by fire;
(f) Basma (sun-cured);
(g) Katerini (sun-cured);
(h) Kaba-Koulak (classic) and similar (sun-cured).
The varieties in each group are listed in the Annex.
TITLE I Premium system
Article 3
1. From the 1993 harvest until the 1997 harvest a premium system shall be applied. The amount of the premium shall be the same for the tobacco varieties in each of the various groups.
2. However, for flue-cured, light air-cured and dark air-cured tobaccos grown in Belgium, Germany and France, a supplementary amount shall be granted. This amount shall be equal to 50 % of the difference between the premium granted for these tobaccos in accordance with paragraph 1 and the premium applicable for the 1992 harvest.
3. The purpose of the premium shall be to supplement the incomes of producers whose products correspond to market requirements and to facilitate the disposal of tobacco produced in the Community.
Article 4
1. In accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 43 (2) of the Treaty, the Council shall fix the amount of the premium and the supplementary amounts for each tobacco harvest, taking particular account of past and foreseeable possibilities for the disposal of the various types of tobacco, under normal conditions of competition, on the Community and world markets.
2. The amount of the premium shall be fixed:
(a) per kilogram of leaf tobacco not having undergone first processing and market preparation;
(b) for each group of raw tobacco.
Article 5
Granting of the premium shall be subject in particular to the following conditions:
(a) the tobacco must come from a production area specified for the variety concerned;
(b) quality requirements must be fulfilled;
(c) the leaf tobacco must be delivered by the producer to the premises of the first processor under a cultivation contract.
Article 6
1. Cultivation contracts shall comprise:
- an undertaking by the first processor to pay to the grower, in addition to the purchase price, a sum equal to the premium at the time of delivery for the quantity under contract and effectively delivered;
- an undertaking by the grower to deliver to the premises of the first processor raw tobacco corresponding to the quality requirements.
2. The competent body shall reimburse the amount of the premium to the first processor against presentation of proof that the grower has delivered the tobacco and that the amount referred to in paragraph 1 has been paid.
Article 7
Detailed rules for the application of this Title shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 23.
They shall comprise:
- delimitation of the production areas for each variety,
- quality requirements for delivered tobacco,
- additional points to be included in the cultivation contract and the final date for its conclusion,
- the possible obligation for the first processor to provide a security if he requests an advance, and the conditions governing the provision and release of the said security,
- specific conditions for the grant of the premium in cases where the cultivation contract is concluded with a group of producers,
- measures to be taken in the event of failure of the grower or first processor to fulfil his statutory obligations.
TITLE II System of production limitation
Article 8
A maximum global guarantee threshold for the Community is hereby fixed at 350 000 tonnes of raw leaf tobacco per harvest. However, for 1993, this threshold is fixed at 370 000 tonnes.
Every year, within this limit the Council shall fix, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 43 (2) of the Treaty, a specific guarantee threshold for each group of varieties, taking particular account of market conditions and socio-economic and agronomic conditions in the production areas concerned.
Article 9
1. To ensure observance of the guarantee thresholds a system of processing quotas is hereby instituted for the harvests of 1993 to 1997.
2. For each harvest, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 43 (2) of the Treaty, the Council shall allocate among the producer Member States the quantities available for each group of varieties.
3. On the basis of the quantities allocated pursuant to paragraph 2 and without prejudice to the application of paragraph 5, Member States shall distribute processing quotas on a transnational basis for the 1993 and 1994 harvests among the first processors in proportion to the average quantities delivered for processing during the three years preceding the year of the last harvest, broken down by group of varieties. However, production in 1992 and deliveries from this harvest shall not be taken into account. The procedure for allocating processing quotas for the following harvests shall not be affected by this allocation.
First processors who start business after the beginning of the reference period shall obtain a quantity proportional to the average quantity delivered for processing during their period of business.
For first processors which begin business in the year of harvest or during the preceding year, Member States shall reserve 2 % of the total quantities availabe to them by group of varieties. Within this percentage, the said first processors shall obtain a quantity not exceeding 70 % of their processing capacity, provided that they offer adequate guarantees as to the efficiency and long-term viability of their business.
4. However, Member States may distribute quotas directly to producers if they dispose of the necessary data on production of all producers for the three harvests preceding the last harvest, in relation to varieties and quantities produced and delivered to a processor.
5. When the quotas are allocated as provided for in paragraphs 3 and 4, no account shall be taken in particular, when calculating the reference production, of any quantities of raw tobacco produced in excess of the maximum guaranteed quantities applicable under Regulation (EEC) No 727/70.
Where appropriate, production shall be taken into account only within the limit of the quota allocated during the years taken into consideration.
Article 10
A first processor may not conclude cultivation contracts or be reimbursed the amount of the premium for quantities exceeding the quota allocated to him, or to the producer.
Article 11
Detailed rules for the application of this Title shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 23. They shall include the adjustments, as provided for in Article 9 (5), in the method of distribution of the quotas and the preconditions for applying the quotas at the level of the producers, in particular in relation to their previous situations.
TITLE III Measures to convert production
Article 12
1. In order to concentrate supply and adapt it to the qualitative requirements of the market, specific aid equivalent to 10 % of the premium shall be granted where cultivation contracts are concluded between a first processor and a recognized group of producers and where the deliveries covered by such contracts account for the entire output of the members of the group.
2. Specific aid shall be paid to the producers' group for the purpose of improving the organization and orientation of production.
3. Detailed rules for the application of this Article shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 23. They shall include:
- the definition of producers' groups eligible for specific aid,
- the conditions for recognizing producers' groups,
- the use to which specific aid may be put.
Article 13
1. A Community fund for tobacco research and information shall be set up. It shall be financed from the proceeds of a deduction not exceeding 1 % from the premium at the time of payment.
2. The fund shall finance and coordinate programmes of research and information to promote greater knowledge of the harmful effects of tobacco and the appropriate preventive and curative measures relevant to such effects and to orientate Community tobacco production towards the least harmful varieties and qualities.
3. Detailed rules for the application of this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 23.
Article 14
A three-year programme for the conversion of plantations of Mavra, Tsebelia, Forchheimer Havanna IIc and hybrids of Geudertheimer tobacco to varieties more in line with market requirements or to other agricultural crops shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 23. The programme shall be launched beginning with the 1993 harvest. It may comprise specific measures to compensate growers for any loss of income due to the conversion.
TITLE IV Trade with third countries
Article 15
Except where this Regulation provides otherwise or where the Commission adopts a derogation in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 23, the following shall be prohibited in trade with third countries:
(a) the collection of any charge with an effect equivalent to a customs duty;
(b) the application of any quantitative restriction or measure with equivalent effect.
Article 16
1. If, by reason of imports or exports, the Community market in one or more of the products referred to in Article 1 suffers or is liable to suffer serious disturbance which may jeopardize the objectives of Article 39 of the Treaty, appropriate measures may be taken in respect of trade with third countries until the disturbance or threat of disturbance has ceased.
2. If the situation referred to in paragraph 1 arises, the Commission shall, at the request of a Member State or on its own initiative, decide on the necessary measures, which shall be notified to the Member States and be immediately applicable. If the Commission receives a request from a Member States it shall take a decision thereon within 24 hours after receipt of the request.
3. The measures taken by the Commission may be referred to the Council by any Member State within three working days of the date of notification. The Council shall meet without delay. It may amend or repeal the measure in question by a qualified majority.
TITLE V General and transitional provisions
Article 17
In order to deal with unforeseen market circumstances, exceptional support measures may be taken in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 23. The scope and duration of such measures may not exceed that which is strictly necessary to support the market.
Article 18
Except where this Regulation provides otherwise, Articles 92, 93 and 94 of the Treaty shall apply to production of and trade in the products referred to in Article 1.
Article 19
Expenditure incurred pursuant to Title I and III shall be regarded as expenditure within the meaning of Article 1 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70.
Article 20
1. Member States shall take all the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the Community provisions concerning raw tobacco. To this end they shall notify to the Commission, within six months after the adoption of this Regulation, the arrangements they intend to make for the purposes of management and control. Within three months after such notification the Commission shall approve the arrangements or ask for adjustments. Where adjustments are required the Member State shall make them at the earliest opportunity. Any modification of national arrangements shall be notified without delay by the Member States to the Commission and examined by it in accordance with the same procedure.
2. Each producer Member State shall set up, in accordance with its legal order, a specific agency to carry out certain checks in connection with the Community arrangements for tobacco. However, Member States who have a threshold quantity of less than 45 000 tonnes pursuant to Article (9) 2, may choose not to set up such an agency.
3. The agency shall be given complete administrative autonomy. It shall be given full powers by the Member States concerned to carry out the tasks assigned to it.
Its staff shall be sufficient in number and level of training to accomplish the tasks specified above.
4. Before the beginning of each marketing year, the Member State concerned shall, acting on a proposal from the agency, draw up and send to the Commission a budget estimate and work schedule to ensure correct application of the premium system. The Commission may ask the Member State, without prejudice to the responsibilities of the latter, to make any change in the budget estimate or work schedule that it deems appropriate.
Persons designated by the Commission may at any time monitor any of the work carried out by the agency.
The agency shall submit to the Member State and the Commission regular reports on the work which it has carried out. Such reports must mention any problems encountered and, where appropriate, suggestions as to how to improve the checking arrangements.
5. 50 % of actual expenditure by the agency shall be chargeable to the general budget of the European Communities, the remainder being covered by the Member State concerned.
6. The annual amount representing the actual expenditure referred to in paragraph 5 shall be decided upon by the Commission on the basis of the particulars provided by the Member States concerned. The amount shall be granted when the Commission is satisfied that the agency has been set up and is performing the work assigned to it. In order to facilitate the setting-up and operation of the agency, the amount in question may be paid in advance in the form of instalments during the year in question, in accordance with the agency's annual budget, the latter being drawn up with the agreement of the Member State and the Commission before the end of October of each following year.
7. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the inspection officers designated pursuant to paragraphs 2 to 4:
- have access to the premises of production, processing and marketing,
- can examine accounting data and other documents relevant to the checking procedure, and make copies or take extracts from them,
- can ask for any relevant information.
8. Detailed rules for the application of this Article shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 23.
Article 21
Member States and the Commission shall send each other any information necessary for the application of this Regulation. Detailed rules for the sending and dissemination of such information shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 23.
Article 22
A Management Committee for Tobacco (hereinafter called 'the Committee') shall be established, consisting of representatives of Member States and presided over by a representative of the Commission.
Article 23
1. The representative of the Commission shall submit to the Committee a draft of the measures to be taken. The Committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft within a time limit which the chairman may lay down according to the urgency of the matter. The opinion shall be delivered by the majority laid down in Article 148 (2) of the Treaty in the case of decisions which the Council is required to adopt on a proposal from the Commission. The votes of the representatives of the Member States within the Committee shall be weighted in the manner set out in that Article. The chairman shall not vote.
2. The Commission shall adopt measures which shall apply immediately. However, if these measures are not in accordance with the opinion of the Committee, they shall be communicated by the Commission to the Council. In that event the Commission may defer application of the measures which it has decided for a period of not more than one month from the date of such communication.
3. The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may take a different decision within the time limit referred to in the previous paragraph.
Article 24
The Committee may consider any other matter raised by its chairman, either on his initiative or at the request of the representative of a Member State.
Article 25
This Regulation must be applied in such a way that account is taken, simultaneously and appropriately, of the objectives laid down in Articles 39 and 110 of the Treaty.
Article 26
Before 1 April 1996 the Commission shall submit a proposal to the Council concerning the arrangements provided for in Titles I and II for application from the 1998 harvest onwards. The Council shall act on this proposal in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 43 (2) of the Treaty.
Article 27
Where transitional measures prove necessary to facilitate the transition from the arrangements set up by Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 to those laid down in this Regulation, such measures shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 23.
Article 28
Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 is repealed with effect from the 1993 harvest.
Article 29
This Regulation shall apply from the 1993 harvest.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 30 June 1992.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1120/86
of 17 April 1986
repealing the definitive countervailing duty on imports of tube and pipe fittings of malleable cast iron originating in Spain
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 of 23 July 1984 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), and in particular Articles 7 and 14 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consultations within the Advisory Committee provided for in that Regulation,
Whereas the following is the case:
A. Definitive action
1. Regulation (EEC) No 706/84 (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2901/85 (3), imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tube and pipe fittings of malleable cast iron originating in Spain and falling within heading No ex 73.20 of the Common Customs Tariff corresponding to Nimexe code 73.20-30.
B. Review
2. In connection with the accession of Spain to the European Communities, the Spanish Government has introduced, with effect from 1 January 1986, a new turnover tax system based on value added (Impuesto sobre el Valor Añadido), which replaced the former cascade turnover tax system (Impuesto sobre el Tráfico de las Empresas y Recargos Provinciales).
C. Repeal of definitive countervailing duty
3. It is considered that as a result of the application of the new tax mentioned in paragraph 2, the refund of the indirect taxes on export corresponds to the indirect taxes borne by the product when destined for domestic consumption and therefore does not, in accordance with Article 3 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84, constitute a subsidy. Under these circumstances, the definitive countervailing duty is no longer appropriate and, consequently, Regulation (EEC) No 706/84 should be repealed with effect from 1 January 1986.
4. Under Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 (5), importers are entitled to a refund of countervailing duties paid on goods released for free circulation in the Community since 1 January 1986,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 706/84 is hereby repealed.
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 as from 1 January 1986.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 17 April 1986.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 906/2008
of 15 September 2008
terminating the new exporter review of Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain magnesia bricks 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(4) and Article 11(4) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
Whereas:
1. PROCEDURE
1.1. Existing measures
(1)
The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 (2) (the original Regulation), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain magnesia bricks originating in the People’s Republic of China (the PRC). The measures consist of an ad valorem duty rate of 39,9 %, with the exception of six companies expressly mentioned in the original Regulation which are subject to individual duty rates.
1.2. Request for a review
(2)
Subsequent to the imposition of definitive measures, the Commission received an application to initiate a new exporter review of Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005, pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, from a Chinese exporting producer, Yingkou Dalmond Refractories Co. Ltd (the applicant). The applicant claimed that it was not related to any of the exporting producers in the PRC subject to the anti-dumping measures in force with regard to magnesia bricks. Furthermore, it claimed that it had not exported magnesia bricks during the original period of investigation (from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004), but had exported them to the Community after that period.
1.3. Initiation of a new exporter review
(3)
The Commission examined the prima facie evidence submitted by the applicant and considered it sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accordance with Article 11(4) 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 Regulation (EC) No 1536/2007 (3), a review of Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 with regard to the applicant.
(4)
Pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1536/2007, the anti-dumping duty of 39,9 % imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 was repealed with regard to imports of magnesia bricks produced and sold for exports to the Community by the applicant. Simultaneously, pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation, customs authorities were directed to take appropriate steps to register such imports.
1.4. Product concerned and like product
(5)
The product concerned is the same as that described in the original Regulation, i.e. chemically bonded, unfired magnesia bricks, whose magnesia component contains at least 80 % MgO, whether or not containing magnesite, originating in the PRC, currently classifiable within CN codes ex 6815 91 00, ex 6815 99 10 and ex 6815 99 90 (TARIC codes 6815910010, 6815991020 and 6815999020).
(6)
The like product is also the same as that defined in the original Regulation.
1.5. Parties concerned
(7)
The Commission officially advised the Community industry, the applicant and the representatives of the exporting country of the initiation of the review. Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to be heard.
(8)
The Commission sent a market economy treatment (MET) claim form and a questionnaire to the applicant and received a reply within the deadline set for that purpose. The Commission sought to verify all the information it deemed necessary for the determination of dumping, and verification visits were carried out at the premises of the applicant and the following cooperating related companies in the PRC:
-
Yingkou Dalmond Refractories Co. Ltd (the applicant),
-
Liaoning Qunyi Group Refractories Co. Ltd (the mother company),
-
Yingkou Guangshan Refractories Co. Ltd (related producer),
-
Dalian Dalmond Trading Co. Ltd (related exporter).
1.6. Investigation period
(9)
The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 April 2006 to 30 September 2007 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
2. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION
2.1. New exporter qualification
(10)
The Community industry argued that the applicant was exporting the product concerned to the Community as early as 2004 and backed this assertion by various website pages and catalogues of the applicant mentioning sales in the Community. However, these documents did not mention specifically the product concerned or the date of the export, and the examination of the sales ledger of the applicant and its related companies showed no evidence of such exports. The investigation confirmed that the applicant had not exported the product concerned during the original investigation period and that it had begun exporting to the Community after that period.
(11)
Furthermore, the applicant was able to satisfactorily demonstrate that it did not have any links, direct or indirect, with any of the Chinese exporting producers subject to the anti-dumping measures in force with regard to the product concerned.
(12)
Accordingly, it was confirmed that the company should be considered a ‘new exporter’ in accordance with Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation.
2.2. Market economy treatment (MET)
(13)
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports from the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article 2 of the basic Regulation for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, i.e. where it is shown that market economy conditions prevail in respect of the manufacture and sale of the like product. These criteria are set out in a summarised form below:
-
business decisions are made in response to market signals, without significant State interference, and costs reflect market values,
-
firms have one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards (IAS) and applied for all purposes,
-
there are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system,
-
bankruptcy and property laws guarantee stability and legal certainty,
-
currency exchanges are carried out at market rates.
(14)
The applicant requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and was invited to complete a MET claim form.
(15)
In the course of the investigation the applicant submitted a number of MET claims for its related companies. After analysis of the claims, the Commission identified four MET claims for verification of companies involved in the production and sale of the product concerned. These companies are listed in recital 8 of this Regulation. However, at a late stage of the investigation, it was found that the applicant was related to another producer and another exporter of the product concerned located in the PRC. These companies did not fill a separate MET claim form and thus it was not possible to assess the situation of the whole group within which the applicant is operating.
(16)
It is the Commission’s consistent practice to examine whether a group of related companies, as a whole, fulfils the conditions for MET. This is deemed to be necessary to avoid sales of a group of companies being channelled via one of the related companies in the group, should a preferential individual duty rate be granted to that company. Therefore, in cases where a subsidiary or any other related company is a producer and/or a seller of the product concerned, all such related companies have to provide a MET claim form to enable an examination of whether the criteria in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation are met. The failure of the applicant to disclose the existence of these companies alone is sufficient to conclude that it cannot be established whether the group as a whole fulfils all the conditions for MET.
(17)
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the investigation revealed that out of the four companies of the group that submitted MET claim forms, only one company fulfilled all the conditions for granting MET. The remaining three companies did not fulfil the first three criteria mentioned in recital 13 above.
(18)
As regards the mother company, this company did not demonstrate that it was free from State interference. Firstly, the source of the capital of the company incorporated in 2001 could not be established and the accounts demonstrating the capital import could not be reconciled (criterion one). Secondly, this company did not substantiate that it had one clear set of basic accounting records prepared and audited in compliance with IAS. In particular, the company did not have individual audited accounts. It only had audited consolidated financial statements, specifically prepared upon request of a creditor. Furthermore, the unaudited individual accounts also showed several breaches of the IAS, concerning fixed assets and depreciation, booking of certain assets and the revaluation of assets (criterion two).
(19)
As regards the applicant, it did not demonstrate that it was free from State interference. In particular, its articles of association (AoA), which were communicated to the State authorities in order to obtain a business licence, contained restrictions for sales on the domestic market. In addition, the company was unable to provide a contract for the supply of energy (criterion one). Secondly, the company did not substantiate that it had one clear set of basic accounting records, which were prepared and audited in compliance with IAS (criterion two). Finally, the applicant did not demonstrate that it was free from significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, in particular because not all its initial assets were independently evaluated, and because it benefited from significant tax rebates (criterion three).
(20)
As regards the third company, it did not demonstrate that business decisions were made in response to market signals, without significant State interference, and that its costs reflect market values (criterion one). Secondly, this company did not demonstrate that it had one clear set of basic accounting records, which were prepared and audited in compliance with IAS: several breaches of IAS were noted such as the late booking of revenues, or incorrect depreciation of fixed assets (criterion two). Finally, the company did not demonstrate that it was free from significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, in particular because the initial assets of the company could not be considered as independently evaluated (criterion three).
(21)
Based on the above facts and considerations, the applicant and the group as a whole, in which it operates, could not be granted MET.
(22)
The Community industry, the applicant and the authorities of the exporting country were given an opportunity to comment on the findings concerning MET. Only the applicant submitted such comments.
(23)
The applicant first argued that the two companies discovered at a late stage of the investigation as mentioned in recital 15 above did not have to submit MET claims. According to the applicant, MET claims should be submitted by producers and traders of the product concerned during the IP. The two companies in question were not involved in the production or sale of the product concerned during the IP and beyond because the related exporter was liquidated at the beginning of 2008, and the related producer was not fully operational during the IP since it has not obtained a production licence.
(24)
In this regard it is recalled that the applicant was given an opportunity to and provided MET claims for most of its related companies. However, it failed to disclose the existence of these two companies within the deadlines set for this purpose, as explained in the following recitals 25 and 26.
(25)
The existence of the alleged liquidated exporter was discovered by the Commission and confirmed by the applicant just before the verification visit in the PRC. The company did not file an MET claim and, in addition, the applicant, despite a request from the Commission, did not provide any accounting records and other relevant information to clarify the exact activities of this company during the IP. Therefore, the Commission was unable to establish that this company was not involved in the sale of the product concerned during the IP.
(26)
As regards the related producer, its existence was communicated to the Commission during the verification visit in the PRC and thus, since this producer was located in another province, the Commission was unable to verify on the spot the exact nature of its operations and whether in fact the company had not started production of the product concerned. It was found that although the company has not yet obtained a production licence, its business licence granted in 2007, namely during the IP, covers the manufacturing of the product concerned. This related producer should therefore have submitted an MET claim.
(27)
The failure to disclose the existence of these two companies and submit MET claims deprived the Commission of the possibility to verify the subsequently submitted information on their activities and to assess whether the group of companies satisfied the conditions for granting MET.
(28)
The applicant also claimed that the parent company should not have been included in the scope of the MET investigation given that it is neither a producer nor an exporter of the product concerned.
(29)
The parent company exercises control over its related companies, including their activities with regard to the product concerned. Thus any finding showing that the parent company is not following market economy principles has a direct impact on the whole group. The investigation demonstrated that strong links existed between the mother company and its subsidiaries, in particular with the applicant and another cooperating company of the group involved in the product concerned. There were many transactions between the said companies. In addition, the assets and overhead expenses were not clearly separated. Moreover, the parent company indicated during the verification visit its intention to produce magnesia bricks in the future, and there was nothing in its business licence to prevent this company from doing so. On this basis this claim had also to be rejected.
(30)
The applicant acknowledged that the company mentioned in recital 20 above does not fulfil all MET criteria, but claimed that it should no longer be considered as a producer since it was currently renting its production facilities to a related producer.
(31)
In this respect it was found that this company has the capability to resume production on its own right at any time in the future. Therefore, this claim had to be rejected.
(32)
The applicant made further claims and brought new elements allegedly demonstrating that the company mentioned in recital 19 above meets all the MET criteria. These claims are described and discussed below.
(33)
As regards criterion one, the applicant further argued that any restriction in the AoA is purely a private agreement between shareholders in which the State did not interfere. The applicant also claimed that the Chinese Contract Law did not impose any obligation to sign a written contract for energy supply.
(34)
In this regard, it is noted that the Chinese Company Law provides that the AoA of companies are binding on the company, shareholders, directors, supervisors and senior management. Moreover, the AoA and any changes thereof are required to be registered with the State authorities. Contrary to the claim of the applicant, it was also found that the Chinese Contract Law makes clear reference to contracts for supply and use of energy and contains clear provisions on the content of such contracts. On this basis, the claims concerning criterion one were rejected.
(35)
As regards criterion two, the applicant provided documents alleging that shortcomings found in the accounts, in particular for a transaction between related companies, were corrected later in April 2008, and argued that criterion two was thus fulfilled.
(36)
In this respect, it is noted that any alleged remedy applied in 2008 cannot remedy the fact that the accounts of the applicant which were provided in the claim form were not reliable as indicated in recital 19 above. On this basis, this claim had to be rejected.
(37)
As regards criterion three, the applicant claimed that the capital verification report provided in its MET claim should be sufficient in itself to certify the evaluation of its assets. The applicant also claimed that the tax rebates should not have been taken into account in the framework of the present anti-dumping investigation as this issue is relevant only for anti-subsidy investigations.
(38)
It is noted that the investigation found that the capital verification report was found to be erroneous and thus cannot be considered as a reliable independent basis for the evaluation of the assets. Concerning the tax rebates obtained by the applicant, it is considered that it distorts significantly the financial situation of the company and indeed has an impact on the third MET criterion. Therefore, these claims concerning criterion three had to be rejected.
(39)
On the basis of the above, the Commission maintained its findings and conclusions concerning the criteria one to three. It is thus confirmed that the applicant and the group in which it operates cannot be granted MET.
2.3. Individual treatment (IT)
(40)
Further to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, a country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria for individual treatment (IT) set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation. These criteria are set out in a summarised form below:
-
in the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits,
-
export prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined,
-
the majority of the shares belong to private persons, and it must be demonstrated that the company is sufficiently independent from State interference,
-
exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate,
-
State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.
(41)
The applicant, as well as requesting MET, also claimed IT in the event of not being granted MET.
(42)
As explained in recital 16 above, it is the Commission’s consistent practice to examine whether a group of related companies, as a whole, fulfils the conditions for IT. As indicated in recital 15, there was one additional producer and one exporter related to the applicant during the IP which did not cooperate with the present investigation. Thus, no conclusion could be made on whether these two companies fulfilled the criteria for IT.
(43)
It is therefore concluded that neither MET nor IT should be granted to the applicant.
(44)
The applicant, the authorities of the exporting country and the interested parties were given an opportunity to comment on the above findings. Only the applicant submitted the comments below.
(45)
The applicant first reiterated its claim that the investigation on both MET and IT should focus only on producers and traders of the product concerned during the IP, and alleged that the two companies which did not cooperate were not involved in the production or sale of the product concerned. Then it further argued that the Commission officials received all necessary information to assess IT for the two non-cooperating companies while they were on the spot.
(46)
On the first claim, it is noted that the exact activity of these two companies during the IP could not be checked during the verification visit precisely because of non-cooperation, as mentioned in particular in recital 15 above. Therefore, the applicant did not demonstrate that the two non-cooperating companies had not produced or were not involved in the sale of the product concerned during the IP. It is also noted that, whatever the activity of the producer during the IP, it should be included in the assessment of the group for the reasons explained in particular in recital 16 above. It is thus maintained that these two companies should have cooperated in the investigation.
(47)
As mentioned in recital 24 to 27 above, the information provided during the on-the-spot visit was insufficient to make an assessment concerning IT for the two non-cooperating companies. In addition, this information was not provided within the time limit set for the submission of the IT claim and was provided so late that it did not allow its verification by the Commission. Therefore this claim had to be rejected.
(48)
The applicant further submitted that the Commission’s current practice to examine IT criteria is an infringement of Article 2.3 of the WTO Anti Dumping Agreement, since this agreement should be considered as an integral part of the EC legal order.
(49)
However, given the non-cooperation from two related companies, IT criteria were not further examined in the present investigation, and the issue of their compatibility with WTO rules was thus irrelevant in the present case. Therefore this claim could not be further considered.
(50)
Based on the above facts and considerations, it is thus confirmed that the applicant and the group in which it operates cannot be granted IT.
3. CONCLUSION
(51)
The purpose of the present review was to determine the individual margin of dumping of the applicant, which was allegedly different from the current residual margin applicable to imports of the product concerned from the PRC. The request was mainly based on the allegation that the applicant fulfilled the criteria for MET.
(52)
As the investigation concluded in particular that, in the absence of cooperation from its related producer and exporter, the applicant was granted neither MET nor IT, the Commission could not establish that the applicant’s individual dumping margin was indeed different from the residual dumping margin established in the original investigation. Therefore, the request made by the applicant should be rejected and the new exporter review terminated. The residual anti-dumping duty found during the original investigation, i.e. 39,9 %, should consequently be maintained as far as the applicant is concerned.
4. RETROACTIVE LEVYING OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY
(53)
As the review has resulted in a determination of dumping in respect of the company, the anti-dumping duty applicable to the company should be levied retro-actively on imports of the product concerned which have been made subject to registration pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1536/2007.
5. DISCLOSURE AND DURATION OF THE MEASURES
(54)
The applicant was informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on its imports into the Community and was given the opportunity to comment.
(55)
This review does not affect the date on which Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 will expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. The new exporter review initiated by Regulation (EC) No 1536/2007 is hereby terminated and the anti-dumping duty applicable according to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 to ‘all other companies’ in the People’s Republic of China is hereby imposed on imports identified in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1536/2007.
2. The anti-dumping duty applicable according to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1659/2005 to ‘all other companies’ in the People’s Republic of China is hereby levied with effect from 22 December 2007 on imports of certain magnesia bricks which have been registered pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1536/2007.
3. The customs authorities are hereby directed to cease the registration of imports carried out pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1536/2007.
4. Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 1(2) shall apply with effect from 22 December 2007.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 September 2008.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Council Decision
of 16 July 2003
on the granting of aid by the Belgian Government to certain coordination centres established in Belgium
(2003/531/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 88(2) thereof,
Having regard to the application made by the Belgian Government on 26 May 2003,
Whereas:
(1) In a letter dated 26 May 2003 Belgium, in accordance with Article 88(3) of the Treaty, informed the Commission of its plan to apply until 31 December 2005 to certain undertakings authorised to act as coordination centres under Royal Decree No 187 of 30 December 1982 (as supplemented or amended by subsequent legislation), and whose authorisations are due to expire between 17 February 2003 and 31 December 2005, a special type of tax treatment as described in that letter. In a letter of the same date, registered at the General Secretariat of the Council on 26 May 2003, Belgium submitted to the Council a reasoned request for a decision in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 88(2) of the Treaty declaring that the measures Belgium is planning to introduce are compatible with the common market.
(2) The coordination centres in question are responsible for the financial and administrative coordination of multinational groups.
(3) In adopting Royal Decree No 187 of 30 December 1982 (as supplemented and amended by subsequent legislation), Belgium introduced special tax arrangements for coordination centres to take account of the particular nature of their activities and of the international environment in which they operate.
(4) The Commission did not raise any objection to those arrangements in 1987 and 1990. It looked at them again under Article 88 of the Treaty after adoption of the Commission notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation(1) and the examination made of tax measures derogating from the Member States' normal tax rules in the context of the Council's proceedings on the Code of Conduct for business taxation.
(5) Within the framework of the Council's discussions on tax policy and of the Code of Conduct Follow-up Group, the Council meeting on 26 and 27 November 2000 approved conclusions on the rollback of potentially harmful arrangements whereby their effects on enterprises subject to harmful arrangements on 31 December 2000 would cease on 31 December 2005 at the latest, regardless of whether the arrangements were granted for a predetermined period. The Council also reserved the right to grant a possible extension beyond 31 December 2005 for some arrangements to take account of special circumstances.
(6) By Decision of 17 February 2003(2) the Commission declared the Belgian arrangements for coordination centres to be incompatible with the common market. Under that Decision, Belgium is obliged to abolish the aid arrangements in question or amend them to make them compatible with the common market, although the effects of the arrangements may continue until expiry of each current individual authorisation or until 31 December 2010, whichever is the earlier.
(7) The undertakings referred to in Belgium's application hold temporary but renewable authorisations under Royal Decree No 187. Their authorisations expire before 1 January 2006.
(8) The multinational groups of which the coordination centres covered by the planned aid arrangements form part have made considerable investments in those centres. Without the new aid which Belgium plans to grant they might be obliged to cease operating in Belgium.
(9) Cessation of the activities of the coordination centres covered by the new aid would have negative economic and social repercussions for Belgium.
(10) The new aid planned is temporary. It is intended to avoid irreversible loss of financial business and jobs in Belgium and in the Community by enabling the beneficiaries to continue operating in Belgium, at least for the period necessary to enable Belgium to introduce other measures for coordination centres established on its territory or to facilitate reorganisation of the investments of the multinational groups in question, avoiding abrupt termination of contracts.
(11) By contrast, the absence of any special tax arrangements for the coordination centres in question in the period until 31 December 2005 might cause a collapse of large multinationals' confidence in the Belgian State and have significant economic repercussions for Belgium in the long term as well.
(12) Since the Commission Decision of 17 February 2003 allows the effects of the arrangements for the coordination centres to be maintained until deadlines which fall after 31 December 2005, depending on the expiry date of the current authorisation, and other Commission Decisions grant deadlines until 31 December 2010 for competitive special tax arrangements in other Member States, application of the special measures planned by Belgium should not cause any distortions of competition which are out of proportion to the anticipated benefits. Moreover, it is compatible with the balanced dismantling of comparable special arrangements in the Member States and their dependent or associated territories sought by the Council in its proceedings on the Code of Conduct for business taxation.
(13) Exceptional circumstances therefore exist making it possible to consider as compatible with the common market the new aid planned by Belgium for coordination centres authorised as at 31 December 2000 and whose authorisations expire before 1 January 2006, which consists in granting them the tax treatment described in its letter of 26 May 2003 until 31 December 2005.
(14) Given the urgency of the matter, it is imperative to grant an exception to the six-week period mentioned in paragraph I(3) of the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The aid which Belgium plans to grant in the period up to 31 December 2005 to undertakings authorised as at 31 December 2000 to act as coordination centres under Royal Decree No 187 of 30 December 1982, and whose authorisations expire between 17 February 2003 and 31 December 2005, shall be considered compatible with the common market; by way of derogation from the general rules on taxation, it involves:
- application of the normal corporate tax rate to a theoretical tax base corresponding to a variable percentage of certain operating costs (the "cost plus" method). However, an alternative tax base is used if it exceeds the tax base resulting from application of the "cost plus" method; this alternative tax base includes the abnormal or benevolent advantages received by the centres and non-deductible expenses,
- application of a special annual tax of EUR 10000 per employee, with a ceiling of EUR 100000,
- exemption from the précompte immobilier (property tax) on buildings owned by the centres which they use for their professional activity,
- exemption from précompte mobilier (withholding tax) on dividends, interest and royalties paid by the centres except, in the case of interest, where the beneficiary is subject to tax on natural persons or to tax on legal persons,
- exemption from précompte mobilier (withholding tax) on revenue which the centres receive from money deposits,
- exemption from the 0,50 % registration tax on subscriptions of capital and on increases in authorised capital.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.
Done at Brussels, 16 July 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2610/86
of 19 August 1986
repealing Regulation (EEC) No 3068/85 suspending tariff concessions and increasing duties under the Common Customs Tariff with regard to certain products originating in the United States of America
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 by Regulation (EEC) No 3068/85 (1) the Council suspended tariff concessions and increased duties under the Common Customs Tariff with regard to certain products originating in the United States of America in order to offset the unilateral measures taken by the United States of America with regard to imports of pasta products from the Community;
Whereas negotiations recently took place, the outcome of which must be submitted for examination by the competent authorities of both sides; whereas, however, pending such examination and without prejudice to its outcome, unilateral measures on both sides should be repealed;
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 3068/85 should therefore be repealed,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 3068/85 is hereby repealed.
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, 19 August 1986.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 20/2003
of 6 January 2003
suspending the preferential customs duties and re-establishing the Common Customs Tariff duty on imports of small-flowered roses originating in Israel
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 and 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)(b) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87 lays down the conditions for applying a preferential duty on large-flowered roses, small-flowered roses, uniflorous (bloom) carnations and multiflorous (spray) carnations within the limit of tariff quotas opened annually for imports into the Community of fresh cut flowers.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001(3), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 786/2002(4), opens and provides for the administration of Community tariff quotas for cut flowers and flower buds, fresh, originating in Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Malta, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip respectively.
(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 19/2003(5) fixes the Community producer and import prices for carnations and roses for the application of the import arrangements.
(4) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 700/88(6), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2062/97(7), lays down the detailed rules for the application of the arrangements.
(5) On the basis of prices recorded pursuant to Regulations (EEC) No 4088/87 and (EEC) No 700/88, it must be concluded that the conditions laid down in Article 2(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87 for suspension of the preferential customs duty are met for small-flowered roses originating in Israel. The Common Customs Tariff duty should be re-established.
(6) The quota for the products in question covers the period 1 January to 31 December 2003. As a result, the suspension of the preferential duty and the reintroduction of the Common Customs Tariff duty apply up to the end of that period at the latest.
(7) In between meetings of the Management Committee for Live Plants and Floriculture Products, the Commission must adopt such measures,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For imports of small-flowered roses (CN code ex 0603 10 10 ) originating in Israel, the preferential customs duty fixed by Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 is hereby suspended and the Common Customs Tariff duty is hereby re-established.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 8 January 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 January 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 256/2007
of 9 March 2007
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 10 March 2007.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 March 2007.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1720/91 of 13 June 1991 amending Regulation No 136/66/EEC on the establishment of a common organization of the market in oils and fats
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, the support schemes for oilseeds applicable from 1 July 1992 need to be adjusted; whereas the Council must accordingly take decisions in good time on the future scheme;
Whereas, if the Council fails to take these decisions in good time, the Commission will have to have the authority to lay down the transitional measures strictly needed in order to avoid market disruption;
Whereas, in view of this reform, the end of the 1991/92 marketing year for sunflower seed should also be brought forward to 30 June 1992;
Whereas the maximum guaranteed quantity system provided for in Article 27 a of Regulation No 136/66/EEC (4), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3577/90 (5), should be extended for one last marketing year;
Whereas, in order to improve the accuracy of output estimates under this system, the final date for these estimates should be postponed to the end of October;
Whereas the level of support for rapeseed in Spain must be the same as that applicable in the rest of the Community,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Notwithstanding Article 22 (3) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC, the 1991/92 marketing year for sunflower seed shall end on 30 June 1992.
Article 2
Regulation No 136/66/EEC is hereby amended as follows:
1. The following subparagraph shall be added to Article 27 a (1):
'Notwithstanding the preceding subparagraph, the Council shall fix the maximum guaranteed quantities, for the 1991/92 marketing year only, at the same level as for the 1990/91 marketing year.'
2. In Article 27 a (3) 'estimated before the end of the second month of the marketing year' shall be replaced by 'before the end of October'.
3. The following subparagraph shall be added to Article 27 a (3):
'Notwithstanding the first and second subparagraphs, the adjustment of the amount of aid for rapeseed produced in Spain for the 1991/92 marketing year shall be fixed so that the adjusted target price is the same in Spain as in the Community as constituted at 31 December 1985.'
Article 3
In accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 43 (2) of the Treaty, the Council shall, by 31 October 1991 at the latest, take a decision on the new scheme applicable to oilseeds with effect from 1 July 1992.
Article 4
If the Council fails to take a decision by 31 October 1991, the Commission shall be authorized, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 38 of Regulation No 136/66/EEC, to adopt transitional measures strictly needed to avoid market disruption.
Article 5
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Articles 1 and 2 shall apply:
- from 1 July 1991 as regards rapeseed,
- from 1 August 1991 as regards sunflower seed.
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,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 561/97 of 26 March 1997 amending Regulation (EC) No 1685/95 on arrangements for issuing export licences for wine-sector products
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 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 (EC) No 1592/96 (2), and in particular Articles 52 (3) and 83 thereof,
Whereas Article 2a (2) of 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 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) 495/97 (4), introduces the possibility of extending the validity of export licences to cover products other than those indicated on the licence provided that those products belong to the same product category or group to be determined; whereas, in the interests of consistency, the product groups referred to in Article 2a (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 should be introduced in the wine sector in order to avoid excessive penalties; whereas this is necessary because products eligible for refunds are subdivided into categories with a different refund rate based on their alcoholic strength; whereas the alcoholic strength of an exported product is only known at the time of export by means of the analysis certificate referred to in Article 3 (1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3389/81 of 27 November 1981 laying down detailed rules for export refunds in the wine sector (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2730/95 (6); whereas the alcoholic strength may differ from that indicated on the licence with consequences for the refund rate;
Whereas the current wording of Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1685/95 (7), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 69/97 (8), may cause misunderstandings regarding the authority which must enter the wording provided for in that Article and the time when it must be entered; whereas the fact that the exported quantity exceeds the quantity indicated on the licence can only be noted at the time of export; whereas, when issuing licences, the issuing bodies must indicate that no refund will be paid for the exported quantity exceeding that indicated on the licence; whereas the wording of the abovementioned Article 6 should therefore be amended;
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 (EC) No 1685/95 is amended as follows:
1. the following paragraph 3 is added to Article 2:
'3. The product groups referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 2a (2) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 which may be entered on the licence application and licence in accordance with the fourth subparagraph of Article 13a of Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 are listed in Annex Ia hereto.`;
2. the first part of Article 6 is replaced by the following:
'Article 6
The excess quantity exported within the tolerance referred to in Article 8 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 shall not give entitlement to payment of the refund.
At least one of the following entries shall be made in box 22:`;
3. the Annex hereto is inserted as Annex Ia.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
At the request of the interested party, submitted by 26 March 1998, Article 1 (1) shall be applied in cases in which the formalities referred to in Articles 3 and 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 were completed from 1 September 1995 onwards.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 March 1997.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2109/84
of 23 July 1984
correcting Regulation (EEC) No 1768/84 on a special intervention measure for common wheat in Greece
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1451/82 (2), and in particular Article 8 (4) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1768/84 (3) opened an invitation to tender in order to determine the amount of the refund on the export of 200 000 tonnes of common wheat from Greece;
Whereas a material transmission error has occurred in connection with the publication of the said Regulation; whereas the text as published is not identical with the draft Regulation on which the Management Committee for Cereals gave its opinion; whereas, therefore, the Regulation in question should be corrected,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 1768/84 is hereby corrected as follows:
1. Article 2 (4) is replaced by the following:
'4. Tenders must be submitted to one of the intervention agencies named in the notice of invitation to tender.'
2. In Article 2 (2) of the Danish, Greek, Italian and Dutch language versions:
'haard hvede',
'skliroý sítoy',
'frumento duro',
'durum tarwe',
are replaced by the following respectively:
'bloed hvede',
'malakoý sítoy',
'frumento tenero',
'zachte broodtarwe'.
3. In Article 1 (1) in the Italian language version, 'frumento duro' is replaced by 'frumento tenero'.
4. In Article 1 (1) in the Italian language version, '150 000 tonnes' is replaced by '200 000 tonnes'.
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 27 June 1984.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 July 1984.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 9 April 2003
authorising Member States to provide for temporary derogations from certain provisions of Council Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of plants of strawberry (Fragaria L.), intended for planting, other than seeds, originating in Argentina
(notified under document number C(2003) 1183)
(2003/248/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community(1), as last amended by Commission Directive 2003/22/EC(2), and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,
Having regard to the request made by France,
Whereas:
(1) Under Directive 2000/29/EC, plants of strawberry (Fragaria L.), intended for planting, other than seeds, originating in non-European countries, other than Mediterranean countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the continental states of the United States of America, may not in principle be introduced into the Community. However, that Directive permits derogations from that rule, provided that it is established that there is no risk of spreading harmful organisms.
(2) In Argentina, the multiplication of plants of Fragaria L., intended for planting, other than seeds, from plants supplied by a Member State, has become an established practice. The plants produced are afterwards exported to the Community to be planted for fruit production.
(3) Since 1993, by a succession of decisions, the most recent being Commission Decision 2001/441/EC(3), derogations from certain provisions of Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of plants of Fragaria L., intended for planting, other than seeds, originating in Argentina, have been authorised for limited periods and subject to specific conditions.
(4) The circumstances justifying those derogations are still valid and there is no new information giving cause for revision of the specific conditions.
(5) The Member States should therefore be authorised to provide for derogations, for certain limited periods and subject to specific conditions.
(6) That authorisation to provide for derogations should be terminated if it is established that the specific conditions laid down in this Decision are not sufficient to prevent the introduction of harmful organisms into the Community or have not been complied with.
(7) 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
Member States are authorised to provide for derogations from Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC, with regard to the prohibitions referred to in point 18 of Part A of Annex III, to that Directive for plants of strawberry (Fragaria L.), intended for planting, other than seeds, originating in Argentina (hereinafter referred to as the plants).
The authorisation to provide for derogations, as provided for in paragraph 1 (hereinafter referred to as the authorisation), shall be subject, in addition to the conditions laid down in Annexes I, II and IV to Directive 2000/29/EC, to the conditions provided for in the Annex, and shall only apply to the plants that are introduced into the Community, in the periods from:
(a) 1 June 2003 to 30 September 2003;
(b) 1 June 2004 to 30 September 2004;
(c) 1 June 2005 to 30 September 2005; and
(d) 1 June 2006 to 30 September 2006.
Article 2
Member States shall provide the Commission and the other Member States, before 30 November of the year of importation, with:
(a) the information on quantities of plants imported pursuant to this Decision; and
(b) a detailed technical report of the official inspections and testing referred to in point 5 of the Annex.
Any Member State in which the plants are subsequently planted after their import, shall also provide the Commission and the other Member States, before 31 March of the year following the importation, with a detailed technical report of the official inspections and testing referred to in point 8 of the Annex.
Article 3
Member States shall immediately notify the Commission and the other Member States of all consignments introduced into their territory pursuant to this Decision which were subsequently found not to comply with this Decision.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 April 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2001
of 27 September 2001
fixing the rates of the refunds applicable to certain cereal and rice-products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty
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 1666/2000(2), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1667/2000(4), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 and Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 provide that the difference between quotations of prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1 of each of those Regulations and the prices within the Community may be covered by an export refund.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 of 13 July 2000 laying down common implementing rules for 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(5), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2390/2000(6), specifies the products for which a rate of refund should be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Annex B to Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 or in Annex B to Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 as appropriate.
(3) In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question must be fixed for each month.
(4) The commitments entered into with regard to refunds which may be granted for the export of agricultural products contained in goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty may be jeopardised by the fixing in advance of high refund rates. Whereas it is therefore necessary to take precautionary measures in such situations without, however, preventing the conclusion of long-term contracts. Whereas the fixing of a specific refund rate for the advance fixing of refunds is a measure which enables these various objectives to be met.
(5) Now that a settlement has been reached between the European Community and the United States of America on Community exports of pasta products to the United States and has been approved by Council Decision 87/482/EEC(7), it is necessary to differentiate the refund on goods falling within CN codes 1902 11 00 and 1902 19 according to their destination.
(6) Pursuant to Article 4(3) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 provides that a reduced rate of export refund has to be fixed, taking account of the amount of the production refund applicable, pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1722/93(8), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 87/1999(9), for the basic product in question, used during the assumed period of manufacture of the goods.
(7) Spirituous beverages are considered less sensitive to the price of the cereals used in their manufacture. However, Protocol 19 of the Act of Accession of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark stipulates that the necessary measures must be decided to facilitate the use of Community cereals in the manufacture of spirituous beverages obtained from cereals. Accordingly, it is necessary to adapt the refund rate applying to cereals exported in the form of spirituous beverages.
(8) It is necessary to ensure continuity of strict management taking account of expenditure forecasts and funds available in the budget.
(9) The Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products appearing in Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 and listed either in Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 or in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95, exported in the form of goods listed in Annex B to Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 or in Annex B to amended Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 respectively, are hereby fixed as shown in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 September 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 September 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 510/93 of 5 March 1993 laying down detailed rules for implementation of the specific arrangements for the supply of sheepmeat and goatmeat sector products to the Azores and Madeira
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), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3714/92 (2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92 of 28 December 1992 on the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (3), and in particular Article 12 thereof,
Whereas pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92, it is necessary to determine for the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector for each annual period of validity, the number of pure-bred breeding sheep and goats originating in the Community which benefit from an aid with a view to developing the potential for production in the Azores and Madeira;
Whereas it is appropriate to fix the amount of aids referred to above for the supply to the Azores and Madeira of pure-bred breeding sheep and goats originating in the rest of the Community; whereas these aids must be fixed taking into account in particular the costs of supply from the Community market, and the conditions due to the geographical situation of the Azores and Madeira;
Whereas common detailed rules for implementation of the arrangements for the supply of certain agricultural products to the Azores and Madeira were laid down by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1696/92 (4); as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2132/92 (5); whereas it is appropriate to lay down additional detailed rules in line with current commercial practice in the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector, in particular regarding the duration of the validity of aid certificates and the amount of securities ensuring operators' compliance with their obligations;
Whereas with a view to sound management of the supply scheme, provision should be made for a timetable for the lodging of certificate applications and for a period of reflection for their issue;
Whereas the operative event for conversion of the amount of the aid into national currency should be the day the application for the 'aid certificate' is lodged with the competent authorities at the place of destination pursuant to Article 4 (7) of Regulation (EEC) No 1696/92, without prejudice to the possibility of the advance fixing provided for in Articles 8 to 12 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3819/92 of 18 December 1992 on detailed rules for determining and applying the agricultural conversion rates (6);
Whereas 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
The aid provided for in Article 4 (1) (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 for the supply to the Azores and Madeira of pure-bred breeding sheep and goats originating in the Community as well as the number of animals which benefit from it shall be as fixed in the Annex.
Article 2
The provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1696/92 shall apply with the exception of Article 4 (5) thereof.
Article 3
Portugal shall designate the competent authority for:
(a) the issue of the 'aid certificate' provided for in Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1696/92,
(b) the payment of the aid to the operators concerned.
Article 4
1. Applications for certificates shall be submitted to the competent authority during the first five working days of each month. An application for a certificate shall be admissible only if:
(a) it relates to no more than the maximum quantity of animals available published by Portugal prior to the opening of the time limit for the submission of application;
(b) before expiry of the period provided for the submission of applications for certificates, proof has been provided that the party concerned has lodged a security of ECU 40 per animal.
2. The certificates shall be issued by the 10th working day of each month at the latest.
Article 5
The aid certificates shall be valid for three months.
Article 6
The aid provided for in Article 1 shall be paid in respect of the quantities actually supplied.
Notwithstanding Article 4 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 1696/92 the rate to the applied for conversion into national currency of the amount of the aid shall be the agricultural conversion rate in force on the day on which the 'aid certificate' is submitted to the competent authorities at the place of destination.
Article 7
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, 5 March 1993.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 27 September 2007
amending Decision 2006/802/EC to prolong the application of the plans for the eradication of classical swine fever in feral pigs and the emergency vaccination of those pigs and of pigs in holdings against that disease in Romania
(notified under document number C(2007) 4458)
(Only the Romanian text is authentic)
(2007/625/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 2001/89/EC of 23 October 2001 on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 16(1), the second subparagraph of Article 19(3) and the fourth subparagraph of Article 20(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Decision 2006/802/EC of 23 November 2006 approving the plans for the eradication of classical swine fever in feral pigs and the emergency vaccination of those pigs and of pigs in holdings against that disease in Romania (2) was adopted as one of a number of measures to combat classical swine fever.
(2)
The Romanian authorities have informed the Commission about the evolution of the disease in Romania.
(3)
Given the epidemiological situation in Romania it is appropriate to prolong the application of the approved eradication and emergency vaccination plans.
(4)
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
Article 8 of Decision 2006/802/EC is replaced by the following:
‘Article 8
Applicability
This Decision shall apply until 31 December 2007.’
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to Romania.
Done at Brussels, 27 September 2007.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1714/88 of 13 June 1988 amending certain Regulations concerning the application of the common market organization for sugar following the introduction of the combined nomenclature
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff [1], as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1471/88 [2], and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) thereof,
[1] OJ No L 256, 7. 9. 1987, p. 1.
[2] OJ No L 134, 31. 5. 1988, p. 1.
Whereas, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, technical amendments to Community acts which include the combined nomenclature are to be made by the Commission; whereas many regulations relating to sugar must be amended technically in order to take account of the use of the combined nomenclature;
Whereas, in view of the number and content of the texts requiring such amendment, it is necessary to bring together in a single Regulation all the amendments in question,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 394/70 of 2 March 1970 on detailed rules for granting export refunds on sugar [3], as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1467/77 [4], is hereby amended as follows:
[3] OJ No L 50, 4. 3. 1970, p. 1.
[4] OJ No L 162, 1. 7. 1977, p. 6.
In Article 13(3), "heading No 17.01 of the Common Customs Tariff" is replaced by "CN code No 1701".
Article 2
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 825/75 of 25 March 1975 laying down special detailed rules for the application of export levies on sugar [5], as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1499/76 [6], is hereby amended as follows:
[5] OJ No L 79, 28. 3. 1975, p. 17.
[6] OJ No L 167, 26. 6. 1976, p. 29.
1. Annex I is replaced by following:
"ANNEX I
TABLE
"
2. Annex II is replaced by following:
"ANNEX II
TABLE
"
3. Annex III is replaced by following:
"ANNEX III
TABLE
"
"ANNEX IV
TABLE
"
Article 3
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2782/76 of 17 November 1976 laying down detailed implementing rules for the importation of preferential sugar [7], as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3819/85 [8], is hereby amended as follows:
[7] OJ No L 318, 18. 11. 1976, p. 13.
[8] OJ No L 368, 31. 12. 1985, p. 25.
Article 11 is replaced by the following:
"Article II
Prefential raw sugar which falls within CN codes 1701 11 90 and 1701 12 90 and in respect of which the differential charge is not applicable shall be subject to customs or an equivalent administrative control until it is established that it cannot be used for refining."
Article 4
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1469/77 of 30 June 1977 laying down rules for applying the levy and the refund in respect of isoglucose and amending Regulation (EEC) No 192/75 [9] is hereby amended as follows:
[9] OJ No L 162, 1. 7. 1977, p. 9.
Article 2 is replaced by the following:
"Article 2
The fixed component referred to in Article 16(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 shall be equal to that used for fixing the import levy on products falling within CN code 1702 30 91."
Article 5
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 of 18 August 1978 laying down detailed rules for the offsetting of storage costs for sugar [10], as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 89/87 [11], is hereby amended as follows:
[10] OJ No L 231, 23. 8. 1978, p. 5.
[11] OJ No L 13, 15. 1. 1987, p. 10.
1. The first indent of Article 1(2)(a) is replaced by the following:
"- who is engaged in making from sugar in the unaltered state only those sugars which fall within code 1701 or 1702, excluding CN codes 1702 50 00 and 1702 90 10, and which have different physical characteristics from the sugar used in the process,";
2. Article 8(2) is replaced by the following:
"2. Syrups obtained prior to the cristallizing stage means those syrups which fall within CN codes 1702 60 90 and 1702 90 90 and which are subsequently processed into solid sugar under customs control, or under an administrative control providing equivalent safeguards, and which are stored in special containers separated from the sugar manufacturing plant.";
3. in Article 12(1)(d), "heading No 17.01 of the Common Customs Tariff" is replaced by "CN code 1701".
Article 6
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2630/81 of 10 September 1981 on special detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences in the sugar sector [12], as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3677/86 [13], is hereby amended as follows:
[12] OJ No L 258, 11. 9. 1981, p. 16.
[13] OJ No L 351, 12. 12. 1986, p. 1.
1. Article 8(1) is replaced by the following:
"1. The security for licences for the products listed in Article 1(1)(a) to (d), (f) and (g) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 shall be per 100 kilograms net of sugar and per 100 kilograms net dry matter of isoglucose as follows:
(a) where the licence is for import or export without advance fixing of the import or export levy of the refund:
- 0,25 ECU in respect of products falling within CN codes 1701, 1702 and 2106, excluding CN codes 1702 50 00 and 1702 90 10.
- 0,05 ECU in respect of products falling within CN codes 1212 91, 1212 92 00 and CN codes 1703.
However, the security for export licences for white sugar and raw sugar, the validity of which is limited to 30 days in accordance with the second indent of Article 5 (3) (a), shall be 3,50 ECU;
(b) 0,25 ECU where the licence is for the export of C sugar or C isoglucose;
(c) where the licence is for import with advance fixing of the levy or refund and subject as otherwise provided under the terms of an invitation to tender opened in the Community:
- 3,00 ECU in respect of products falling within CN code 1701,
- 0,75 ECU in respect of products falling within CN code 1703, where the levy is not zero,
- 0,15 ECU in respect of products falling within CN code 1703, where the levy is zero;
(d) where the licence is for export with advance fixing of the refund or levy and subject as otherwise provided for under the terms of an invitation to tender opened in the Community:
- 9,00 ECU in respect of products falling within CN code 1701,
- 0,75 ECU in respect of products falling within CN code 1703,
- 3,50 ECU in respect of products falling within CN codes 1702 20, 1702 60 90, 1702 90 60, 1702 90 71, 1702 90 90 and 2106 90 59,
- 3,50 ECU in respect of products falling within CN codes 1702 30 10, 1702 40 10, 1702 60 10, 1702 90 30 and 2106 90 30;
(e) 0,25 ECU for the import licences referred to in Article 6";
2. in Article 8 (2), "Common Customs Tariff heading No 17.01" is replaced by "CN code 1701";
3. in Article 9 (1), "Common Customs Tariff heading No 17.01" is replaced by "CN code 1701";
4. in Article 10 (1), "white sugar falling within Common Customs Tariff heading No 17.01 is followed by the importation of raw sugar falling within Common Customs Tariff heading No 17.01" is replaced by "white sugar falling within code 1701 99 10 of the combined nomenclature is followed by the import of raw sugar within CN codes 1701 11 10, 1701 11 90, 1701 12 10 and 1701 12 90";
5. the Annex is replaced by the following:
"ANNEX
Calculation of the security referred to in Article 10
(ECU per 100 kilograms net)
TABLE
and so on by increases of 3,50 ECU each time"
Article 7
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota [14], as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2561/85 [15] is hereby amended as follows:
[14] OJ No L 262, 16. 9. 1981, p. 14.
[15] OJ No L 244, 12. 9. 1985, p. 23.
1. in the second subparagraph of Article 1(1) the first indent is replaced by the following:
"- as white sugar or raw sugar, non-denatured, or extracted from sugar prior to the crystallizing stage falling within CN codes 1702 60 90 and 1702 90 90, or as isoglucose in its natural state."
2. in the second subparagraph of Article 2 (2) (c), "heading No 17.01 of the Common Customs Tariff" is replaced by "CN code 1701."
Article 8
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 581/86 of 28 February 1986 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of accession compensatory amounts and fixing accession compensatory amounts in the sugar sector [16], as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2126/87 [17], is hereby amended as follows:
[16] OJ No L 57, 1. 3. 1986, p. 27.
[17] OJ No L 197, 18. 7. 1987, p. 24.
1. Article 1(1) and (2) are replaced by:
"1. Accession compensatory amounts shall not be applied in the case of syrups falling within CN codes 1702 60 90, 1702 90 90, 1702 90 60, 1702 90 71 and 2106 90 59 which are less than 85 % pure, and in the case of maple sugar and maple syrup falling within CN code 1702 20.
2. In the case of syrups falling within CN codes 1702 60 90, 1702 90 90, 1702 90 71 and 2106 90 59:
(a) which are not less than 98 % pure, the accession compensatory amount shall be based on the syrup"s recorded sucrose content;
(b) which are less than 98 % pure but not less than 85 % pure, the accession compensatory amount applicable shall be based on the extractable sugar content as recorded in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 1(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 1443/82.";
2. the Annex is replaced by the following:
"ANNEX
Accession compensatory amounts applicable in trade with Spain and Portugal
TABLE
"
APPENDIX TO THE ANNEX
ADDITIONAL CODES
TABLE 3
TABLE
"
TABLE 4
TABLE
"
TABLE 5
TABLE
"
TABLE 8
TABLE
"
TABLE 9
TABLE
"
TABLE 10
TABLE
"
TABLE 6
TABLE
"
Article 9
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1010/86 of 25 March 1986 laying down general rules for the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry [18] is hereby amended as follows:
[18] OJ No L 94, 9. 4. 1986, p. 9.
1. in Article 1 (1), "and falling within subheading 17.02 D ex II of the Common Customs Tariff" is replaced by "and falling within CN codes ex 1702 60 90 and ex 1702 90 90;
2. the Annex is replaced by the following:
"ANNEX
LIST OF CHEMICAL PRODUCTS
TABLE
"
Article 10
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 1 January 1988.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirely and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 June 1988.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 22 November 1993 concerning the granting of assistance from the cohesion financial instrument to the project concerning the Lisbon distribution network in Portugal No CF: 93/10/61/001 (Only the Portuguese text is authentic) (94/398/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 792/93 of 30 March 1993 establishing a cohesion financial instrument (1), and in particular Article 8 (6) thereof,
Whereas Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 792/93 establishes a cohesion financial instrument to provide Community support for projects in the fields of the environment and trans-European transport infrastructure networks;
Whereas pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 792/93 certain provisions of Titles VI and VII of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 concerning the 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 (2), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 (3), are to apply, mutatis mutandis;
Whereas Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 792/93 defines the types of measure for which the cohesion financial instrument may provide assistance;
Whereas Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 792/93 requires the Member States to ensure that adequate publicity is given to the operations of the financial instrument and that the measures which are described in Annex V to this Decision are undertaken;
Whereas on 3 May 1993 Portugal submitted an application for assistance from the cohesion financial instrument for a project concerning the Lisbon distribution network;
Whereas that application concerns a project which is eligible under the terms of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 792/93;
Whereas the application for assistance contains all the information required by Article 8 (4) of the Regulation and satisfies the criteria set out in Article 8 (5) of the Regulation;
Whereas the project is the result of measures taken in accordance with Article 130 s of the Treaty;
Whereas, pursuant to Article 9 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 792/93, technically and financially discrete stages of the project have been identified for the purpose of granting assistance from the financial instrument;
Whereas Article 1 of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4), as last amended by Council Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EEC) No 610/90 (5), states that the legal commitments entered into for measures extending over more than one financial year shall contain a time limit for implementation which must be specified to the recipient in due form when the aid is granted;
Whereas pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation EEC No 792/93, the Commission and the Member State will ensure that there is evaluation and systematic monitoring of the project;
Whereas the financial implementation provisions, monitoring and assessment are specified in Annexes III and IV to this Decision; whereas failure to comply with those provisions may result in suspension or reduction of the assistance granted pursuant to
Article 9
(3) of that Regulation No 792/93 and provision foreseen in Annex VI;
Whereas all the other conditions laid down, have been complied with,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. The stage of project of the Lisbon distribution network situated in Portugal as described in Annex I hereto is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 1993 to December 1994.
2. References to 'project' in the following Articles and Annexes shall be understood to mean also 'stage of project'.
Article 2
1. The maximum eligible expenditure to be taken as the basis for this Decision shall be ECU 9 772 000.
2. The rate of Community assistance granted to the project shall be fixed at 80 %.
3. The maximum amount of the contribution from the cohesion financial instrument shall be fixed at ECU 7 817 600.
4. The contribution is committed from the 1993 budget.
Article 3
1. Community assistance shall be based on the financial plan for the project set out in Annex II.
2. Commitments and payments of Community assistance granted to the project shall be made in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 792/93 and as specified in Annex III.
3. The amount of the first advance payment shall be fixed at ECU 2 877 333.
Article 4
1. Community assistance shall cover expenditure on the project for which legally binding arrangements have been made in Portugal and for which the requisite finance has been specifically allocated to works to be completed not later than 31 December 1994.
2. Expenditure incurred before 1 January 1993 shall not be eligible for assistance.
3. The closing date for the completion of national payments on the project is fixed not later than 12 months after the date mentioned in subparagraph 1.
Article 5
1. The project shall be carried out in accordance with Community policies, and in particular with Articles 7, 30, 52 and 59 of the Treaty, as well as with Community law, in particular with the Directives coordinating public procurement procedures.
2. This Decision shall not prejudice the right of the Commission to commence infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty.
Article 6
Systematic monitoring and assessment of the project take place in accordance with the provisions set out in Annex IV hereto.
Article 7
The Member State concerned shall ensure adequate publicity for the project as specified in Annex V.
Article 8
Each Annex to this Decision shall form an integral part of it.
Article 9
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Decision or its Annexes may entail a reduction or suspension of assistance in accordance with the provisions set out in Annex VI.
Article 10
This Decision is addressed to Portugal.
Done at Brussels, 22 November 1993.
|
[
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 11 October 1988
relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
(Case No IV/32.173 - Continental/Michelin)
(Only the French and German texts are authentic)
(88/555/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty [1], as last amended by the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, and in particular Articles 2, 4, 6 and 8 thereof,
Having regard to the application for negative clearance or exemption, filed on 27 October 1986 by Continental Gummi-werke AG, Hanover, Federal Republic of Germany (hereinafter referred to as "Continental"), and by the Compagnie Général des Établissements Michelin, Michelin et Cie, Clermont-Ferrand, France (hereinafter referred to as "Michelin"), of the cooperation agreement concluded by them on 4 November 1983 for the development of a new run-flat tyre/wheel system,
Having published a summary of the agreement and of the notification in accordance with Article 19 (3) of Regulation No 17 [2],
Having consulted the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions,
Whereas:
I. THE FACTS
A. The procedure
(1) On 27 October 1986, Continental and Michelin notified the Commission of a cooperation agreement entered into by them on 4 November 1983 on the development of a new run-flat tyre/wheel system for passenger car tyres. Pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation No 17, they applied for negative clearance or, alternatively, exemption under Article 85 (3) of the Treaty.
B. The undertakings concerned
(2) Continental Gummi-Werke AG is a major tyre manufacturer whose head office is situated in Hanover, Federal Republic of Germany. It has subsidiaries within and outside the Community. Continental has since 1979 acquired three other tyre manufacturers: in 1979, the European Uniroyal companies (now "Uniroyal Englebert"), whose head offices are situated in Aachen, Federal Republic of Germany, Herstal, Belgium, and Clairoix, France (group shareholding of 100 %); in 1985, Semperit Reifen AG, whose head office is situated in Vienna, Austria (group shareholding of 75 %); and in 1987, General Tire Inc., whose head office is situated in Acron, Ohio, USA (group shareholding of 100 %). With the acquisition of General Tire, Continental has become one of the largest tyre manufacturers in the world.
(3) The Michelin Group owned by the parent company Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin, Michelin et Cie, whose head office is situated in Clermont-Ferrand, France, is according to its own figures the second largest tyre manufacturer in the world after Goodyear, USA. It has subsidiaries within and outside the Community. The Group also owns Kléber (Pneumatiques Kléber, group shareholding of 92,9 %).
C. The product
(4) Continental has since 1979 been working on the development of a new tyre/wheel system. Under the new system, in contrast to previous systems, the tyre engages radially the inner periphery rather than the outer periphery of the rim.
+++++ TIFF +++++
The tyre therefore - in contrast to the present system - grips the rim from the outside and hooks up behind the radially inward projecting rim flanges. The system is therefore known as the reversed hooking tyre system or RHT system. Its main advantage compared with the present system is that, in the event of a puncture, the new tyre is pressed against the supporting surface of the rim and continues to run on it when flat without the side-wall of the tyre touching the road surface. In the case of conventional tyres, such contact of the side-walls of the tyre when flat with the road surface, together with the friction between the side-walls within the tyre, would quickly lead to the tyre's destruction. With the new system, the driver can continue to drive for several hunderd kilometres at reduced speed with a flat tyre. This development potentially makes it possible to dispense with the spare wheel.
The parties also claim that the novel construction of the tyre and rim might offer other advantages compared with the traditional system.
These include:
- reduced weight due to dispensing with the spare wheel,
- more room for mounting the brakes,
- improved ride.
The development of the RHT system is at present restricted to passenger car tyres.
D. The market
(5) The tyre market is worldwide. It is covered by a relatively small number of suppliers. A total of 84 % of all sales is accounted for by 10 groups of firms. In 1987, Michelin held second position on the world market and Continental fourth position. Michelin estimates its share of the world market at 18 %, while Continental estimates its world market share at 4 %. Within the European Community, Michelin (including Kleber) is the largest and Continental the second largest supplier. Michelin's share of the Community market for passenger car tyres may be estimated at […] [3] and Continental's share at […].
(6) Sales of car tyres can be subdivided into two groups: sales to the motor-vehicle industry for fitting to new cars (original equipment) and sales to the tyre trade for the replacement of worn tyres (replacement equipment). The parties estimate that some 40 % of all tyres are sold as initial equipment and 60 % as replacement tyres.
E. The agreement notified
(7) The purpose of the cooperation agreement was, during an initial stage, to assess the RHT system developed by Continental in terms of its characteristics, qualities and performance in comparison with current radial tyres, both under normal rolling conditions and while flat. Should such assessment be successful, the purpose of the agreement was, during a second stage, to develop RHT tyres further on the basis of the tyre developed by Continental. In cooperation with customers and in accordance with their needs, a joint system of tyre size standardization and physical tolerances of RHT tyres is to be established.
The parties have agreed to unlimited exchange of information only with regard to the mounting systems, architecture and geometry of the new tyre.
Exchange of information is limited:
- in the case of the rim, to its geometic definition,
- in the case of component parts, to the physical characteristics of the compounds utilized,
- in the case of tests, to the testing methods and results,
- in the case of manufacturing methods, to the basic principles of the manufacturing processes for the tyre bead area.
Information is not in principle exchanged on the formula or the methods of refinement of the compounds utilized in perfecting the RHT. Information is to be provided here only if the other party is otherwise unable to develop and manufacture the RHT.
When the agreement was notified, the parties were at the second stage of cooperation. Following comparison of their respective technical knowledge (patents and know-how), they have been working on a division-of-labour basis on the development of the RHT system. Since the agreement was concluded (on 4 November 1983), a large number of joint meetings has taken place.
(8) With regard to the development of the RHT system during the present second stage of cooperation and the joint assessment of results, the agreement contains the following further provisions:
1. Length of cooperation
The cooperation is to continue until the completion of the first RHT and for five years thereafter following the year in which the RHT has been marketed by one of the parties. The cooperation is subsequently automatically renewed for additional periods of one year unless terminated by one of the parties by the furnishing of six months prior written notice to the other party.
During the first four years following the conclusion of the agreement, the results of the cooperation are to be periodically reviewed in order to determine whether it should be continued, modified or terminated. Should one of the parties then decide to terminate the cooperation, the other party may continue to utilize the other's patents and know-how. If one of the parties terminates the cooperation because it has developed a new tyre with better run-flat characteristics, that party must offer to revise the agreement with the other party so that the new technology may be incorporated in it.
2. Extension of the scope of cooperation
The agreement may be extended to include the development of the RHT for other categories of tyres. For such categories of tyres the time limit for the period of cooperation will commence on the date of the decision to extend the scope of cooperation. Although the relevant decisions were supposed to have been made by 1 April 1988, the Commission has not received any information on any extension of the scope of cooperation.
3. Joint exploitation of patents and know-how
It is provided that each party shall remain the owner of its own work product and all improvements thereto made in the course of the cooperation. Where results are developed from mutually conceived ideas, the respective research and development managers of each party shall decide on a case-by-case basis who will be the owner of the rights deriving therefrom. The agreement provides for the setting-up of a common entity by 1 April 1986 in a country to be agreed upon. Although the common entity has not as yet been set up, the parties still intend to do so, and its legal form is still being examined.
Each party is to hold an equal interest in the common entity, and its decisions are to be taken by mutual agreement. The research and development managers of each of the parties are to be co-executive directors of the common entity. As defined in the agreement, the common entity's sole function is the exploitation of patents and know-how. Once it has been set up, it is to have the following tasks:
- it will be the sole and exclusive agent for the patents and know-how as long as one of the patents remains valid in any country,
- it will ensure the collection and distribution of the royalties paid by third parties for the patents and know-how.
As defined in the agreement, patents means all patents and patent applications existing at the time the agreement was concluded and any future patents and patent applications relating to the cooperation and specifically needed for the manufacture, use and sale of the RHT in any country.
As defined in the agreement, know-how means any confidential information developed or acquired (with a right to disclose) by either party prior to or during the term of the agreement, relating to the cooperation and specifically needed for the manufacture, use and sale of the RHT in any country.
4. Grant of licences
The common entity will grant licences in the following cases:
- a worldwide, non-exclusive licence covering all of the patents and know-how resulting from the cooperation is to be granted to either party if it decides to undertake the industrial manufacture of the RHT during the term of the agreement or thereafter,
- a non-exclusive licence covering all of the patents and know-how resulting from the cooperation will be granted upon request by one of the parties and after consultation with the other party to any other tyre manufacturer for the manufacture and sale of RHT tyres,
- a similar licence will be granted at Continental's request to its current licensees,
- each of the parties may grant any of the abovementioned licensees its know-how, information and technical assistance not covered by the agreement upon such terms and conditions as that party and the other manufacturer may agree. In such cases, the common entity may at that party's request act as the collection agent.
5. Infringement of patents and confidentiality
The parties will provide mutual assistance in action against patent infringements, with the common entity paying for the expenses incurred.
The parties are required to keep confidential all technical information exchanged between them or their affiliates for a period of five years after the expiry of the agreement. Nevertheless, the party benefiting from such information will be released from the obligation of confidentiality if it can establish its own prior knowledge thereof, if the information was already public knowledge or if it has become public knowledge due to acts of third parties not involving the benefiting party.
6. Commercial development
The parties are not subject to any restrictions in deciding whether or not to market the RHT or any of the component parts of the system. However, they are required to advise the other party six months in advance, if the RHT is to be marketed.
The parties will coordinate their positions in presenting the RHT to all official authorities for their approval.
The parties are free in their choice of motor vehicle manufacturer(s) and the conditions on which they will present and sell the RHT; however, they agree to coordinate the technical presentation of the RHT to motor vehicle manufacturers.
Cooperation in the commercial development of the RHT will continue for two years following the year in which the RHT is first marketed by one of the parties.
F. The parties' submissions
(9) The parties have essentially put forward two arguments to justify their cooperation, namely the need for further technical development of Continental's prototype to the manufacturing stage and the fact that an individual tyre manufacturer cannot on its own introduce a new system such as the RHT-system on to the market, since the motor-vehicle industry strictly avoids becoming dependent on a single tyre manufacturer so as not to risk its own production being brought to a standstill in the event of disruptions in supplies by that single supplier. The industry's concern always to have at least two sources of supply is, it is argued, particularly great in the case of the RHT, since the motor vehicle industry would have to adapt to the new tyre/wheel system in the construction of its cars.
In this connection, the parties have stated that they will offer licences on reasonable terms to all interested competitors. They add that the purchasing power of the motor vehicle industry is so great that in practice they would not do otherwise since it will probably be insisted upon by the industry.
(10) With regard to the further technical development of the prototype, the parties have pointed to the many problems arising from the new system of hooking the tyre to the rim. In addition to the construction of the rim itself, these involve finding solutions to construction-related changes in the running characteristics of the new tyre which make it equal or indeed superior to the conventional radial tyre.
The parties have cited the following areas of work as examples of their continuing cooperation:
- alignment of non-flat quality standards for the RHT,
- optimization of rim contour and of possible solutions for the bead of the tyre with regard to contour and structure,
- methods for measuring and criteria for assessing the tyre uniformity and ways of perfecting it,
- assessment and improvement of the performance qualities of the tyre under normal rolling conditions and when flat,
- standardization of tyre, rim, valve and cover strips,
- procedure for mounting the tyre on the rim.
Continuing cooperation is also justified by reference to the work to be carried out jointly with the motor vehicle manufacturers to adapt vehicles to both partners' tyres and by the fact that both partners will, even after the RHT has been developed, remain responsible for solving problems that will arise only once the new tyre has entered into day-to-day use.
With regard to the large number of technical problems, the parties have stated that it was doubtful from the outset whether Continental would have been able to solve such problems at all or at least without considerable loss of time and that cooperation was therefore appropriate with a partner that could provide the project with the necessary impetus on the basis of its technical development potential.
(11) Lastly, the partners emphasize that their cooperation is restricted to the areas which are directly connected with the development of the new wheel/tyre system and that they will otherwise remain competitors. This means that, while the RHT tyres ultimately manufactured by them will be based on the same system and must satisfy the technical requirements of the system, they will otherwise differ from one another in terms of compounds, profile and non-system-related structure, as do current radial tyres of different makes.
G. Comments from third parties
Comments were received from third parties in response to the summary of the notified cooperation agreement published in accordance with Article 19 (3) of Regulation No 17. The subsidiaries of Goodyear and Firestone within the Community spoke of the market power enjoyed by Continental and Michelin and feared that they would not be granted licences or only belatedly. Firestone also expressed concern that it would suffer from the establishment of standards for the new tyre system if it were not promptly informed about them.
In view of the parties' statements concerning licences (see 9 above), these fears appear groundless.
It is also true that Michelin and Continental, together with Goodyear, Firestone and all the other important tyre manufacturers are members of the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO), based in Brussels. ETRTO establishes standards for tyres, rims and valves. Continental has already notified four sizes of the new tyre and, with the agreement of other members, these have been published in the 1988 ETRTO Standards Manual.
II. LEGAL ASSESSMENT
A. Article 85 (1)
Agreement between undertakings
(12) Continental and Michelin are undertakings within the meaning of Article 85 (1), and the cooperation agreement is an agreement within the meaning of that provision.
Restrictions of competition
(13) Through the agreement, Continental and Michelin have given precedence to cooperation for the development of the RHT rather than to the separate development by each of them of their own run-flat tyre. Article 3.3.4 of the agreement reads as follows: "Should the Cooperation be terminated by one Party in accordance with Article 3.3.2 due to the development by that Party of a new technology having better prospects for run-flat characteristics, that Party shall offer to revise this Agreement with the other Party so that such technology may be incorporated herein under similar and reasonable terms."
Although Michelin has stated that the group has for years been working on the development of run-flat tyres that have led to systems competing with the RHT, the agreement has not so far been extended to include any such system. The Commission concludes from this not only that Michelin has in the mean time concentrated on the joint development of the RHT system because it is technically superior to its own systems on which it has been working, but also that both partners are in practice agreed to concentrate on the development of the RHT and to abandon the development of their own systems. This involves a restriction of their freedom of action.
(14) On the other hand, the partners have pointed out that their cooperation is restricted to the development of the RHT system and that, on the basis of that system, they will market competing tyres under their own trade marks that will show significant differences in inportant respects, such as the rubber mixture, the profile and width of the tread, and the strength of the side walls.
The Commission considers that the cooperation limited to the RHT system has the effect of restricting competition, since the motor-vehicle industry is restricted in its choice to a single tyre/wheel systems, whereas, if these two partners with their strong market positions had proceeded separately, the motor vehicle industry could have selected from among the competing run-flat tyre systems that might then have been available the one which they considered most suitable for themselves.
(15) The joint exploitation of patents and know-how is to be carried out through a common entity in which each party holds an equal interest and which is to act as their sole and exclusive agent for patents and know-how as long as one of the patents remains valid in any country (Article 3.5.1). Its decisions will be taken by mutual agreement. Although the common entity has not yet been set up, the parties are sticking to their intention to do so.
Though the exclusive commitment to the common entity, the parties lose their freedom to grant licences independently to third parties. This remains true, even if, under Article 3.5.3, the common entity is entitled, upon request by one of the parties and after consultation with the other party, to grant patent and know-how licences for the manufacture and sale of RHT tyres to any other tyre manufacturer. Even if, as emphasized by the parties, the consultation requirement does not mean that the other party can prevent the grant of a licence, the Commission must assume from the way in which the common entity is to work that the grant of licences to third parties will in practice be based on agreement between the parties. Consequently, the joint exploitation of patents and know-how by the common entity constitutes a restriction of competition.
(16) Lastly, although they will distribute their own makes of RHT in competition with one another, Continental and Michelin will not be completely free in marketing the product during the initial stage. In section IV of the agreement, the parties have undertaken to advise the other party six months in advance of any decision to market the RHT and to coordinate their positions in presenting the RHT to all official authorities and to the motor vehicle manufacturers.
(17) The following provisions of the agreement are not to be regarded as restrictions of competition:
- the requirement to provide mutual support in action against patent infringements (Article 3.5.5),
- the requirement to keep secret all technical information exchanged between them or their affiliates.
Effect on trade between Member States
(18) Until such time as the cooperation between the parties is extended to include another type of tyre, the relevant product market is the market for car tyres. For the purposes of this decision, the Commission is starting from the assumption that conventional radial tyres are equivalent to the RHT and therefore interchangeable with it. Although the new RHT system goes beyond the limits for achieving genuine technological progress set by the construction of conventional radial tyres and therefore offers new development possibilities resulting in the advantages listed in the facts (point 4), it will for the foreseeable future have to compete with conventional radial tyres. It will be up to motor-vehicle manufacturers to decide whether and in respect of which models they will introduce the new system.
(19) The relevant geographical market is the whole of the Community. Michelin is the leading tyre manufacturer in the Community, ahead of Continental. On the submarket for car tyres, both together had a market share of some 46 % in 1986. Their market shares in the individual Member States in 1986 were as follows:
Market shares of Continental and Michelin in car tyres in 1986
Country | Continental group | Michelin group | Both groups |
Federal Republic of Germany | […] | […] | […] |
Belgium/Luxembourg | […] | […] | […] |
Denmark | […] | […] | […] |
Spain | […] | […] | […] |
France | […] | […] | […] |
Greece | […] | […] | […] |
Italy | […] | […] | […] |
Netherlands | […] | […] | […] |
Portugal | […] | […] | […] |
United Kingdom | […] | […] | […] |
Ireland | […] | […] | […] |
As may be seen, the two groups together accounted for almost half of the market for current car tyres in 1986 in the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg, Denmark and the Netherlands. In Spain and France, Michelin accounted for half of the market.
(20) It is to be expected that the market position of both groups will strengthen further if the RHT system is successfully introduced. Continental and Michelin are endeavouring separately, on the basis of the technical potential of the jointly developed RHT system, to discover the particular type of construction and material which will give their own make of RHT superior running characteristics. They are thereby creating for themselves a lead which the other tyre manufacturers will not be able to catch up with even if, as anticipated, they receive licences for patent and know-how deriving from the cooperation and from the period before the conclusion of the cooperation agreement and for know-how not falling within the scope of the agreement. Such other tyre manufacturers would probably enter the market with their own fully developed RHT only when the RHT of the Continental and Michelin groups was well established on the market and accepted by motor vehicle purchasers as final consumers to such an extent that they would express a preference for the mounting of such tyres. The RHT is a new product which can change the tyre market as a whole. Because of the lead they would enjoy, such changes would work to the advantage of Continental and Michelin. It can therefore be assumed that the pattern of sales of tyres would be appreciably altered in favour of these two groups.
The agreement is therefore liable to affect trade between Member States.
B. Article 85 (3)
(21) Under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 418/85 of 19 December 1985 on the application of Article 85 (3) to categories of research and development agreements [4], the provisions of Article 85 (1) were declared inapplicable to such categories of agreements subject to the conditions specified in the Regulation.
Under Article 3 (2) of the Regulation, the block exemption cannot be applied to the cooperation agreement between Continental and Michelin because the car tyres manufactured by the parties to the agreement account for more than 20 % of all car tyres manufactured in the common market. The Commission must therefore examine whether the agreement may be granted an exemption by individual decision, such a decision having to take account not only of the criteria specified in Article 85 (3), but also in particular of world competition and the particular circumstances prevailing in the manufacture of high-technology products (10th recital of Regulation (EEC) No 418/85).
(22) Examination of the cooperation agreement under Article 85 (3) produced the following results:
Improved production of goods and promotion of technical progress
(23) It is beyond dispute that joint research is permissible even between partners having strong market positions [5].
However, in view of the relatively late notification of the agreement (three years after its entry into force) and the fact that, at the time the agreement was concluded, Continental had already developed a new tyre/wheel system, the Commission had to ask itself whether joint rather than individual research was at all necessary here.
The parties have convinced the Commission on this point that, on the basis of Continental's prototype, it was only joint research and development which had made possible a tyre/wheel system appropriate for industrial manufacture and that further work was still required. Such work relates to improvement to the running characteristics of the RHT in general, which are different to those of conventional tyres, and in particular to its safety when running flat, inspection procedures for mass production of the tyres, the further development and improvement of production facilities for the tyres themselves and of equipment and products for tyre maintenance. Other joint measures are involved in the introduction of the RHT system among motor-vehicle manufacturers, since the system requires changes in the construction of motor vehicles.
(24) The parties have also justified the need for cooperation on the grounds that Continental would not on its own have been able to solve the numerous technical problems involved, or would have been able to do so only with a considerable delay in time. The Commission may leave open the question of whether this argument is valid from an economic point of view, since, in the course of its contacts with the two parties and on the basis of the examples and explanations given by them, it has reached the conviction that the cooperation with Michelin has substantially enriched the project. For example, an appropriate rim for industrial mass production was selected only during the course of the joint research and development.
Nor does the Commission deny the advantages for safety of the RHT deriving from the practical testing of the new system by both parties.
(25) The need for cooperation is shown lastly by the argument put forward by the parties that one producer alone could not introduce such a tyre system in the motor-vehicle industry, since motor-vehicle manufacturers always wish to collaborate with at least two tyre producers, so as to avoid supply bottle-necks. Since the new system must first be accepted by the motor-vehicle industry and since such acceptance is dependent on motor-vehicle manufacturers adapting to the new system in the construction of their cars, the result would not have been any different if Continental had developed the RHT alone and had then granted a licence to Michelin. Quite apart from the fact that Continental would thus have lost the advantages of cooperation, the introduction of the RHT among motor-vehicle manufacturers would have been possible only together with one or more licensees. In the particular circumstances involved in this case, therefore, no objection can be made to the fact that, despite the effects on competition described above, Continental preferred cooperation with Michelin to the granting of a licence.
(26) The design of the RHT has overcome the limits inherent in conventional radial tyres and therefore offers advantages which would not have been achieved with the old system. Cooperation on its development therefore contributes to improving the production of goods and to promoting technical progress.
Consumers' share of the advantages resulting from the agreement
(27) The introduction of a run-flat tyre is in the interests of consumers. Such a tyre also allows more room for the braking system, and it has better handling characteristics on road surfaces. These qualities of the RHT system considerably increase the personal safety of the individual car driver. The avoidance of traffic accidents is in the private and the public interest.
Continental's cooperation with Michelin ensures the introduction of a fully developed product. Since both groups represent tyre brands that are widely used, the new system has better prospects of establishing itself generally on the motor-vehicle market in a few years.
Indispensability of the agreements to the attainment of these objectives
Length of cooperation
(28) The parties have justified the length of the cooperation on research and development (five years following the year in which the RHT is first marketed, with automatic renewal for additional periods of one year unless the agreement is terminated by the furnishing of six months prior notice) by the fact that the problems arising in daily use during the first few years would have to be solved jointly in the interests of road safety.
The length of cooperation in respect of the commercial introduction of the RHT on to the market was originally the same as the period for joint research and development. Following negotiations with the Commission, the parties have in the mean time reduced the period to two years following the first introduction of the RHT on to the market. In so far as the cooperation involves the establishment of standards, the provision for renewal of the cooperation is intended, according to the parties, to ensure that one of the parties is not able to gain competitive advantages for itself by exercising unilateral influence on the standard. The parties explain the requirement that either partner must inform the other six months before any introduction of the RHT on to the market as reflecting their desire not to be taken by surprise by any such introduction.
(29) In assessing the length of cooperation in the technical and commercial area, account must be taken of the fact that Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 418/85 limits the exemption of such cooperation between non-competing undertakings or between competitors with a combined market share of under 20 % to the duration of the research and development programme and, where the results are jointly exploited, to an initial further period of five years from the time the contract products are first put on the market within the common market. In the case of competitors having a strong market position, cooperation must, because of the larger impact on competition, be restricted particularly strictly to the period essential for the implementation of the programme.
The Commission considers that the setting of the length of cooperation on the commercial introduction of the RHT at two years is now in line with these principles.
(30) The Commission considers the length of cooperation provided for with regard to research and development to be appropriate. In reaching this view, it has taken account of the fact that, in the day-to-day use of the RHT, problems may arise which ought to be solved jointly not only because of the producers' liability, but also in the interests of general road safety. The Commission has also taken into consideration the fact that, under the agreement, cooperation is restricted to those areas which are directly connected with the development of the RHT system and that Continental and Michelin will otherwise remain competitors. This has also allowed it to accept the automatic renewal of the cooperation agreement with the possibility of termination by giving prior notice. It is to be assumed that Continental and Michelin will limit the joint development of the RHT to the period which is absolutely necessary, since it is in their commercial interests to market the RHT in competition with one another.
(31) In the light of such interests, both partners must be allowed, through minimum coordination requirements during the initial stage of marketing and in the establishment of uniform standards (which are moreover in the interests of the consumer) to attempt to lay down starting conditions which are the same for both, so as to ensure that their development work is rewarded. The Commission therefore considers that the length of cooperation in this area now provided for by them is appropriate.
(32) Complementing the jointly pursued research and development, joint exploitation of patents and know-how by the common entity is also essential. Such exploitation may also include exploitation of patents and know-how that existed before the agreement was concluded. According to the definition given in the agreement, what is involved is only technical knowledge connected with the cooperation and needed for the manufacture, use or sale of the RHT in any country. This restriction falls within the framework of the block exemption for joint exploitation under Regulation (EEC) No 418/85, on which individual exemption decisions should also directly base themselves, at least as far as the definition of basic concepts such as that involved here is concerned.
As defined in Article 1 (2) (d), exploitation of results means "the manufacture of the contract products or the application of the contract processes or the assignment or licensing of intellectual property rights or the communication of know-how required for such manufacture or application". Under Article 2 (d), the exemption provided for in Article 1 applies on condition that the joint exploitation relates to results which are decisive for the manufacture of the contract products or the application of the contract processes. As stated in the seventh recital, the individual forms of joint exploitation may relate only to products or processes for which the use of the results of the research and development is decisive. All these formulations do not exclude the joint exploitation of technical knowledge that existed before the cooperation began if, as argued by the two parties here, it has become a component part of the joint development to such an extent that it is necessary for the manufacture, use or sale of the RHT. Such technical knowledge has become a part of the contract processes and contract products within the meaning of the definitions given in Article 1 (2) (b) and (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 418/85.
(33) The Commission has also examined whether the life span of the common entity (as long as a patent is valid in any country) and the procedure for licensing third parties (grant of licence by the common entity upon request by one party and after consultation with the other party) are indispensable to the attainment of the objectives of the cooperation.
(34) The life span of the common entity is extended automatically each time a new patent arising from the cooperation is included, without the common entity being able to be dissolved, for example annually. This arrangement runs counter to those which the Commission considers to be automatically exemptable in its block exemption regulations: under the provisions of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 418/85, joint exploitation by undertakings that are in competition with one another may be exempted for a period of more than five years only if the contract products and substitutes account for no more than 20 % of the market for all such products. Continental and Michelin are at present already well above this market share. In the area of patent licensing agreements, moreover, the Commission has opposed the automatic extension of the duration of a licensing agreement whenever a new patent of the licensor is included in it (Article 3 (2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2349/84 of 23 July 1984 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to certain categories of patent licensing agreements [6].
On the other hand, the common entity deals only with the handling of the award of patent and know-how licences, so that what is involved in this case is an administrative body.
(35) According to its terms of reference, the common entity deals with only the last aspect of the exploitation of results as defined in Article 1 (2) (d) of Regulation (EEC) No 418/85, namely the licensing of intellectual property rights and the communication of know-how. The coordination of the grant of licences in respect of the whole of the technical knowledge necessary for the manufacture of the RHT means a simplification of administrative procedures for licensees. It also ensures the correct distribution between the two parties of the royalties arising from the agreement. In contrast to the joint manufacture of contract products (which the parties to the agreement do not want), this form of exploitation is merely the economic correlative to the (exemptable) joint research and development. It appears therefore appropriate to grant a longer exemption for the common entity.
Lack of exclusion of competition
(36) The agreement does not on the basis of the above afford the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question. In the first place, under the agreement between the parties, competition is eliminated only in respect of the system, but not in respect of the other construction features of the RHT. The RHT tyres produced by Michelin will therefore be in competition with those produced by Continental. Furthermore, both parties will remain in unrestricted competition with one another in conventional radial tyres. Lastly, competition will continue to exist with all the other tyre manufacturers. This competition will continue in both conventional and RHT tyres since the parties will offer licences to all interested competitors on reasonable terms (see 9 above). Nor is it certain, at this very early stage, if and when RHT tyres will replace conventional systems. In any event, the partners and their competitors are all members of ETRTO and so participate in the establishment of standards for tyres, rims and valves.
C. Article 8 of Regulation No 17
(37) Article 8 (1) of Regulation No 17 provides that a decision in application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty shall be issued for a specified period and that conditions and obligations may be attached thereto.
Period of validity of the exemption
(38) The period of validity of the exemption must be based on the duration of the various forms of cooperation between Continental and Michelin dealt with in this Decision. In determining the relevant periods, reference must be made to the day on which the first RHT was marketed. On the basis of the information available, the Commission is assuming that this will be no later than 1 January 1989. Furthermore, the exemption covers only car tyres. It therefore appears appropriate to grant an exemption under Article 8 (1) of Regulation No 17 applying from the day of notification, 27 October 1986, and running from 1 January 1989:
- for a period of 10 years until 31 December 1998 for the cooperation in research and development,
- for a period of two years until 31 December 1990 for the cooperation with regard to commercial development (section IV of the agreement),
- and for a period of 20 years until 31 December 2008 for the activity of the common entity.
Extension of the cooperation
(39) The parties have not as yet extended the cooperation to other tyre categories. The Commission cannot at this stage comment on any extension, since assessment must be based on other market situations and other technical circumstances depending on the tyre category to which the cooperation is extended. The decision must therefore include the obligation pursuant to Article 8 (1) that the parties must without delay inform the Commission of any extension of the cooperation.
(40) In view of the importance in the market of the partners, the Commission considers it appropriate to impose the reporting requirements set out in Article 2 of the Decision,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Pursuant to Article 85 (3) of the EEC Treaty, the provisions of Article 85 (1) shall not apply during the following periods to the cooperation agreement on the development on a new run-flat tyre/wheel system concluded between Continental and Michelin on 4 November 1983, the exemption being restricted to car tyres:
- from 27 October 1986 to 31 December 1998 in the case of the cooperation in research and development,
- from 27 October 1986 to 31 December 1990 in the case of the coopration with regard to commercial development (IV of the agreement),
- from 27 October 1986 to 31 December 2008 in the case of the activity of the common entity.
Article 2
Continental and Michelin shall inform the Commission:
1. without delay, of any extension of the cooperation to other tyre categories and all instances of licences granted or refused to third parties;
2. every two years, beginning on 31 December 1989, on the evolution of the present cooperation.
These obligations shall remain in force for the duration of the exemption granted in respect of the common entity, until 31 December 2008.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to:
1. Continental Gummi-Werke AG,
Königsworther Platz 1,
D-3000 Hanover 1;
2. Companie Générale des Etablissements Michelin,
place des Carmes Déchaux,
F-63040 Clermont-Ferrand Cedex.
Done at Brussels, 11 October 1988.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 19 July 1995 on additional financial aid from the Community for the work of the Rijksinstitut voor volksgezondheid en milieuhygiëne, Bilthoven, Netherlands, a Community reference laboratory for residue testing (95/303/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), as last amended by Decision 94/370/EC (2), and in particular Article 28 thereof,
Whereas under Article 1 (b) of Council Decision 91/664/EEC of 11 December 1991 designating the Community reference laboratories for testing certain substances for residues (3) the Rijksinstitut voor volksgezondheid en milieuhygiëne, Bilthoven, Netherlands has been designated as the reference laboratory for the residues referred to in Annex I, groups A.I and A.II, of Council Directive 86/469/EEC (4);
Whereas all the tasks to be performed by the reference laboratory are defined in Article 1 of Council Decision 89/187/EEC of 6 March 1989 determining the powers and conditions of operation of the Community reference laboratories provided for by Directive 86/469/EEC concerning the examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues (5);
Whereas in accordance with Commission Decision 93/459/EEC (6) a contract has been concluded between the European Community and the Rijksinstitut voor volksgezondheid en milieuhygiëne; whereas by Commission Decision 94/491/EC (7) the Community granted additional financial aid for one year; whereas the original contract should again be extended and additional financial aid granted to enable the reference laboratory to continue to perform the functions and tasks referred to in Decision 89/187/EEC;
Whereas the Community financial aid is provided for an additional one-year period; whereas this will be reviewed, with a view to an extension, before the end of that period;
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
The Community shall make a second grant of additional financial aid amounting to not more than ECU 400 000 to the Rijksinstitut voor volksgezondheid en milieuhygiëne, a reference laboratory designated in Article 1 of Decision 91/664/EEC.
Article 2
1. For the purposes of Article 1, the contract referred to in Decision 93/459/EEC is hereby extended for a second period of one year.
2. The Director-General for Agriculture is hereby authorized to sign the amendment to the contract in the name of the Commission of the European Communities.
3. The financial aid provided for in Article 1 shall be paid to the reference laboratory in accordance with the procedure set out in the contract referred to in Decision 93/459/EEC.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 July 1995.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
Council Regulation (EC) No 567/2004
of 22 March 2004
amending Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Treaty concerning the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union(1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,
Having regard to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia(2), and in particular Article 57(2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,
Whereas:
(1) Chapter Va of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)(3) provides for a support measure to assist farmers meeting recently introduced binding standards.
(2) As a result of accession, farmers in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia must deal with a large number of new standards based on Community legislation which they have to respect from the date of accession or at the later date. It is essential to provide support to cover at least a part of the cost of investments required to meet those standards. Therefore, special derogations should be laid down for implementing the "meeting standards" measure in the new Member States.
(3) Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 should therefore be amended,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The following paragraph 2b is hereby inserted in Article 33l of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999:
"2b. By way of derogation from Articles 21a, 21b and 21c, costs linked to investments needed to comply with a standard set by the Community before the date of accession, and binding for farmers from this date, or a later date, may be taken into consideration for determining the level of annual support. This possibility is limited to the first three years of the period of support, up to an annual ceiling of EUR 25000 per farm. During this investment period, the degressivity provided for in Article 21c shall not apply. Loss of income and additional costs resulting from compliance with the standard may not be taken into consideration until the end of the investment period.
Investments supported under the first subparagraph are not eligible for the support provided for in Chapter I."
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 May 2004, subject to the entry into force of the 2003 Act of Accession(4).
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 March 2004.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 938/90
of 11 April 1990
reintroducing the levying of the customs duties applicable to footwear of CN codes 6401 and 6402 originating in Indonesia to which the preferential arrangements of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3896/89 apply
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3896/89 of 18 December 1989 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1990 in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries (1), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Whereas, in pursuance of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 3896/89, suspension of customs duties is 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 Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 3896/89 provides that 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 reintroduced as soon as the individual ceilings in question are reached at Community level;
Whereas, in the case of footwear of CN codes 6401 and 6402 originating in Indonesia the individual ceiling amounts to ECU 1 100 000, whereas that ceiling was reached on 28 February 1990, by charges of imports into the Community of the products in question originating in Indonesia ; whereas, it is appropriate to reintroduce the levying of customs duties for the products in question with regard to Indonesia,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
As from 15 April 1990, the levying of customs duties, suspended in pursuance of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3896/89, shall be reintroduced on imports into the Community of the following products, originating in Indonesia:
1.2.3 // // // // 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 // // //
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, 11 April 1990.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 602/2001
of 28 March 2001
amending Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 with regard to the conditions for the payment of export refunds on products falling within CN codes 1001 90, 1101, 1102 and ex 2302
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 1666/2000(2), and in particular Article 13 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 90/2001(4), lays down that, when a differentiated refund applies for a specific third country, entitlement to the refund is acquired on importation into that third country. Articles 14, 15 and 16 of that Regulation lay down the conditions for the payment of the refund when a differentiated refund applies and in particular the documents to be presented to prove the arrival of the product at destination.
(2) When a differentiated refund applies, Article 18(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 lays down that part of the refund, calculated using the lowest refund rate, is be paid on application by the exporter once proof is furnished that the product has left the customs territory of the Community.
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2851/2000(5) establishes certain concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural products and provides for an adjustment, as an autonomous and transitional measure, of certain agricultural concessions provided for in the Europe Agreement with the Republic of Poland. One of those concessions is the abolition of refunds for common wheat, flour and bran exported to Poland.
(4) Article 7a of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1162/95 of 23 May 1995 laying down special detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences for cereals and rice(6), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 409/2001(7), lays down the operators must present to the competent authorities on import into Poland of certain products falling within CN codes 1001 90, 1101, 1102 and ex 2302 certified copies of the export licence and of the relevant export declaration. The export licence includes specific information guaranteeing that no export refund has been granted on the products concerned. The Polish authorities have undertaken to check compliance with Article 7a of Regulation (EC) No 1162/95.
(5) Account must therefore be taken of those special arrangements, which entered into force on 1 March 2001, when applying the above provisions of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 so as not to impose unnecesary costs on exporters trading with third countries. To that end, no acocunt should be taken of the fact that no refund has been fixed for the destination concerned in determining the lowest rate of refund.
(6) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95(8), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2513/98(9), lays down certain detailed rules for the application of 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 and should therefore be amended to insert the derogations required for Regulation (EC) No 800/1999.
(7) This Regulation should enter into force immediately.
(8) 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 following Article 13a is added to Regulation (EC) No 1501/95:
"Article 13a
1. Where the differentiation of the refund is the result solely of a refund not having been fixed for Poland, and notwithstanding Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999, proof that customs formalities for importation have been completed shall not be required for payment of the refund for products falling within CN codes 1001 90, 1101, 1102 and ex 2302.
2. The fact that a refund has not been fixed for the export of products falling within CN codes 1001 90, 1101, 1102 and ex 2302 to Poland shall not be taken into account in determining the lowest rate of refund within the meaning of Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999."
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 to export declarations accepted from 1 March 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 March 2001.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2083/2004
of 6 December 2004
amending Regulations (EC) No 1432/94 and 1458/2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of import licences in the pigmeat sector
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat (1), and in particular Articles 8(2) and 11(1) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/96 of 18 June 1996 on the implementation of the concessions set out in Schedule CXL drawn up in the wake of the conclusion of the GATT XXIV.6 negotiations (2), and in particular Article 1 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
In order to simplify the management of import quotas and enable them to be processed electronically, a reference consisting of the serial number of each quota should be provided for in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1432/94 of 22 June 1994 laying down detailed rules for the application in the pigmeat sector of the import arrangements provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for pigmeat and certain other agricultural products (3), and in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1458/2003 of 18 August 2003 opening and providing for the administration of a tariff quota in the pigmeat sector (4).
(2)
Regulations (EC) No 1432/94 and 1458/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(3)
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
Regulation (EC) No 1432/94 is hereby amended as follows:
1.
The first sentence of Article 3(b) is replaced by the following:
‘(b)
Licence applications must mention the serial number, and may relate to products covered by the two different CN codes and originating in only one country.’
2.
The Annexes are replaced by the text set out in Annex I hereto.
Article 2
Annexes I to IV to Regulation (EC) No 1458/2003 are replaced by the text set out in Annex II hereto.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh 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, 6 December 2004.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2951/95 of 20 December 1995 amending Regulation (EC) No 1487/95 establishing the supply balance for the Canary Islands for products from the pigmeat sector and fixing the aid for products coming from the Community
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 of 15 June 1992 introducing specific measures for the Canary Islands concerning certain agricultural products (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2537/95 (2), and in particular Article 3 (4) thereof,
Whereas the amounts of aid for the supply of the pigmeat sector to the Canary Islands have been settled by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1487/95 of 28 June 1995 establishing the supply balance for the Canary Islands for products from the pigmeat sector and fixing the aid for products coming from the Community (3); whereas, as a consequence of the changes in the rates and prices for cereal products in the European part of the Community and on the world market, the aid for supply to the Canary Islands should be set at the amounts given in the Annex;
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
Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 1487/95 is hereby replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 1996.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 December 1995.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 7 May 2008
concerning the provisional prohibition of the use and sale in Austria of genetically modified maize (Zea mays L. line T25) pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
(notified under document number C(2008) 1715)
(Only the German text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2008/470/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to 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 and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 18(1) thereof,
After consulting the European Food Safety Authority,
Whereas:
(1)
By Commission Decision 98/293/EC of 22 April 1998 concerning the placing on the market of genetically modified maize (Zea mays L. line T25), pursuant to Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2) it was decided that consent was to be given for the placing on the market of that product.
(2)
On 3 August 1998 the French authorities granted such consent. The consent covers all uses of the product, namely import, processing into food and feed products and cultivation.
(3)
Pursuant to Article 35(1) of Directive 2001/18/EC which replaced Council Directive 90/220/EEC (3), procedures in respect of notifications concerning the placing on the market of genetically modified organisms which have not been completed by 17 October 2002 are subject to Directive 2001/18/EC.
(4)
On 8 May 2000 Austria informed the Commission of its decision to prohibit provisionally the use and sale of Zea mays L. line T25 for all uses and gave reasons for that decision in accordance with Article 16(1) of Directive 90/220/EEC.
(5)
Products derived from Zea mays L. line T25 (starch and all its derivatives, crude and refined oil, all heat-processed or fermented products obtained from Zea mays L. line T25, as well as feed produced from Zea mays L. line T25) are authorised under Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5). These uses are not subject to the safeguard clause notified by Austria.
(6)
The Scientific Committee on Plants concluded on 20 July 2001 that the information submitted by Austria did not constitute new relevant scientific evidence which had not been taken into account during the original evaluation of the dossier and which would occasion a review of that Committee’s original opinion on this product.
(7)
On 9 January 2004, as well as on 9 and 17 February 2004, Austria submitted to the Commission additional information in support of its national measures concerning maize line T25.
(8)
In accordance with Article 28(1) of Directive 2001/18/EC, the Commission consulted the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), as established by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), under which it has replaced the relevant scientific committees.
(9)
The EFSA concluded on 8 July 2004 (7) that the information submitted by Austria did not constitute new scientific evidence sufficient to invalidate the environmental risk assessment of maize line T25, justifying a prohibition of the use and sale of that product in Austria.
(10)
Since, under the circumstances, there was no reason to consider that the product constituted a risk to human health or the environment, the Commission submitted on 29 November 2004 a draft Decision, requesting Austria to repeal its provisional safeguard measure, for consideration by the Committee established under Article 30 of Directive 2001/18/EC, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30(2) of that Directive.
(11)
However, that Committee did not deliver an opinion and, in accordance with Article 5(4) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (8), the Commission submitted to the Council a proposal relating to the measures to be taken.
(12)
On 24 June 2005, in accordance with Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC, the Council, acting by qualified majority, rejected this proposal.
(13)
The Council, in its declaration, stated that ‘there is still a degree of uncertainty in relation to the national safeguard measures on the market of [the] genetically modified maize variet[y] […] T25’ and called on the Commission ‘to gather further evidence on the GMO in question and further assess, whether the measure taken by [Austria] aimed at suspending as a temporary precautionary measure [its] placing on the market [is] justified and, whether the authorisation of such [an] organism still meets the safety requirements of Directive 2001/18/EC’.
(14)
In November 2005, the EFSA was consulted again by the Commission as to whether there was any scientific reason to believe that the continued placing on the market of T25 maize was likely to cause any adverse effects to human health or the environment under the conditions of consent. In particular, the EFSA was requested to take account of any further scientific information that had arisen subsequent to the previous scientific opinion concerning the safety of this GMO.
(15)
In its opinion of 29 March 2006 (9), EFSA concluded that there is no reason to believe that the continued placing on the market of T25 maize is likely to cause any adverse effects for human and animal health or the environment under the conditions of its consent.
(16)
In accordance with Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC, the Commission submitted a proposal to the Council requesting Austria to repeal its safeguard measure.
(17)
In accordance with Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC, the Environment Council, on 18 December 2006, indicated its opposition by qualified majority, to the proposal.
(18)
In its Decision, the Council referred to the environmental risk assessment as provided in the Directive 2001/18/EC and indicated that ‘the different agricultural structures and regional ecological characteristics in the European Union need to be taken into account in a more systematic manner in the environmental risk assessment’.
(19)
In accordance with Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC the Commission submitted an amended proposal in order to take into account the Council Decision of 18 December 2006 which refers only to the environmental aspects of the Austrian safeguard clause, namely cultivation aspects.
(20)
Austria has initiated work to collect any relevant scientific evidence on these aspects, which in the view of Austria justifies provisionally the maintenance of the safeguard clause, in particular in reference to ‘the different agricultural structures and regional ecological characteristics’ as indicated in recital 3 of the above mentioned Council decision. In accordance with Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC, Austria is invited to provide the Commission with all the scientific evidence that it has collected as well as any new risk assessment as soon as it is completed and inform all Member States thereof.
(21)
On the basis of Austria’s submission and its scientific assessment, the Commission will act in accordance with Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC on these aspects of the Austrian measure.
(22)
The food and feed safety aspects of Zea mays L. line T25 covered by the consent granted under Directive 90/220/EEC (including import and processing) are identical throughout Europe and have been assessed by the EFSA, which concluded that this product is unlikely to cause any adverse effects for human and animal health.
(23)
The Commission proposal takes into account only food and feed aspects of the Austrian prohibition namely the prohibition on import and processing of unprocessed kernels as source materials for further processing or for direct food or feed use.
(24)
Under these circumstances Austria should repeal its safeguard measures at least with regard to import and processing into food and feed of Zea mays L. line T25.
(25)
The measures provided for in this Decision are not in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 30 of Directive 2001/18/EC and the Commission therefore submitted to the Council a proposal relating to these measures. Since on the expiry of the period laid down in Article 30(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC, the Council had neither adopted the proposed measures nor indicated its opposition to them, in accordance with Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC, the measures should be adopted by the Commission,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The measures taken by Austria to prohibit the import and the processing into food and feed products of the Zea mays L. line T25, authorised for placing on the market by Decision 98/293/EC are not justified under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC.
Article 2
Austria shall take the necessary steps to terminate the prohibition of import and processing into food and feed products of Zea mays L. line T25 at the latest 20 days after its notification.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Austria.
Done at Brussels, 7 May 2008.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1086/94 of 10 May 1994 fixing for the 1994 marketing year the reference prices for apricots
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3669/93 (2), and in particular Article 27 (1) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92 of 28 December 1992 on the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 3528/93 (4), and in particular Article 9 (1) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3824/92 of 28 December 1992 laying down the prices and amounts fixed in ecus as a result of the monetary realignments (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1663/93 (6), and in particular Article 2 thereof,
Whereas, pursuant to Article 23 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72, reference prices valid for the whole Community are to be fixed at the beginning of the marketing year;
Whereas apricots are produced in such quantities in the Community that reference prices should be fixed for them;
Whereas apricots harvested during a given crop year are marketed from May to August; whereas the quantities harvested in May and in August are so small that there is no need to fix reference prices for these months; whereas reference prices should be fixed only for the period 1 June up to and including 31 July;
Whereas Article 23 (2) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 stipulates that reference prices are to be fixed at the same level as for the preceding marketing year, adjusted, after deducting the standard cost of transporting Community products between production areas and Community consumption centres in the preceding year, by:
- the increase in production costs for fruit and vegetables, less productivity growth, and
- the standard rate of transport costs in the current marketing year;
Whereas the resulting figure may nevertheless not exceed the arithmetic mean of producer prices in each Member State plus transport costs for the current year, after this amount has been increased by the rise in production costs less productivity growth; whereas the reference price may, however, not be lower than in the preceding marketing year;
Whereas, to take seasonal price variations into account, the marketing year should be divided into several periods and a reference price fixed for each of these periods;
Whereas producer prices are to correspond to the average of the prices recorded on the representative market or markets situated in the production areas where prices are lowest, during the three years prior to the date on which the reference price is fixed, for a home-grown product with defined commercial characteristics, being a product or variety representing a substantial proportion of the production marketed over the year or over part thereof and satisfying specified requirements as regards market preparation; whereas, when the average of prices recorded on each representative market is being calculated, prices which could be considered excessively high or excessively low in relation to normal price fluctuations on that market are to be disregarded;
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 3824/92 establishes a list of prices and amounts for the fruit and vegetables sector which are to be divided by a coefficient of 1,000426, fixed by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 537/93 (7), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1331/93 (8);
Whereas Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 3824/92 lays down that the resulting reduction in the prices ans amounts for each sector concerned shall be specified and the level of such reduced prices fixed; whereas, however, this adjustment may not result in a reference price level below that of the preceding marketing year, in accordance with Article 23 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fruit and Vegetables,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For the 1994 marketing year, the reference prices for apricots falling within CN code 0809 10 00, expressed in ecus per 100 kilograms net of packed products of Class I, of all sizes, shall be as follows:
June (1 to 10): 106,26,
(11 to 20): 93,94,
(21 to 30): 82,07,
July: 73,15.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 June 1994.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 May 1994.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Council Decision
of 8 April 2003
on the conclusion of a Protocol adjusting the trade aspects of 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, to take account of the outcome of negotiations between the Parties on new mutual agricultural concessions
(2003/286/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133, in conjunction with Article 300(2) subparagraph 1, first sentence thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas:
(1) 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(1), provides for certain reciprocal trade concessions for certain agricultural products.
(2) Article 21(5) of the Europe Agreement provides that the Community and Bulgaria shall examine product by product and on an orderly and reciprocal basis the possibilities of granting each other further concessions.
(3) The first improvements to the preferential arrangements of the Europe Agreement with Bulgaria were provided for in the Protocol adjusting trade aspects of the Europe Agreement to take account of the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union and the outcome of the Uruguay Round negotiations on agriculture, including improvements to the existing preferential arrangements, approved by Council Decision 1999/278/EC(2).
(4) Improvements to the preferential arrangements were also provided for as a result of negotiations to liberalise agricultural trade concluded in 2000. On the Community side, these were implemented from 1 July 2000 by 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 Bulgaria(3). This second adjustment of the preferential arrangements has not yet been incorporated in the Europe Agreement in the form of an Additional Protocol.
(5) Negotiations for further improvements to the preferential arrangements of the Europe Agreement with Bulgaria were concluded on 18 October 2002.
(6) The new Additional Protocol to the Europe Agreement adjusting the trade aspects of the Europe Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the other part (hereinafter referred to as the Protocol) should be approved with a view to consolidating all concessions in agricultural trade between the two sides, including the results of the negotiations concluded in 2000 and 2002.
(7) 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(4) has codified the management rules for tariff quotas designed to be used following the chronological order of dates of customs declarations. Certain tariff quotas under this Decision should therefore be administered in accordance with those rules.
(8) 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(5).
(9) As a result of the aforementioned negotiations, Regulation (EC) No 2290/2000 has effectively lost its substance and should therefore be repealed,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The attached Protocol adjusting the trade aspects of 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, to take account of the outcome of negotiations between the parties on new mutual agricultural concessions, is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.
Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to sign the Protocol on behalf of the Community and make the notification of approval provided for in Article 3 of the Protocol.
Article 3
1. Upon this Decision taking effect, the arrangements provided for in the Annexes of the Protocol attached to this Decision shall replace those referred to in Annexes X and XI as referred to in Article 21(2) and 21(3) of 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.
2. The Commission shall adopt detailed rules for the application of the Protocol in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5(2).
Article 4
1. The order numbers as attributed to the tariff quotas in the Annex to this Decision may be changed by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5(2). Tariff quotas with an order number above 09.5100 shall be administered by the Commission in accordance with Articles 308a, 308b and 308c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.
2. Quantities of goods subject to tariff quotas and released for free circulation as from 1 July 2002 under the concessions provided for in Annex A(b) to Regulation (EC) No 2290/2000 shall be fully counted against the quantities provided for in the fourth column in Annex A(b) to the attached Protocol, except for quantities for which import licences were issued before 1 July 2002.
Article 5
1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Management Committee for Cereals instituted by Article 23 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92(6) or, where appropriate, by the committee instituted by the relevant provisions of the other Regulations on the common organisation of agricultural markets.
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 4 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply.
The period laid down in Article 4(3) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at one month.
3. The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure.
Article 6
Regulation (EC) No 2290/2000 shall be repealed as from the entry into force of the Protocol.
Done at Luxembourg, 8 April 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1404/2004
of 2 August 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 3 August 2004.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 August 2004.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 23 February 1996 allocating import quotas for the fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons 11, 12, 113, 114 and 115, the other fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and hydrobromofluorocarbons for the period 1 January to 31 December 1996. In addition allocating production and import quotas for methyl bromide for the period 1 January to 31 December 1996 (96/261/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Article 7 (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 of 15 December 1994 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (1),
Whereas Article 7 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 states that without prejudice to Article 4 (8) and unless the substances are intended for destruction by a technology approved by the parties, for feedstock use in the manufacture of other chemicals or for quarantine and preshipment (for methyl bromide only), the release for free circulation in the Community of the chlorofluorocarbons 11, 12, 113, 114 and 115, the other fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, methyl bromide and hydrobromofluorocarbons, imported from third countries shall be subject to quantitative limits and that these limits may be modified pursuant to Article 7 (3);
Whereas any increase of these quantitative limits may not lead to a Community consumption of controlled substances beyond the quantitative limits established according to the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer;
Whereas the Commission is required under Article 7 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 16, to allocate quotas to undertakings that request import quotas;
Whereas the Commission has published a notice to importers in the European Community of controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer (2), regarding the same Regulation and has thereby received applications for import quotas;
Whereas the applications for the import quotas of the chlorofluorocarbones 11, 12, 113, 114 and 115, the other fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, methyl bromide and hydrobromofluorocarbons exceed the import quotas available for allocation under Article 7 (2);
Whereas the Commission cannot fully satisfy the applications and has to allocate import quotas to the applicants, taking primarily the different environmental impact of the potential imports, the individual background of the applicants in importing the respective substances and the amounts applied for into consideration;
Whereas some companies which have applied for an import quota for 1995 have not imported any of these substances before, while others imported large quantities of substances in the reference year and/or in the following years;
Whereas the applications from some companies substantially exceed the quantities imported by them in previous years;
Whereas some of the applications from the procedures of ODS in the Community have been made for specific contingency purposes of possible breakdown of production, technical failure and non-availability of the substances in the Community;
Whereas the allocations of the individual quotas to the applicants must be based on the principles of continuity, equality and proportionality;
Whereas for methyl bromide the import quotas are allocated to the primary importers, considered by the Commission to be the importers who deal directly by way of invoicing with the producers outside the Community;
Whereas for methyl bromide the procedure by which the primary importers are in receipt of the import quotas shall be the subject of a second review during 1996 to establish whether individual Member States continue to consider the system to be equitable in practice;
Whereas for methyl bromide a reserve of 283,07 ODP tonnes is retained for allocation to importers, not previously classified as primary importers and the allocations are to be made in accordance with Article 16 procedure;
Whereas imports of virgin substances and of substances for possible dispersive uses are potentially more harmful to the environment than imports of reclaimed or recovered substances to be used as feedstock for the production of other substances;
Whereas import licences shall be issued in accordance with Article 6 of the abovementioned Regulation, after verification of compliance by the importer with Articles 7, 8 and 12;
Whereas an increase of these quantitative limits for the import of used and recycled substances and of substances to be used as a feedstock for the production of other substances does not cause any additional harm to the environment;
Whereas the release into free circulation in the Community of the abovementioned substances imported from non-parties is prohibited in accordance with Article 12 of the Regulation;
Whereas Article 16 of the same Regulation sets out the procedure according to which decisions can be taken concerning the implementation of the Regulation;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the committee referred to in Article 16 of the same Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. The amount of the chlorofluorocarbons 11, 12, 113, 114 and 115 controlled by Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 and indicated in Group I of Annex II thereto which may be imported into the European Community in 1996 from sources outside the Community shall be 326 ODP-weighted tonnes of recovered material for destruction by approved technologies.
2. The amount of the other fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons controlled by Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 and indicated in Group II of Annex II thereto which may be imported into the European Community in 1996 from sources outside the Community shall be 30 ODP-weighted tonnes of recovered material for destruction by approved technologies.
3. The amount of halons controlled by Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 and indicated in Group III of Annex II thereto which may be imported into the European Community in 1996 from sources outside the Community shall be 200 ODP-weighted tonnes of recovered material to be reclaimed. This material shall be the subject of an existing contract requiring the importer to take it back when the equipment using the halon(s) is being decommissioned.
4. The amount of carbon tetrachloride controlled by Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 and indicated in Group IV of Annex II thereto which may be imported into the European Community in 1996 from sources outside the Community shall be 2 514,3 ODP-weighted tonnes of virgin material for use as feedstock.
5. The amount of 1,1,1-trichloroethane controlled by Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 and indicated in Group V of Annex II thereto which may be imported into the European Community in 1996 from sources outside the Community shall be 0,546 ODP-weighted tonnes of virgin material to be used as feedstock.
6. The amount of methyl bromide controlled by Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 and indicated in Group VI of Annex II thereto which may be released into free circulation in the European Community in 1996 shall be 11 530,4 ODP weighted tonnes of virgin material to be used for soil fumigation purposes.
7. The amount of hydrobromofluorcarbons controlled by Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 and indicated in Group VII of Annex II thereto which may be imported into the European Community in 1996 from sources outside the Community shall be 10 ODP weighted tonnes of recovered material for destruction by approved technologies.
Article 2
1. The amount of virgin carbon tetrachloride, controlled by Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 and indicated in Group IV of Annex II thereto, which may be imported by the producers of ODS in the European Community in 1996 for specific contingency purposes of a possible breakdown of production, technical failure and in the case of the substance not being available in the Community shall be 4 400 ODP weighted tonnes.
2. The amount of virgin carbon tetrachloride which is imported by producers of ODS from third sources outside the Community for these purposes as defined in Article 1 shall be accounted for as production of carbon tetrachloride.
3. The amount of virgin 1,1,1-trichloroethane, controlled by Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 and indicated in Group V of Annex II thereto, which may be imported by the producers of ODS in the European Community in 1996 for specific contingency purposes of a possible breakdown of production, technical failure and in the case of the substance not being available in the Community shall be 600 ODP weighted tonnes.
4. The amount of virgin 1,1,1-trichloroethane which is imported by producers which is imported from third sources outside the Community for these purposes as defined in Article 1 shall be accounted for as the production of 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
Article 3
1. The allocation of import quotas for the chlorofluorocarbons 11, 12, 113, 114 and 115, the other fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride and 1,1,1-trichloroethane, methyl bromide and hydrobromofluorocarbons during the period 1 January to 31 December 1996 shall be for the purposes indicated and to the companies indicated in Annex 1 hereto.
2. The allocation of quotas for the chlorofluorocarbons 11, 12, 113, 114 and 115, the other fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride and 1,1,1-trichloroethane, methyl bromide and hydrobromofluorocarbons during the period 1 January to 31 December 1996 shall be as in Annex 3 hereto (3).
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the undertakings listed in Annex 2 hereto.
Done at Brussels, 23 February 1996.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1727/2006
of 23 November 2006
fixing the export refunds on white and raw sugar exported without further processing
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 market in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1(1)(b) of that Regulation and prices for those products on the Community market may be covered by an export refund.
(2)
Given the present situation on the sugar market, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 32 and 33 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006.
(3)
The first subparagraph of Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 provides that the world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the refund according to destination.
(4)
Refunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Community and that comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006.
(5)
The negotiations within the framework of the Europe Agreements between the European Community and Romania and Bulgaria aim in particular to liberalise trade in products covered by the common organisation of the market concerned. For those two countries export refunds should therefore be abolished.
(6)
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
Export refunds as provided for in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 shall be granted on the products and for the amounts set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 24 November 2006.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 November 2006.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2278/2004
of 30 December 2004
amending Regulation (EC) No 2759/1999 laying down rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 26(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1783/2003 (3), includes certain provisions that are not directly applicable to beneficiary countries under Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999. Article 26 can therefore no longer be referred to in Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2759/1999 (4). Specific provisions should therefore be introduced into Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2759/1999 to take account of the situation with regard to the applicant countries.
(2)
Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 concerns the rate of Community contribution and the aid intensities. Paragraph 2 of that Article raises the ceiling for public aid for investments in agricultural holdings, amongst others, for investments made by young farmers and/or in mountain areas. Those terms should be defined in accordance with the principles applicable to Member States.
(3)
Regulation (EC) No 2759/1999 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(4)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Agriculture Structures and Rural Development Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 2759/1999 is amended as follows:
1.
In Article 3, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:
‘1. Support may be granted for investments provided for in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 relating to improving the processing and marketing of the agricultural including fishery products included in Annex I to the Treaty. Agricultural products, excluding fishery products, must originate in applicant countries or the Community. Investments at the retail level shall be excluded from support.
Support shall be granted to those persons ultimately responsible for financing the investment in enterprises fulfilling the conditions provided for in the first and second indents of Article 2(2) of this Regulation.
However, where acquis-related minimum standards regarding the environment, hygiene and animal welfare have been newly introduced at the time the application is received, the decision to grant support will be conditional on the enterprise meeting those new standards by the end of the realisation of the investment.’
2.
In Article 8, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:
‘4. For the application of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 the following definitions shall apply:
(a)
‘young farmers’ shall mean a farmer under 40 years of age at the time when the decision to grant support is taken, possessing adequate occupational skills and competence;
(b)
‘mountain areas’ shall mean mountain areas as defined in Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999;
(c)
‘public aid’ shall mean all such aid whether or not granted under the programme.’
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third 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 December 2004.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1560/2007
of 17 December 2007
amending Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 as regards the date of introduction of electronic identification for ovine and caprine animals
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 37 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),
Whereas:
(1)
Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals (2) provides that each Member State is to establish a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals in accordance with the provisions of that Regulation.
(2)
That Regulation also provides that, as from 1 January 2008, electronic identification is to become obligatory for all animals born after that date.
(3)
In addition, that Regulation provides that the Commission is to submit to the Council, by 30 June 2006, a report on the implementation of the electronic identification system, accompanied by appropriate proposals, on which the Council is to vote confirming or amending, if necessary, the date of the introduction of the obligatory use of that system and to update, if necessary, some technical aspects relating to the implementation of electronic identification.
(4)
The Commission report concludes that it is not possible to justify the date of 1 January 2008 as the date for the introduction of obligatory electronic identification. Therefore it is appropriate to amend this date by postponing it to 31 December 2009 in order to allow the Member States to take necessary measures to properly implement the system, taking into account its current and potential economic impact.
(5)
A number of Member States have already developed the technology necessary for the introduction of electronic identification and gained significant experience with its implementation. They should not be prevented from introducing it at national level if they consider it appropriate. Their experience would provide the Commission and the other Member States with further valuable information on the technical implications of electronic identification and on its impact.
(6)
Having regard to the economic importance of this Regulation, it is necessary to rely on the grounds of urgency provided for in point I.3 of the Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the European Union annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty establishing the European Community and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.
(7)
Since this Regulation is to apply from 1 January 2008, it should enter into force immediately.
(8)
Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 is hereby amended as follows:
1.
the first subparagraph of Article 9(3) shall be replaced by the following:
‘3. As from 31 December 2009, electronic identification according to the guidelines referred to in paragraph 1, and in accordance with the relevant provisions of Section A of the Annex, shall be obligatory for all animals.’;
2.
Article 9(4) shall be replaced by the following:
‘4. Before 31 December 2009, Member States may introduce the obligatory use of electronic identification for animals born on their territory.’
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, 17 December 2007.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 5 July 1983
establishing that the apparatus described as 'JEOL - Scanning Electron Microscope model JSM-35C' may not be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties
(83/348/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1798/75 of 10 July 1975 on the importation free of Common Customs Tariff duties of educational, scientific and cultural materials (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 608/82 (2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 of 12 December 1979 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 1798/75 (3), and in particular Article 7 thereof,
Whereas, by letter dated 29 December 1982, the Federal Republic of Germany requested the Commission to invoke the procedure provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 in order to determine whether or not the apparatus described as 'JEOL - Scanning Electron Microscope, model JSM-35C', ordered on 21 December 1978 and intended to be used for the study of electrochemical processes, plastics, photographic emulsions and biological systems and also for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of inorganic, organic and biological systems involved with high depth of focus and sometimes in very low temperatures (- 150 °C), should be considered to be a scientific apparatus and, where the reply is in the affirmative, whether apparatus of equivalent scientific value is currently being manufactured in the Community;
Whereas, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79, a group of experts composed of representatives of all the Member States met on 30 May 1983, within the framework of the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements, to examine the matter;
Whereas this examination showed that the apparatus in question is an electron microscope; whereas its objective technical characteristics, such as the resolution power, and the use to which it is put make it specially suited to scientific research; whereas, moreover, apparatus of the same kind are principally used for scientific activities; whereas it must therefore be considered to be a scientific apparatus;
Whereas, however, on the basis of information received from Member States, apparatus of scientific value equivalent to the said apparatus, capable of being used for the same purposes, are currently being manufactured in the Community; whereas this applies, in particular, to the apparatus 'PSEM 500X' manufactured by Philips Nederland BV, Boschdijk 525, NL-Eindhoven,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The apparatus described as 'JEOL - Scanning Electron Microscope, model JSM-35C', which is subject of an application by the Federal Republic of Germany of 29 December 1982, may not be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 5 July 1983.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 25 January 1994 amending Decision 93/602/EC concerning certain protection measures relating to African swine fever in Portugal (94/35/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), as last amended by Council Directive 92/118/EEC (2), and in particular Article 10 (4) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (3), as last amended by Directive 92/118/EEC, and in particular Article 9 (4) thereof,
Whereas as a result of outbreaks of African swine fever in the Alentejo region of Portugal, the Commission adopted Decision 93/602/EC of 19 November 1993 concerning certain protection measures relating to African swine fever in Portugal (4);
Whereas the occurrence of African swine fever is liable to present a serious threat to the herds of other Member States in view of the trade in live pigs, fresh pigmeat and certain meat-based products;
Whereas information provided by Portugal on the African swine fever situation makes it possible to reduce the area for which certain protection measures were established by Decision 93/602/EC;
Whereas in the light of the new situation it is necessary to adjust the measures adopted by Decision 93/602/EC;
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
Decision 93/602/EC is hereby amended as follows:
1. In Article 1, paragraphs 2 and 3 are deleted.
2. In Article 2, paragraph 3 is deleted.
3. In Article 4, paragraph 2, the first indent is replaced by:
'- the pigs have remained on the holding of origin for at least 21 days prior to consignment to the slaughterhouse and no other pigs have been introduced during the same period,
- all pigs to be consigned have been subjected to an individual serological test for African swine fever with negative results within 10 days prior to consignment to the slaughterhouse, or
the herd has been sampled in accordance with the provisions of Annex II within 14 days prior to consignment,
- all the pigs to be consigned have been identified with an eartag or tattoo prior to sampling,
- all animals in the holding of origin are subjected to a clinical examination by an authorized veterinarian within 24 hours prior to consignment.'
4. Annex I is replaced by the following:
'ANNEX I
PROTECTION AREA
The following municipalities:
- Moura
- Barrancos
- Serpa
- Mertola'
5. In Article 3 (1), (2) and (3), the certificate must be completed with 'as amended by Decision 94/35/EC'.
Article 2
Member States shall amend the measures which they apply to trade so as to bring them into compliance with this Decision. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 January 1994.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 764/2005
of 19 May 2005
fixing the export refunds on cereals and on wheat or rye flour, groats and meal
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)
Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 provides that the difference between quotations or prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1 of that Regulation and prices for those products in the Community may be covered by an export refund.
(2)
The refunds must be fixed taking into account the factors referred to in Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules under 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 (2).
(3)
As far as wheat and rye flour, groats and meal are concerned, when the refund on these products is being calculated, account must be taken of the quantities of cereals required for their manufacture. These quantities were fixed in Regulation (EC) No 1501/95.
(4)
The world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the refund for certain products according to destination.
(5)
The refund must be fixed once a month. It may be altered in the intervening period.
(6)
It follows from applying the detailed rules set out above to the present situation on the market in cereals, and in particular to quotations or prices for these products within the Community and on the world market, that the refunds should be as set out in the Annex hereto.
(7)
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 export refunds on the products listed in Article 1(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003, excluding malt, exported in the natural state, shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 May 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 May 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1891/87 of 2 July 1987 fixing the guide price and the intervention price for adult bovine animals for the 1987/88 marketing year
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 Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 467/87 (2), and in particular Article 3 (3) thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (3), Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (4), Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (5), Whereas, when the guide price for adult bovine animals is fixed, account should be taken both of the objectives of the common agricultural policy and of the contribution which the Community wishes to make to the harmonious development of world trade; whereas the common agricultural policy aims inter alia at ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, at guaranteeing the availability of supplies and at ensuring that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices; Whereas the guide price must be fixed in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 3 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68; whereas Regulation (EEC) No 653/87 (6) provides for the application of the common prices in Spain at the beginning of the 1987/88 marketing year; Whereas, by Regulation (EEC) No 869/84 (7), a decision was taken to implement the intervention measures on the basis of the Community scale for the classification of carcases of adult bovine animals, established under Regulation (EEC) No 1208/81 (8), for an experimental period of three years' duration; whereas, in light of the experience gained during this period and of the advantages associated with the use of the said scales it should continue to be applied to the intervention measures; Whereas it is therefore appropriate to fix henceforth the intervention price per 100 kilograms carcase weight for the categories of animal eligible for intervention by referring to a reference quality defined in accordance with the said scale; whereas, in addition, since these are increasingly comparable in terms of their trade value, a single intervention price should be fixed for the said categories of animal, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For the 1987/88 marketing year, the guide price for adult bovine animals shall be 205,02 ECU per 100 kilograms liveweight.
Article 2
For the 1987/88 marketing year, and notwithstanding the second subparagraph of Article 6 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68, the intervention price shall be 344 ECU per 100 kilograms carcase weight for the carcase of male animals of Class R 3 of the Community scale for the classification of adult bovine animals laid down by Regulation (EEC) No 1208/81.
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 from the beginning of the 1987/88 marketing year for beef and veal.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 2 July 1987.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 5 March 2004
amending Decision 2003/467/EC as regards the declaration that certain provinces in Italy are free of bovine tuberculosis and bovine brucellosis
(notified under document number C(2004) 666)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2004/230/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine(1), and in particular Annex A(I)(4) and Annex A(II)(7) thereto,
Whereas:
(1) The lists of regions of Member States declared free of bovine tuberculosis and bovine brucellosis are set out in Commission Decision 2003/467/EC of 23 June 2003 establishing the official tuberculosis, brucellosis and enzootic-bovine-leukosis free status of certain Member States and regions of Member States as regards bovine herds(2).
(2) Italy submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the appropriate conditions provided for in Directive 64/432/EEC as regards the province of Grossetto in the Region of Toscana in order that that province may be declared officially free of tuberculosis as regards bovine herds.
(3) Italy also submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the appropriate conditions provided for in Directive 64/432/EEC as regards the provinces of Arezzo, Grossetto, Livorno, Lucca and Pisa in the Region of Toscana, in order that those provinces may be declared officially free of brucellosis as regards bovine herds.
(4) Following evaluation of the documentation submitted by Italy, the province of Grossetto in the Region of Toscana should be declared officially free of bovine tuberculosis and the provinces of Arezzo, Grossetto, Livorno, Lucca and Pisa in the Region of Toscana should be declared officially free of bovine brucellosis.
(5) Decision 2003/467/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.
(6) 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
Annexes I and II to Decision 2003/467/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 5 March 2004.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DIRECTIVE
of 11 July 1985
adapting to technical progress Council Directive 84/533/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the permissible sound power level of compressors
(85/406/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,Having regard to Council Directive 84/533/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the permissible sound power level of compressors (1) and in particular Article 7 thereof,Whereas, in view of experience gained and of the state of the art, it is now necessary to match the requirements of Annex I and Annex II of Directive 84/533/EEC to the actual test conditions;Whereas the measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Directive on the Determination of the Noise Emission of Construction Plant and Equipment,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
Annex I and Annex II to Directive 84/533/EEC are hereby amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.
Article 2
The Member States shall, by 26 March 1986, adopt and publish the provisions required to comply with this Directive and shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
Article 3
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 11 July 1985.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC, EURATOM) No 2104/2005
of 20 December 2005
adjusting, with effect from 1 July 2005, the remuneration to pensions of officials to other servants of the European Communities to the correction coefficients applied thereto
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Protocol on the Privileges to Immunities of the European Communities, to in particular Article 13 thereof,
Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials to the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities laid down by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), and in particular Articles 63, 64, 65 and 82 of the Staff Regulations to Annexes VII, XI and XIII thereto, and the first paragraph of Article 20 and Articles 64 and 92 of the Conditions of employment of other servants,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas:
in order to guarantee that the purchasing power of Community officials to other servants develops in parallel with that of national civil servants in the Member States, the remuneration to pensions of officials to other servants of the European Communities should be adjusted under the 2005 annual review,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
With effect from 1 July 2005, the date ‘1 July 2004’ in the second paragraph of Article 63 of the Staff Regulations shall be replaced by ‘1 July 2005’.
Article 2
With effect from 1 July 2005, the table of basic monthly salaries in Article 66 of the Staff Regulations applicable for the purposes of calculating remuneration to pensions shall be replaced by the following:
1.7.2005
Step
Grade
1
2
3
4
5
16
15 255,00
15 896,04
16 564,01
15
13 482,88
14 049,45
14 639,82
15 047,12
15 255,00
14
11 916,61
12 417,36
12 939,16
13 299,15
13 482,88
13
10 532,30
10 974,88
11 436,06
11 754,22
11 916,61
12
9 308,79
9 699,96
10 107,56
10 388,77
10 532,30
11
8 227,42
8 573,15
8 933,40
9 181,94
9 308,79
10
7 271,67
7 577,23
7 895,64
8 115,30
8 227,42
9
6 426,94
6 697,01
6 978,42
7 172,57
7 271,67
8
5 680,34
5 919,04
6 167,76
6 339,36
6 426,94
7
5 020,47
5 231,44
5 451,27
5 602,93
5 680,34
6
4 437,26
4 623,72
4 818,01
4 952,06
5 020,47
5
3 921,80
4 086,60
4 258,32
4 376,79
4 437,26
4
3 466,22
3 611,87
3 763,65
3 868,36
3 921,80
3
3 063,56
3 192,29
3 326,43
3 418,98
3 466,22
2
2 707,67
2 821,45
2 940,01
3 021,81
3 063,56
1
2 393,13
2 493,69
2 598,48
2 670,77
2 707,67
Article 3
With effect from 1 July 2005, the correction coefficients applicable under Article 64 of the Staff Regulations to the remuneration of officials and other servants shall be as indicated in column 2 of the following table.
With effect from 1 January 2006, the correction coefficients applicable under Article 17(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations to transfers by officials and other servants shall be as indicated in column 3 of the following table.
With effect from 1 July 2005, the correction coefficients applicable to pensions under Article 20(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations shall be as indicated in column 4 of the following table.
With effect from 1 May 2006, the correction coefficients applicable to pensions under Article 20(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations shall be as indicated in column 5 of the following table.
1
2
3
4
5
Country/Place
Remuneration
1.7.2005
Transfer
1.1.2006
Pension
1.7.2005
Pension
1.5.2006
Czech Republic
90,6
78,6
100,0
100,0
Denmark
135,9
130,8
133,9
132,8
Germany
100,2
102,1
101,0
101,3
Bonn
96,0
Karlsruhe
95,0
Munich
106,4
Estonia
80,3
78,1
100,0
100,0
Greece
93,0
91,2
100,0
100,0
Spain
101,2
95,3
100,0
100,0
France
119,0
106,3
113,9
111,4
Ireland
122,4
116,3
120,0
118,7
Italy
111,8
107,6
110,1
109,3
Varese
99,0
Cyprus
92,0
97,2
100,0
100,0
Latvia
76,1
72,9
100,0
100,0
Lithuania
77,1
73,6
100,0
100,0
Hungary
90,0
73,0
100,0
100,0
Malta
89,6
92,3
100,0
100,0
Netherlands
109,7
101,3
106,3
104,7
Austria
107,1
107,0
107,1
107,0
Poland
81,4
74,9
100,0
100,0
Portugal
91,5
90,1
100,0
100,0
Slovenia
83,0
80,8
100,0
100,0
Slovakia
92,9
82,1
100,0
100,0
Finland
117,7
112,8
115,7
114,8
Sweden
112,4
105,1
109,5
108,0
United Kingdom
143,8
117,4
133,2
128,0
Culham
115,4
Article 4
With effect from 1 July 2005, the amount of the parental leave allowance referred to in Article 42a of the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 822,06 to EUR 1 096,07 for single parents.
Article 5
With effect from 1 July 2005 the basic amount of the household allowance referred to in Article 1(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 153,75.
With effect from 1 July 2005 the amount of the dependent child allowance referred to in Article 2(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 335,96.
With effect from 1 July 2005 the amount of the education allowance referred to in Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 227,96.
With effect from 1 July 2005 the amount of the education allowance referred to in Article 3(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be EUR 82,07.
With effect from 1 July 2005, the minimum amount of the expatriation allowance referred to in Article 69 of the Staff Regulations and in the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Annex VII thereto shall be EUR 455,69.
Article 6
With effect from 1 January 2006, the kilometric allowance referred to in Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be adjusted as follows:
-
:
EUR 0 for every km from
:
0 to 200 km
-
:
EUR 0,3417 for every km from
:
201 to 1 000 km
-
:
EUR 0,5695 for every km from
:
1 001 to 2 000 km
-
:
EUR 0,3417 for every km from
:
2 001 to 3 000 km
-
:
EUR 0,1139 for every km from
:
3 001 to 4 000 km
-
:
EUR 0,0548 for every km from
:
4 001 to 10 000 km
-
:
EUR 0 for every km over
:
10 000 km.
A flat-rate supplement shall be added to the above kilometric allowance, amounting to:
-
EUR 170,84 if the distance by train between the place of employment and the place of origin is between 725 km and 1 450 km,
-
EUR 341,66 if the distance by train between the place of employment and the place of origin is greater than 1 450 km.
Article 7
With effect from 1 July 2005 the daily subsistence allowance referred to in Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations shall be:
-
EUR 35,31 for an official who is entitled to the household allowance,
-
EUR 28,47 for an official who is not entitled to the household allowance.
Article 8
With effect from 1 July 2005, the lower limit for the installation allowance referred to in Article 24(3) of the conditions of employment of other servants shall be:
-
EUR 1 005,33 for a servant who is entitled to the household allowance,
-
EUR 597,77 for a servant who is not entitled to the household allowance.
Article 9
With effect from 1 July 2005, for the unemployment allowance referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 28a(3) of the Conditions of employment of other servants, the lower limit shall be EUR 1 205,67, the upper limit shall be EUR 2 411,35 and the standard allowance shall be EUR 1 096,07.
Article 10
With effect from 1 July 2005, the table of basic monthly salaries in Article 63 of the Conditions of employment of other servants shall be replaced by the following:
1.7.2005
Step
Category
Group
1
2
3
4
A
I
6 144,76
6 905,90
7 667,04
8 428,18
II
4 459,77
4 894,34
5 328,91
5 763,48
III
3 747,74
3 914,68
4 081,62
4 248,56
B
IV
3 600,20
3 952,65
4 305,10
4 657,55
V
2 827,89
3 014,30
3 200,71
3 387,12
C
VI
2 689,53
2 847,87
3 006,21
3 164,55
VII
2 407,22
2 489,13
2 571,04
2 652,95
D
VIII
2 175,76
2 303,90
2 432,04
2 560,18
IX
2 095,34
2 124,53
2 153,72
2 182,91
Article 11
With effect from 1 July 2005, the table of basic monthly salaries in Article 93 of the Conditions of employment of other servants shall be replaced by the following:
Function group
1.7.2005
Step
Grade
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IV
18
5 258,78
5 368,14
5 479,78
5 593,73
5 710,06
5 828,81
5 950,02
17
4 647,85
4 744,50
4 843,17
4 943,89
5 046,70
5 151,65
5 258,78
16
4 107,89
4 193,31
4 280,52
4 369,53
4 460,40
4 553,16
4 647,85
15
3 630,66
3 706,16
3 783,23
3 861,91
3 942,22
4 024,20
4 107,89
14
3 208,87
3 275,60
3 343,72
3 413,25
3 484,23
3 556,69
3 630,66
13
2 836,08
2 895,06
2 955,26
3 016,72
3 079,46
3 143,50
3 208,87
III
12
3 630,61
3 706,10
3 783,17
3 861,84
3 942,14
4 024,12
4 107,80
11
3 208,85
3 275,57
3 343,69
3 413,22
3 484,19
3 556,65
3 630,61
10
2 836,08
2 895,06
2 955,26
3 016,71
3 079,44
3 143,48
3 208,85
9
2 506,62
2 558,74
2 611,95
2 666,27
2 721,71
2 778,31
2 836,08
8
2 215,43
2 261,50
2 308,53
2 356,53
2 405,53
2 455,56
2 506,62
II
7
2 506,55
2 558,69
2 611,90
2 666,23
2 721,69
2 778,29
2 836,08
6
2 215,31
2 261,39
2 308,42
2 356,44
2 405,45
2 455,48
2 506,55
5
1 957,91
1 998,64
2 040,21
2 082,64
2 125,96
2 170,17
2 215,31
4
1 730,42
1 766,41
1 803,15
1 840,66
1 878,94
1 918,02
1 957,91
I
3
2 131,74
2 175,98
2 221,14
2 267,24
2 314,29
2 362,32
2 411,35
2
1 884,55
1 923,66
1 963,58
2 004,33
2 045,93
2 088,39
2 131,74
1
1 666,02
1 700,60
1 735,89
1 771,92
1 808,69
1 846,23
1 884,55
Article 12
With effect from 1 July 2005, the lower limit for the installation allowance referred to in Article 94 of the Conditions of employment of other servants shall be:
-
EUR 756,18 for a servant who is entitled to the household allowance,
-
EUR 448,32 for a servant who is not entitled to the household allowance.
Article 13
With effect from 1 July 2005, for the unemployment allowance referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 96(3) of the Conditions of employment of other servants, the lower limit shall be EUR 904,26, the upper limit shall be EUR 1 808,51 and the standard allowance shall be EUR 822,06.
Article 14
With effect from 1 July 2005, the allowances for shiftwork laid down in Article 1 of Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 300/76 (2) shall be EUR 344,58, EUR 520,10, EUR 568,66 and EUR 775,27.
Article 15
With effect from 1 July 2005, the amounts in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 260/68 (3) shall be subject to a coefficient of 4,974173.
Article 16
With effect from 1 July 2005, the table in Article 8 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations shall be replaced by the following:
1.7.2005
Step
Grade
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
16
15 255,00
15 896,04
16 564,01
16 564,01
16 564,01
16 564,01
15
13 482,88
14 049,45
14 639,82
15 047,12
15 255,00
15 896,04
14
11 916,61
12 417,36
12 939,16
13 299,15
13 482,88
14 049,45
14 639,82
15 255,00
13
10 532,30
10 974,88
11 436,06
11 754,22
11 916,61
12
9 308,79
9 699,96
10 107,56
10 388,77
10 532,30
10 974,88
11 436,06
11 916,61
11
8 227,42
8 573,15
8 933,40
9 181,94
9 308,79
9 699,96
10 107,56
10 532,30
10
7 271,67
7 577,23
7 895,64
8 115,30
8 227,42
8 573,15
8 933,40
9 308,79
9
6 426,94
6 697,01
6 978,42
7 172,57
7 271,67
8
5 680,34
5 919,04
6 167,76
6 339,36
6 426,94
6 697,01
6 978,42
7 271,67
7
5 020,47
5 231,44
5 451,27
5 602,93
5 680,34
5 919,04
6 167,76
6 426,94
6
4 437,26
4 623,72
4 818,01
4 952,06
5 020,47
5 231,44
5 451,27
5 680,34
5
3 921,80
4 086,60
4 258,32
4 376,79
4 437,26
4 623,72
4 818,01
5 020,47
4
3 466,22
3 611,87
3 763,65
3 868,36
3 921,80
4 086,60
4 258,32
4 437,26
3
3 063,56
3 192,29
3 326,43
3 418,98
3 466,22
3 611,87
3 763,65
3 921,80
2
2 707,67
2 821,45
2 940,01
3 021,81
3 063,56
3 192,29
3 326,43
3 466,22
1
2 393,13
2 493,69
2 598,48
2 670,77
2 707,67
Article 17
With effect from 1 July 2005 the amount of the dependent child allowance referred to in Article 14(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations shall be as follows:
1.7.2005-31.12.2005
:
EUR 282,04
1.1.2006-31.12.2006
:
EUR 295,52
1.1.2007-31.12.2007
:
EUR 309,00
1.1.2008-31.12.2008
:
EUR 322,47.
Article 18
With effect from 1 July 2005 the amount of the education allowance referred to in Article 15(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations shall be as follows:
1.7.2005-31.8.2005
:
EUR 16,41
1.9.2005-31.8.2006
:
EUR 32,83
1.9.2006-31.8.2007
:
EUR 49,23
1.9.2007-31.8.2008
:
EUR 65,65.
Article 19
With effect from 1 July 2005, for the purposes of application of Article 18 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, the amount of the fixed allowance mentioned in Article 4a of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in force before 1 May 2004 shall be:
-
EUR 118,88 per month for officials in Grade C4 or C5,
-
EUR 182,26 per month for officials in Grade C1, C2 or C3.
Article 20
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, 20 December 2005.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1557/2007
of 20 December 2007
fixing the rates of refunds applicable to certain products from the sugar sector exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty
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 market in the sugar sector (1), and in particular Article 33(2)(a) and (4) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 32(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 provides that the differences between the prices in international trade for the products listed in Article 1(1)(b), (c), (d) and (g) of that Regulation and prices within the Community may be covered by an export refund where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Annex VII to that Regulation.
(2)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 of 30 June 2005 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 as regards 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 (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 318/2006.
(3)
In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed each month.
(4)
Article 32(4) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in goods may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.
(5)
The refunds fixed under this Regulation may be fixed in advance as the market situation over the next few months cannot be established at the moment.
(6)
The commitments entered into with regard to refunds which may be granted for the export of agricultural products contained in goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty may be jeopardised by the fixing in advance of high refund rates. It is therefore necessary to take precautionary measures in such situations without, however, preventing the conclusion of long-term contracts. The fixing of a specific refund rate for the advance fixing of refunds is a measure which enables these various objectives to be met.
(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
The rates of the refunds applicable to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 and in Article 1(1) and in point (1) of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006, and exported in the form of goods listed in Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 318/2006, shall be fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 December 2007.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 December 2007.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2536/98 of 26 November 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 920/89 laying down quality standards for carrots, citrus fruit and dessert apples and pears
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2520/97 (2), and in particular Article 2(2) thereof,
Whereas Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 920/89 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 888/97 (4), lays down a quality standard for carrots;
Whereas Article 149 of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden provides for any transitional measures necessary to facilitate the transition from the existing regime in the new Member States to that resulting from application of the common organisation of the markets to be taken under the Management Committee procedure; whereas the period during which that could be done originally expired on 31 December 1997; whereas the Council has extended it until 31 December 1998;
Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 2376/96 of 13 December 1996 derogating, for an additional period of one year, from Regulation (EEC) No 920/89, as regards carrots covered with pure peat produced in Sweden and Finland (5), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 341/98 (6), permits the marketing of these products on the Swedish and Finnish markets and their export to third countries; whereas that Regulation expires on 31 December 1998;
Whereas most of the carrots marketed in Sweden and Finland are covered with pure peat; whereas it has been scientifically demonstrated that covering washed carrots with pure peat has no deleterious effect on their quality and, indeed, in some cases may improve conservation; whereas the marketing of these products should therefore be permitted without restriction in time;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 920/89 is hereby amended as follows:
1. the second sub-indent of the second indent of point II.A is replaced by the following:
'- practically free from excess dirt and impurities if they are not washed, or if they are washed and covered with pure peat.`;
2. the following paragraph is added to point V.C:
'Where washed carrots are covered in pure peat, the peat used shall not be considered as foreign matter.`;
3. the following new indent is inserted after the second indent in point VI.B:
'- where appropriate, "carrots in peat", even if the contents are visible from the outside.`
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 January 1999.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 November 1998.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 27 September 1982
establishing that the apparatus described as 'Aminco - Spectrofluorometer, model J4-8970' may not be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties
(82/686/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1798/75 of 10 July 1975 on the importation free of Common Custom Tariff duties of educational, scientific and cultural materials (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 608/82 (2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 of 12 December 1979 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 1798/75 (3), and in particular Article 7 thereof,
Whereas, by letter dated 16 April 1982, Belgium has requested the Commission to invoke the procedure provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79 in order to determine whether or not the apparatus described as 'Aminco - Spectrofluorometer, model J4-8970', ordered on 9 January 1981 and to be used for the research on fluorometric determination and fluorometric-kinetic enzyme analysis, and in particular for the study of variations in heme synthesis and in glycolysis, should be considered to be a scientific apparatus and, where the reply is in the affirmative, whether apparatus of equivalent scientific value is currently being manufactured in the Community;
Whereas, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 2784/79, a group of experts composed of representatives of all the Member States met on 16 July 1982 within the framework of the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements to examine the matter;
Whereas this examination showed that the apparatus in question is a spectrofluorometer; whereas its objective technical characteristics such as the resolution power of the spectrum and the use to which it is put make it specially suited to scientific research; whereas, moreover, apparatus of the same kind are principally used for scientific activities; whereas it must therefore be considered to be a scientific apparatus;
Whereas, however, on the basis of information received from Member States, apparatus of scientific value equivalent to the said apparatus, capable of being used for the same purposes, are currently being manufactured in the Community; whereas this applies, in particular, to the apparatus 'SFR 100' manufactured by Baird-Atomic Ltd, East Street, Braintree, UK-Essex, and to the apparatus 'JY3C' manufactured by Jobin Yvon, 16-18, rue du Canal, F-91163 Longjumeau Cedex,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The apparatus described as 'Aminco - Spectrofluorometer, model J4-8970', which is the subject of an application by Belgium of 16 April 1982, may not be imported free of Common Customs Tariff duties.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 September 1982.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2921/94 of 30 November 1994 amending Regulation (EC) No 1083/94 on the sale on the Portuguese domestic market of 250 000 tonnes of maize held by the Portuguese intervention agency
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 last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1866/94 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3670/93 of 22 December 1993 on special arrangements for imports of maize into Portugal (3), and in particular Article 3 (2) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1083/94 of 10 May 1994, on the sale on the Portuguese domestic market of 250 000 tonnes of maize held by the Portuguese intervention agency (4) provides for the resale of the third instalment of 120 000 tonnes on 2 December 1994; whereas, given the situation with regard to the supply of maize to the Portuguese market and at the request of the Portuguese authorities, the date for the first submission of applications for that instalment should be adjusted to avoid disturbances on the market;
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
Article 3 (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/94 is hereby replaced by the following:
'3. For the third instalment of 120 000 tonnes the time limit for the first submission of applications shall expire at 12 noon (Brussels time) on 16 December 1994. The dates for any subsequent submissions shall be fixed by the INGA until the full quantity has been sold.'
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, 30 November 1994.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2342/92 of 7 August 1992 on imports of pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species from the third countries and the granting of export refunds thereon and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1544/79
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2066/92 (2), and in particular Articles 10 (5) and 18 (6) thereof,
Whereas import levy is not payable on pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species falling within CN code 0102 10 00 on import into the Community; whereas on export a higher refund is paid on female animals up to the age of 60 months than on live bovine animals falling within CN codes 0102 90 31 and 0102 90 33;
Whereas, to permit proper application of the Community rules in this area, the term pure-bred breeding animal should be clarified; whereas the definition given in Article 1 of Council Directive 77/504/EEC of 25 July 1977 on pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species (3), as last amended by Directive 91/174/EEC (4), must be used for the purpose;
Whereas in order to ensure that imported animals are actually intended for breeding they must be accompanied by the pedigree and breeding certificates and the health certificates normally required for such animals and importers must undertake to keep the animals alive for a certain period;
Whereas, since there is no provision for a security to ensure that these animals are kept alive for that period, provision should be made for Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties (5) to apply where the requirement concerning that period is not observed;
Whereas the Community has concluded bilateral free-trade agreements with the EFTA; whereas, under those agreements, certain provisions relating to, or obligations on, the third countries concerned should be waived but the pedigree and breeding certificates and the health certificates relating to pure-bred breeding animals must be required to be presented on release for free circulation in the Community;
Whereas the health documents required to accompany exports of pure-bred female breeding animals up to 60 months old in order to make sure that they are really intended for breeding and the genetic value assessment results that must appear on or accompany the pedigree certificate should be specified;
Whereas pure-bred breeding animals imported into the Community must be checked to see that they have not previously been exported from the Community and that export refunds have not been paid thereon; whereas, where export refunds have been paid on such animals, the sums must be repaid before the animals are re-imported into the Community;
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1544/79 (6), amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3988/87 (7), only covers the requirements pertaining to the granting of export refunds on pure-bred breeding animals; whereas, for the sake of clarity it should be repealed and its provisions incorporated in this Regulation;
Whereas 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
For the purposes of collecting import levies and granting export refunds, live animals of the bovine species shall be considered pure-bred breeding animals falling within CN code 0102 1000 if they meet the definition laid down in Article 1 of Directive 77/504/EEC. In addition, only female animals up to six years old shall be considered pure-breed breeding females.
Article 2
1. On the release for free circulation of pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species falling within CN code 0102 10 00, importers shall present the following to the customs authorities of the Member State in respect of each animal:
(a) the pedigree and breeding certificate;
(b) the health certificate of the type required for pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species.
2. in addition, importers shall submit a written declaration to the customs authorities to the effect that, except in cases of force majeure, the animal will not be slaughtered within 12 months of the day on which it is imported.
3. By no later than the end of the 15th month following that of release for free circulation, importers shall provide the customs authorities of the Member State of import with proof that the animal:
(a) has not been slaughtered before the expiry of the time limit laid down in paragraph 2 and has been registered or entered in a herd book; or
(b) has been slaughtered before the expiry of the time limit for health reasons or has died as a result of disease or accident.
The proof referred to in (a) shall consist in a certificate drawn up by the association, organization or official body of the member State holding the herd book. The proof referred to in (b) shall consist in a certificate drawn up by an official body designated by the Member State.
4. Failure to observe the requirement relating to the period of 12 months, except where paragraph 3 (b) applies, shall result in classification of the animal in question under CN code 0102 90 and shall give rise to proceedings to recover import duties not collected, in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79.
5. The provisions relating to:
- the age limit laid down in Article 1,
- the obligations specified in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4
shall not apply to imports of pure-bred breeding originating in and coming from Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.
Article 3
The granting of the refund on female pure-bred breeding animals shall be subject to the presentation, in respect of each animal, at the time customs export formalities are completed, of the original and a copy of:
(a) the pedigree certificate issued by the association, organization or official body of the Member State holding the herd book showing in particular the results of performance tests and the results (with details of origin) of the assessment of the genetic value of the animal concerned and its parents and grandparents. These results may also accompany the certificate;
(b) the health certificate for pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species required by the third country of destination.
However, by way of derogation from point (b), Member States may authorize the presentation of a single certificate for a batch of animals.
The originals of both certificates shall be returned to the exporter and the copies, certified as true copies by the customs authorities, shall be attached to the refund payment application.
Article 4
1. Before release for free circulation of pure-bred breeding animals re-imported into the Community, any export refund granted must be repaid or the necessary measures taken by the competent authorities for such sums to be withheld if they have not already been paid.
2. If, at the time customs import formalities are completed for animals falling within CN code 0102 10 00, the pedigree certificate shows that the breeder is established in the Community, the importer must also give proof that no refund has been granted or that any refund granted has been repaid. If such proof cannot be provided, an export refund equal to the highest import levy applicable to animals of the bovine species falling within CN code 0102 90 on the day of re-importation into the Community shall be considered as having been paid.
Article 5
Regulation (CEE) No 1544/79 is hereby repealed.
Article 6
This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 August 1992. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 August 1992.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 22 June 2005
on the aid measures implemented by the Netherlands for AVR for dealing with hazardous waste
(notified under document number C(2005) 1789)
(Only the Dutch version is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2006/237/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 called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1) and having regard to their comments,
Whereas:
1. PROCEDURE
(1)
By letter of 7 January 2003 (registered as received on 10 January under No A/30189), the Netherlands notified operating aid for AVR Nutsbedrijf Gevaarlijk Afval B.V. (hereinafter ‘AVR Nuts’) for treating hazardous waste in the Netherlands with a view to disposal. The bulk of the aid was for the incineration of such waste in two rotating drum furnaces (‘RDFs’). The Netherlands invoked Article 86(2) of the Treaty and asked the Commission to decide that the measure does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty since it represents appropriate compensation for the obligation to provide a service of general economic interest (‘SGEI’) within the meaning of Article 86(2) of the Treaty. The case was registered under No N 43/2003.
(2)
The Commission requested additional information by letters of 7 February 2003 (D/50847) and 22 April 2003 (D/52566). The Netherlands submitted that information by letters of 24 March 2003 (registered as received on 28 March 2003 under No A/32279) and 19 June 2003 (registered as received on 25 June under No A/34394). Representatives of the Netherlands and of the Commission met on 21 May 2003. Two competitors submitted a joint complaint on the aid by letter of 2 May 2003 (registered as received on 5 May under No A/33155). By letter of 20 May 2003 (registered as received the same day under No A/33548), they informed the Commission that a subsidiary of one of them supported the complaint as well.
(3)
By decision C(2003)1763 of 24 June 2003, the Commission initiated the Article 88(2) procedure in respect of the notified measure. The case was registered as aid measure No C 43/2003. This decision was sent to the Netherlands by letter of 26 June 2003 (D/230250). It was published in the Official Journal of the European Union dated 20 August 2003 (2). The Commission received comments from four interested parties (registered under Nos A/36309, A/36463, A/36645, A/36679, A/36870, A/37077, A/37480 and A/37569), including from the two competitors that had submitted the complaint in May, also on behalf of another company belonging to the group to which one of the two original competitors belongs (hereinafter these four entities together are referred to as ‘the two joint competitors’). The Commission forwarded these comments to the Netherlands by letters of 1 October 2003 (D/56129), 29 October 2003 (D/56898), 7 November 2003 (D/57120) and 12 November 2003 (D/57185). These letters also contained some further questions from the Commission.
(4)
By letter of 13 August 2003 (registered as received on 14 August 2003 under No A/35706), the two joint competitors informed the Commission that part of the aid had been paid to AVR Nuts and they asked the Commission to take an injunction decision to suspend further payments and a decision ordering the Netherlands to provisionally recover the aid pursuant to Article 11 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 (3). As requested by the Commission on 20 August 2003 (D/55321), the Netherlands confirmed by letter of 25 September 2003 (registered as received on 30 September under No A/36690) that, as regards 2002 and the first quarter of 2003, the notified aid had been paid to AVR Nuts. By letter of 20 October 2003 (D/56735), the Commission informed the two joint competitors that it did not intend to take the decisions requested. The two joint competitors restated their request by letters of 14 November 2003 (registered as received on 17 November under No A/37909) and of 1 December 2003 (registered as received on 2 December under No A/38325). The letter of 1 December and the Commission’s reply of 24 November 2003 (D/57541) confirming its position actually crossed in the post.
(5)
After requesting an extension (letter of 14 July 2003, registered as received on 18 July under No A/35109 and letter of 29 October 2003, registered as received on 5 November under No A/37568) that was granted by letter of 23 July 2003 (D/54737), the Netherlands commented on the Commission’s decision by letter of 18 December 2003 (registered as received on 8 January 2004 under No A/30088). It gave its observations on the comments from interested parties by letters of 23 December 2003 (registered as received on 8 January 2004 under No A/30090), 23 January 2004 (registered as received on 29 January under No A/30621), 25 February 2004 (registered as received on 27 February under No A/31451) and 23 April 2004 (registered as received on 30 April under No A/33118). By means of the last two letters, the Netherlands also informed the Commission of ongoing developments at AVR Nuts. Since the mounting deficits would require increasing amounts of aid, it was decided to close one of the two RDFs with effect from 1 July 2004. Closure of the second RDF was still under consideration. It transpired that the original aid contract contained provisions to the effect that the Netherlands would grant some compensation for the costs of closure.
(6)
In view of the new information, the Commission adopted on 14 July 2004 decision C(2004) 2640 fin extending the Article 88(2) procedure to the compensation for the costs of the (possible) closure of the RDFs. On 16 July this decision was sent to the Netherlands, which asked for an extension of the deadline for comments and for a meeting to be convened to discuss the ongoing developments (letter of 30 July 2003, registered as received on 4 August under A/35996). A meeting between representatives of the Netherlands and of the Commission took place on 23 August 2004. Another meeting between representatives of the Commission and of the two joint competitors took place on 26 August 2004. For the rest, the law firm represented yet another competitor. The Netherlands commented on the Commission’s decision by letter of 10 September 2004 (registered as received on 17 September under No A/36999). By letter of 30 September 2004 (D/56902), the Commission requested further information which the Netherlands provided by letter of 22 October 2004 (registered as received on 27 October under No A/38271). In that letter, the Netherlands confirmed that further aid had been paid to the recipient for the remainder of 2003, the first three quarters of 2004 and the closure of one of the installations.
(7)
The decision to extend the procedure was published in the Official Journal of 9 October 2004 (4). The Commission received comments from the two joint competitors (letters of 16 and 19 November 2004, registered under Nos A/38860 and A/38978). It forwarded these comments to the Netherlands by letter of 22 November 2004 (D/58307). The Netherlands made observations on these comments and answered the Commission's questions by letters of 22 December 2004 (registered as received on 5 January 2005 under No A/30171) and 12 January 2005 (registered as received on 17 January under No A/30525). In these letters, the Netherlands informed the Commission not only of the decision to close the remaining RDF but also of the corresponding compensation for the costs of closure.
(8)
Lastly, the two joint competitors confirmed their opposition to the aid by letters of 25 April 2005 (registered as received the same day under No A/33476) and 2 May 2005 (registered as received on 12 May under No A/33884). Following these letters, yet another meeting between representatives of the Commission and of the two joint competitors took place on 26 May. Again, the law firm also represented the same third competitor (hereinafter this competitor together with the other two are referred to as the ‘three joint competitors’). At the meeting, a document was presented suggesting that further aid for 2004 had been paid to AVR Nuts.
2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE
2.1 Background and objective
(9)
Article 5(1) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (5) stipulates that ‘Member States shall take appropriate measures, in cooperation with other Member States where this is necessary or advisable, to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations, taking account of the best available technology not involving excessive costs. The network must enable the Community as a whole to become self-sufficient in waste disposal and the Member States to move towards that aim individually, taking into account geographical circumstances or the need for specialized installations for certain types of waste.’ Article 5(2) of the Directive stipulates that ‘the network must also enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations, by means of the most appropriate methods and technologies in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health.’
(10)
In the early 1990s, with a view to meeting these objectives, a special landfill site (‘C2 depot’) and several RDFs began operations in the Netherlands. The C2 depot is used for the appropriate disposal of hazardous waste that cannot be incinerated (‘C2 waste’). The RDFs are used for the appropriate disposal of hazardous waste that, despite a low calorific value, can still be incinerated (6) (‘RDF waste’). This incineration requires co-fuelling and, in practice, the most cost-efficient fuel is hazardous waste with a high calorific value.
(11)
In accordance with Article 8(3) of Directive 75/442/EC and Article 4(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (7), Member States may prohibit export of ‘waste for disposal’. It is only after various controls have been carried out that such waste may be traded. However, Member States are not generally allowed to prohibit the exportation to other Member States of ‘waste for recovery’ (8). The concepts of ‘waste for disposal’ and ‘waste for recovery’ have been clarified in various judgments by the Court of Justice of the European Communities (9). As a result, compared with the interpretation given to date by the Netherlands, a smaller amount of hazardous waste qualifies as waste for disposal while a larger amount qualifies as waste for recovery. The distinction does not depend on the calorific value of the waste, but rather on the primary objective of the installation in which the waste is treated and on the nature of the waste.
(12)
C2 waste and RDF waste are supplied by companies in all sectors of the economy. Important sectors include metalworking, business and public services, the (petro-) chemical industry, transport and mining. Most of the waste is handled by specialised intermediaries that typically offer a service covering the various types of waste produced by a company, i.e. C2 and RDF waste, other hazardous waste and non-hazardous waste. Such services are, of course, largely tied to the place where the waste is produced, but the more specific types of waste are transported over longer distances. Several large industrial waste companies operate internationally, with establishments in various countries.
(13)
In recent years, the options for putting hazardous waste to effective use have increased. More and more of it is being used in the cement industry (in particular in Belgium) or for filling abandoned mines (in particular in Germany). The Court’s strict interpretation of ‘waste for disposal’ has facilitated this development. At the same time, producers have further reduced the amounts of waste they generate. Within legal limits they can, at least to some extent, blend some of it with less hazardous waste, thereby reducing the costs of disposal or recovery. As a result, the supply of RDF waste fell from about 80 000/100 000 tonnes in 1995 to about 34 000 tonnes in 2002, compared with an anticipated figure of some 38 500 tonnes. In mid-2004 AVR estimated that only 16 000 tonnes of RDF waste would be offered to it annually (10). The supply of C2 waste decreased from about 6 000 tonnes in 2000 to 4 000 tonnes in 2002. Exports of hazardous waste produced in the Netherlands have increased to some 36 000 tonnes, of which some 4 000 tonnes is RDF waste, resulting in overcapacity as regards disposal facilities. This has become a wider phenomenon affecting, for example, the United Kingdom, Germany and Belgium.
2.2 Recipient
(14)
The C2 depot and the various RDFs were originally set up by AVR Chemie C.V. (‘AVR Chemie’), which is owned 30 % by the State and 70 % by Holding AVR Bedrijven N.V. (‘AVR-Holding’ or ‘AVR’ in short). AVR is a major player on the Dutch waste market. It is currently 100 %-owned by Rotterdam municipality, which has though recently announced its intention to sell its shares in AVR. As from the mid-1990s, AVR Chemie incurred losses (€10,9 million in 2000 and €7,2 million in 2001). For this reason, AVR wished to close down the three RDFs operating at that time. The Netherlands, however, reached an agreement on a restructuring. AVR Chemie was split up and AVR Nuts was created in order to continue with the disposal of C2 and RDF waste after the closure of one of the three RDFs. AVR-Industrial Waste Services Rotterdam B.V. (‘AVR IW’) was set up to take over the remaining activities on the (hazardous) waste markets, on which AVR wanted to remain active for its own commercial reasons. Both are wholly owned by AVR. AVR Chemie’s only remaining activity is renting out the facilities to AVR Nuts. AVR Nuts and AVR IW cooperate closely. A service contract stipulates that most of AVR Nuts’ management and commercial functions are carried out by AVR IW.
(15)
The capacity of the two RDFs for which AVR has a permit is 100 000 tonnes of hazardous waste per year. The theoretically available capacity is 80-85 % of the permitted capacity. AVR treated 84 880 tonnes of hazardous waste (both RDF and other) in 2001, 81 274 tonnes in 2002 and 78 297 tonnes in 2003. Incineration of RDF waste requires more or less the same quantity of other hazardous waste as fuel. The actual volume of RDF waste treated in the RDFs is estimated at 19 000 tonnes for 2002 and 23 000 tonnes for 2003. Certain types of RDF waste can also be disposed of in municipal waste incinerators, which operate at a lower temperature.
(16)
AVR Nuts is obliged to keep separate accounts in accordance with Commission Directive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings (11).
2.3 The aid
2.3.1 The operating deficits
(17)
The aid and the activities for which it is granted are defined in a concession decision by the Minister for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) dated 3 July 2002 and in a concession agreement between the Netherlands, AVR Holding, AVR Nuts, AVR IW and a number of other subsidiaries signed on 10 July 2002. By virtue of the decision, the State ‘grants AVR Nuts the exclusive right for a period of 5 years to operate the C2 depot and deal with hazardous waste in the RDFs subject to the obligation to offer the services of these installations as services of general economic interest to the public on reasonable, transparent and non-discriminatory conditions and against socially acceptable tariffs, in compliance with the conditions and provisions laid down in greater detail in the concession agreement.’ The agreement determines in detail the conditions for AVR Nuts’ operations. It was to run from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2006.
(18)
The aid amounts to 100 % of the predetermined operating deficit, which is calculated on the basis of a methodology laid down by an independent accountant. In the event of a predetermined operating surplus, 70 % of it would be used to pay back the aid granted previously. The predetermined deficits for 2002 and 2003 amounted to €1,5 million and €2,8 million respectively. Annex I to this decision provides a summary of the methodology and its application for 2002, 2003 and 2004. Most of the aid concerns the RDFs. For the C2 depot, the predetermined deficit amounted to €0.37 million in 2003, for example.
(19)
In accordance with the service contract, AVR IW carries out most of AVR Nuts’ administrative and operational functions. For this, it receives compensation the amount of which is included in the predetermined deficit on the basis of ‘activity-based costing’. In practice, this meant that, for the years 2002-04, an average of 30 % of AVR’s overheads was allocated to AVR Nuts.
(20)
One additional cost element which is included in the predetermined budget and for which AVR Nuts receives aid that it passes on to AVR IW concerns waste acquisition. Given the important weight of fixed costs, active acquisition of waste was considered necessary to maximise capacity utilisation and thus to minimise operating costs. The predetermined and actual costs are presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Predetermined and actual acquisition costs
2002
2003
2004
Predetermined additional costs
514 000
532 000
550 000
Predetermined start-up costs - international acquisition
400 000
400 000
-
Total predetermined costs
914 000
932 000
550 000
Actual costs
875 000
900 000
930 000
(21)
At the outset, the deficit was expected to increase to €3,8 million in 2006, but market and operating conditions proved to be much more difficult than anticipated, with little hope for improvement. For the period 2002-03, in addition to the predetermined deficit, AVR Nuts incurred losses of €12 million. The predetermined deficits for 2004 and thereafter were expected to be much higher than foreseen and, indeed, the predetermined deficit for 2004 amounted to €8,898 million (12). The calculation took account of the decision to close the RDFs.
2.3.2 Compensation for closure costs
(22)
In view of the mounting operating deficits, the Netherlands, as already indicated in points 5 and 7, reconsidered its policy. At the end of 2003, it was decided to close one of the two RDFs with effect from 1 July 2004. In the summer of 2004, it was decided to close the second one with effect from 1 January 2005. For the remaining years, the predetermined losses for accepting C2 waste were, as expected, small.
(23)
The concession agreement provided that the State would compensate AVR financially for the remaining book value of investments carried out in favour of AVR-Nuts during the period covered by the agreement with the approval of the State but not yet written off. Applying this clause in advance, the Dutch authorities calculated compensation of €8 670 108 for the costs of closing down the first RDF. This amount concerns various investments which were written off to the extent of 50 % if they concerned both RDFs or to the extent of 100 % if they were made specifically for the RDF that was being closed down. The main items in this amount are €1,9 million for investments in fire safety, €3,3 million for a homogenisation plant, €1,5 million for replacing coke funnels and €0,5 million for a drum end and Stefferson ring. For the closure of the second RDF, the calculation includes €11 151 000 for the remaining book value of the installations and tangible fixed assets. This amount includes the other 50 % of the remaining book value of the above investments carried out with the approval of the State and 100 % of the remaining book value of the investments carried out with the approval of the State but concerning only the second RDF. This latter item includes notably the investment in the general overhaul of the remaining RDF, which was carried out during 2004. The overall cost was €3 273 000, which was more than expected. With the benefit of hindsight, this turned out to be an unfortunate investment.
(24)
Since the Netherlands was, in principle, also required by the concession agreement to compensate for the budget deficits up to and including 2006, the State had to negotiate with AVR on compensation for the additional costs of closing down the second RDF with effect from 1 January 2004, instead of the original date on which the agreement would have expired. The compensation thus includes the following additional amounts:
-
€1,7 million to compensate for the negative impact in 2004 resulting from the fact that customers would need (gradually) to shift their waste streams to other facilities;
-
€5,843 million for recurrent fixed costs in the period 2005-06 (‘doorlopende vaste kosten’), i.e. costs related, for example, to ICT infrastructure, office space rental, security contracts, and costs of common facilities such as a canteen. AVR had calculated a higher amount of €8,208 million;
-
€7,868 million for the additional redundancy costs attributable to the early closure of the remaining RDF. This amount is calculated as the difference between the estimated redundancy costs in the event of immediate closure and those in the event of closure at the end of the aid contract, i.e. two years later. The accepted amount is based on a detailed estimate that concerns some 244 workers and takes account of the fact that most of them can be redeployed internally;
-
other costs, such as the remaining book value of certain assets of other AVR companies acquired in order to provide the services stipulated in the service contract, the costs of site management and the cost of forgoing the contributions (‘dekkingsbijdrage’) that AVR IW would have received if the contract had been extended into 2005 and 2006, the non-budgeted costs of closure, and the costs of buying out multiannual contracts. AVR had put these costs at €29,567 million in total, which included, for example, an amount of €11,716 million for the additional losses incurred by AVR Nuts in 2002 and 2003. In their negotiations, the State and AVR agreed on an amount of only €1,238 million.
(25)
In those negotiations, the Netherlands was assisted by an independent accountant whose report was made available to the Commission. Altogether, the agreed compensation for closure of the second RDF amounted to €27,850 million. This is significantly lower than the sum of AVR’s own estimates, viz. €58,544 million (or €46 828 million when the additional losses incurred by AVR Nuts in 2002 and 2003 are excluded). The Netherlands explained that, if the remaining RDF had continued operating until the end of 2006, the sum of the estimated operating deficits for 2005 and 2006 and the compensation for the costs of closure at the end of 2006 would have amounted to €31 million. The agreement on early closure therefore reduced the cost to the State.
(26)
This compensation for closure brings the total amount of aid for the period 2002-04 to €49 718 108 (see overview in Table 2).
Table 2
Overview of compensation paid to AVR
Predetermined budget deficit 2002
1 500 000
Predetermined budget deficit 2003
2 800 000
Predetermined budget deficit 2004
8 898 000
Compensation for remaining book value first RDF
8 670 108
Compensation for remaining book value second RDF
11 151 000
Compensation for additional closure costs
-
additional operating costs 2004
1 750 000
-
recurrent fixed costs 2005-06
5 843 000
-
additional redundancy costs
7 868 000
-
other
1 238 000
16 699 000
Total aid
49 718 108
(27)
The Netherlands acknowledged that aid totalling €19 543 608 had been paid to AVR. The compensation for the closure of the second RDF has been paid into a blocked account.
2.3.3 The guarantee for removal and follow-up costs
(28)
The concession agreement also contains a guarantee by the State that, if AVR Chemie is wound up, the State will pay a maximum of 30 % of the removal and follow-up costs of dismantling and decontaminating the installations. This percentage corresponds to the State’s holding in AVR Chemie.
2.4 Operational aspects
(29)
Prior to the concession agreement, the gate fees charged by AVR Chemie had been increased to a level of NLG 700/tonne (€317,6). Increasing fees even further would, according to the Netherlands, lead to practices such as mixing hazardous waste with other waste streams and illegal landfill, and this would not be conducive to reducing the operating deficit. The fees are high in comparison with those in neighbouring Member States, this being possible thanks to the Dutch policy of prohibiting exports of waste for disposal. The objective of the aid measures was to maintain the fees unchanged, not to reduce them. To this end, the concession agreement contains an annex laying down the structure and coverage of the fees and the method of calculating them. The Dutch authorities have control over the level of the fees as the predetermined budget deficit requires their approval beforehand and the fees are, of course, a crucial element in the calculation.
(30)
Gate fees for high-calorific hazardous waste used as fuel are much lower than those for RDF waste. AVR Nuts ‘buys’ the former at market rates, i.e. fees that would be charged in the event of treatment, say, in foreign RDFs or in the cement industry.
(31)
Fixed costs are very high compared with variable costs so, in order to minimise its losses, AVR Nuts seeks to maximise capacity utilisation. Therefore, the gate fees charged to suppliers of hazardous waste are reduced when the annual volume supplied increases. These ‘staggered rebates’ are fixed in advance and apply when RDF waste is offered together with at least 75 % of the same volume of high-calorific waste.
(32)
All fees are fixed in advance for the entire concession period (13) and apply equally to AVR’s competitors and AVR IW. As from the start of the concession agreement, the fees for C2 and RDF waste were publicly available to any supplier. As from early 2004, this was also the case for high-calorific hazardous waste.
(33)
In order to be able to plan capacity utilisation, AVR IW asks suppliers each year to indicate how much waste they plan to supply and gate fees are calculated during the year on the basis of the corresponding staggered rebate. If the actual volume supplied at the end of year is higher or lower than indicated, a repayment is made or an additional charge calculated to take account of the appropriate staggered rebate based on actual supply. The agreements generally did not contain an obligation to supply the quantity indicated in advance.
3. REASONS FOR INITIATING THE ARTICLE 88(2) PROCEDURE
(34)
In its decision to initiate the Article 88(2) procedure, the Commission expressed the following doubts.
(35)
First, the Commission doubted whether AVR Nuts’ activities could properly be regarded as an SGEI within the meaning of Article 86(2) of the Treaty as it was not clear, for example, whether AVR would be the only company capable of offering such services on the same or similar conditions. It also doubted whether the Netherlands had followed the appropriate procedure in selecting AVR Nuts. Furthermore, it doubted whether infringement of the ‘polluter pays’ principle was avoided under all circumstances as producers of the waste concerned must pay gate fees at a level that can be considered as a normal cost.
(36)
Second, the Commission expressed doubts regarding possible overcompensation that could spill over into other segments of the waste market. It was concerned that overcompensation may also stem from the fact that the aid was based on an ex ante calculation, allowing AVR Nuts to keep part of any positive difference between actual and predetermined profits or losses.
(37)
Third, if the measure were to be assessed under Article 87, the Commission doubted whether the Community guidelines on state aid for environmental protection (14) (the ‘guidelines on environmental aid’) would provide justification for finding the aid compatible with the common market.
(38)
In its decision to extend the Article 88(2) procedure, the Commission explained that it had similar doubts as regards the much higher amount of aid for 2004 and the compensation for the untimely closure of the RDFs.
4. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
(39)
Four interested parties sent in their comments following the Commission’s decision to initiate the Article 88(2) procedure.
(40)
The first of them argued that the measure would distort competition on the Irish market as it would enable AVR to charge prices below cost and significantly below normal market prices on the Irish market through its 50 % shareholding in a joint venture with the Irish company Safeway Warehousing/South Coast Transport.
(41)
The second interested party also pointed to the unfair competitive advantage enjoyed by the AVR/Safeway joint venture. Large quantities of hazardous waste are imported from Ireland. This interested party maintained too that the measure would distort competition on the international market for ‘turnkey clean-up’ operations of PCBs, pesticides and other hazardous organic waste.
(42)
The third interested party, Edelchemie, was concerned about the domestic market. It had developed its own technology for treating photographic and galvanic waste (ECO option) and recovering valuable materials from this waste (including precious metals and obsidian). The measures to assist AVR would not only harm its business but would also stifle technological development. Edelchemie's comments concern AVR Nuts, AVR Chemie and its predecessors as from 1963, providing details on Dutch hazardous waste policy over the years.
(43)
Lastly, the three joint competitors drew attention to the domestic market for RDF waste. Equivalent capacity to AVR’s RDFs would exist both in the Netherlands and in other Member States. The expansion of AVR’s activities would have created overcapacity on the Dutch market for RDF waste and the data on RDF waste would not give a complete and correct picture. In the mid-1990s AVR closed one of its RDFs and, even then, the supply of hazardous waste could be expected to decline further. In view of those expectations, it had been appropriate to close one of the two remaining RDFs. At the meeting on 26 May 2005, a representative stated literally that ‘The right decision [in 2002] had been to close down one RDF’. Moreover, AVR would abuse its dominant position by charging high fees, by requiring that the RDFs be supplied at the same time with high-calorific waste and because the fee structure would not be transparent and publicly available. It would, furthermore, enable AVR IW to charge fees for certain types of RDF waste and subsequently to treat this waste in the grate incinerators of the municipal waste incinerators, and this would result in lower operating costs as these furnaces can operate at a lower temperature.
(44)
The measure would constitute incompatible operating aid. The service would not constitute an SGEI and the four criteria resulting from the Altmark judgment and which determine whether or not compensation constitutes state aid (15) would not be fulfilled. For the Commission to approve (part of) the aid, various conditions would have to be met to prevent cross-subsidisation, tying practices and price discrimination. In addition, the Netherlands should not be allowed to extend the measure by another ten years.
(45)
The two joint competitors also sent in comments following the Commission’s decision to extend the procedure. They restated all the elements of their first submission and provided additional documents to demonstrate the existence of cross-subsidisation. In addition, the following issues were raised.
(46)
First, it was surprising that, despite the closure of one of the RDFs, the predetermined operating deficit was so much higher than initially foreseen. If the fourth Altmark criterion (efficiency) had been respected, the operating deficit should have fallen.
(47)
Second, they objected to the aid as compensation for closing down the RDFs. There was no countervailing obligation on AVR. This compensation should not be referred to as an indemnification and was not justified, among other things because the investments were made with a view to maintaining operations for 10 years, whereas they have been used for less than 3 years. They questioned as well the details of the calculations, in particular the amount to be written off, the redundancy costs and the recurrent fixed costs. The total amount was very high, much higher than the amount of €2 million referred to in Article 21(2) of the concession agreement. Furthermore, in a parliamentary document, it was stated that ‘when establishing the compensation to be paid to AVR for closure of the RDF, an agreement was reached on an outstanding claim of the Ministry for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment on AVR in connection with dioxine pollution of the Lickebaertpolder’. As a consequence, the Ministry received an amount of €2,5 million that was not expected for 2004. The three joint competitors were concerned that settling this dispute may have ‘polluted’ the calculation of the compensation. It gave them the feeling that ‘things are being covered up’.
(48)
Third, they objected to other advantages conferred on AVR by Article 21(5) of the concession agreement, in particular payment by the State of 30 % of the costs of removal and decontamination of the installations in the event of AVR-Chemie's being wound up. In the light of the state aid rules, the State should never have taken on such obligations.
(49)
Fourth, no SGEI would exist, especially since such a service was not necessary in the light of the various alternatives that existed such as pyrolysis, treatment in the cement industry, disposal in salt mines or treatment in energy plants and foreign RDFs. The activities concerned would be defined as an SGEI only when they proved to be loss-making. The concession agreement had been concluded merely with a view to financing the investments in the RDFs for which AVR Nuts had obtained an exclusive right. Furthermore, the two joint competitors doubted whether the aid guaranteed affordable prices for the service since AVR’s gate fees were higher than those in neighbouring countries. The high fees would be explained by AVR’s practices of tying and cross-subsidisation with respect to high-calorific waste used as fuel. They would not be transparent or publicly available. The profits would be booked with AVR IW, the losses with AVR Nuts. This enabled AVR IW to charge higher gate fees for RDF waste. Furthermore, AVR would refuse to accept RDF waste if not accompanied by high-calorific waste, thereby not complying with its obligations under the concession agreement by not providing the service to all customers. Finally, unlike with other alternatives, the quality of the service would be neither maintained nor improved.
(50)
Fifth, the aid would not respect the Altmark criteria. There had been no public tender procedure for granting the concession and the aid would not be established on the basis of the costs of an average, well-managed undertaking. Nor would it be established on the basis of criteria laid down in an objective and transparent way, it would be higher than necessary and it would spill over into other markets. RDFs abroad would be able to charge lower tariffs without state aid. Cheaper alternative disposal methods had not been taken into account either. Furthermore, AVR would be allowed to retain some of the profits if it operated more efficiently than expected.
(51)
Finally, the two joint competitors remarked that the Dutch authorities intended to continue to infringe the state aid rules since, in the case of a negative decision by the Commission, they would discuss it with AVR and look for a solution to the financial problems this might cause for AVR.
5. COMMENTS FROM THE NETHERLANDS
5.1 The applicable legislation
(52)
Since Community legislation allows Member States to prohibit the exportation of waste for disposal, the aid would not distort competition between Member States.
5.2 Service of general economic interest
(53)
The Netherlands argued that the aid is granted exclusively for an SGEI carried out by AVR Nuts. A public invitation to tender was not considered appropriate as AVR Nuts was the only company in the Netherlands able and willing to deal with all the C2 and RDF waste concerned. The concession, however, was published in the Staatscourant, following which any interested party had the possibility to lodge an appeal. No appeals were lodged. Furthermore, before the decision to close the RDFs, the Dutch authorities had already made the necessary arrangements for organising a public tender procedure for a prolongation.
(54)
The measure would comply with the Altmark criteria and should therefore not be regarded as state aid. Taking the predetermined deficits, for example, the State was assisted by an independent accountancy firm. The measure would not infringe the ‘polluter pays’ principle as the fees are higher than those in neighbouring Member States.
(55)
It would be absolutely wrong for AVR Nuts to accept only RDF waste when offered in combination with high-calorific waste. It also has been explicitly stated that the fees charged to other AVR companies for treating other waste should be the same as those charged to third parties (16). The Netherlands asked an accountancy firm for advice on the possibilities of increasing transparency with regard to the agreements between AVR Nuts and AVR IW. The recommendations given were accepted and implemented.
(56)
As regards AVR Nuts’ results, the Netherlands noted that the calculation of the operating deficit did not take into account any profit margin. In the unexpected event of a predetermined operating surplus, the profit would be limited to only 30 % of the surplus until such time as all previous aid had been repaid.
5.3 Comments on the comments from interested parties
(57)
The Netherlands noted that the comments did not demonstrate how aid could affect the cost price of the joint venture between AVR and Safeways. That company would have to pay the same fees for treatment in Rotterdam as those charged to domestic suppliers of waste. Moreover, only one third of the waste collected by the joint venture would be treated in Rotterdam and only a small part of that would be C2 and RDF waste as defined in the concession agreement. Competitive prices might be explained by various other factors: 1. Safeway is the only company in Ireland operating transfer station where waste is efficiently sorted and separated before being sent to the most appropriate treatment facility; 2. there is a direct link with the transport company Southcoast, and this gives rise to logistic advantages and cost savings; and 3. in Ireland the level of fees used to be relatively high on account of the absence of competition.
(58)
For the treatment of waste resulting from turnkey clean-up projects, AVR would charge higher fees than it charges domestic suppliers. The average fee for all waste flows from other countries would be somewhat higher than the average fee charged domestically. Furthermore, lower fees would not result in higher aid as the aid depends on the predetermined operating deficit.
(59)
When the concession agreement was signed, both RDFs were operating at full capacity. Full capacity utilisation was expected in view of plentiful stocks. The current overcapacity was probably caused not by any increase in the market share of competitors but instead by increased reuse of the waste, e.g. after legally permitted dilution with other types of waste.
(60)
As regards pyrolysis, the Netherlands noted that AVR’s fees were higher than those charged by the only company in the Netherlands with pyrolysis plants.
(61)
The Netherlands explained that part of the aid was paid because of the financial difficulties of AVR Nuts, in the light of the Altmark judgment and in view of the time necessary to conclude the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty.
(62)
The Netherlands noted that Edelchemie was working primarily in the field of photographic hazardous waste, which, for reasons of efficiency, cannot be dealt with by AVR. The company has various facilities of which the pyrolysis furnace would be most relevant for this case. However, the technology would not be suitable for all types of RDF waste, in contrast to AVR’s installations. The environmental permit allows treatment in this furnace of not more than 10 000 tonnes, which would be completely insufficient for hazardous waste streams in the Netherlands. Since AVR would not deal with photographic waste and would charge market fees, the Netherlands do not see how the aid could damage Edelchemie’s interests. Technological development is encouraged by, for example, specific incentive programmes and by requiring use of the best available techniques when environmental permits are granted. These permits are valid for five years. Any aid granted previously would fall outside the ten-year limit laid down in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 and, as the installations are written off over ten years, calculation of AVR’s expected operating deficits would not be affected in any event.
(63)
The Netherlands maintained that there has been no overcompensation, either in favour of AVR Nuts or in favour of AVR IW. The latter served as an intermediary but could not, and did not, exploit this position to obtain overcompensation. For example, the waste supplied by AVR Nuts’ competitors, even when, on paper, it was received by AVR IW on behalf of AVR Nuts, was not taken into account in calculating the staggered rebates on the tariffs for the waste acquired by AVR IW itself. Such waste was delivered directly to the RDFs, not to AVR IW’s site, as this would not be worth the additional logistical costs.
(64)
The aid to compensate for the costs of acquiring waste is appropriate. Active acquisition of RDF waste would be necessary as the possibility of diluting such waste or adjusting the packaging, after which the waste would not longer qualify as RDF waste, has been used increasingly. Without acquisition of such waste, AVR Nuts would see its market share reduced, losing it to alternative treatment options, particularly abroad. This would reduce capacity utilisation and increase losses. The compensation granted to AVR IW for the costs of acquiring high-calorific hazardous waste was explained by the need to have sufficient quantities of such waste available as fuel. The allocation of acquisition costs between AVR Nuts and AVR IW is based on this. With the closure of the RDFs, the seven jobs that correspond to the costs charged will be lost. This would prove that these seven jobs constitute additional acquisition costs incurred only in the interests of AVR Nuts.
(65)
The Dutch authorities submitted a study on the future development of alternatives for the disposal and recovery of the waste concerned in the Netherlands and in neighbouring countries (see point 13 above). The study shows that sufficient alternatives are planned in the future to guarantee safe and appropriate disposal and recovery of such waste.
(66)
The Netherlands also submitted an economic analysis of the concession agreement and potential overcompensation that had been carried out by a consultancy at AVR’s request. The analysis noted firstly that AVR’s main competitors all had the possibility of benefiting from higher staggered rebates but apparently preferred to supply part of the waste they acquired to alternative disposal or recovery facilities abroad. Secondly, the actual compensation to be granted by the Netherlands for the closure of the RDFs was significantly lower than AVR’s own cost calculation of €45 million and the calculation of almost €40 million made by an independent accountant of these same costs. The main difference stemmed from the different cost calculations for redundancies.
(67)
The Netherlands provided the detailed calculation of the budget deficit for 2004. It was higher than in previous years despite the closure of one RDF since the market conditions had worsened and, in particular, the fees received for high-calorific hazardous waste had decreased.
(68)
The payment for dismantling and follow-up in the event of the liquidation of AVR Chemie will have to be discussed between the State and AVR as the State owns 30 % of AVR Chemie. The possibility of a negative decision by the Commission on the notified aid will, of course, also have to be discussed, and solutions will be sought, but not without taking into account the Commission's views.
6. ASSESSMENT
6.1 Existence of state aid
(69)
Article 87(1) of the Treaty provides 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 shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market’.
(70)
The operating aid and the compensation for the costs of closing down the RDFs for AVR Nuts that are described in points 17-27 are granted by the State and financed directly from state resources. They are selective in nature as they affect in the first place AVR, AVR Nuts and AVR IW. These are undertakings offering their services on the markets in waste for disposal and waste for recovery. The same applies to any payment by the State of the removal and follow-up costs, for which the State has given a guarantee of up to 30 %.
(71)
The measures must be regarded as affecting trade between Member States. The markets in waste for disposal and waste for recovery are inextricably linked and, despite the regulatory framework for and strict controls on waste for disposal, trade between Member States is common on both markets. By way of illustration, following the announcement of the closure of the RDFs, the number of applications for permits to export waste to other Member States increased significantly. The Commission deduces from this that the aid towards the continued operation of the RDFs has had a restrictive effect on trade between Member States.
(72)
The measures do not favour the suppliers of hazardous waste. The gate fees for high-calorific waste used as fuel were set at market levels compared with the fees practiced in the Netherlands and neighbouring countries. The gate fees for C2 and RDF waste were set, for policy reasons, at socially acceptable levels that were, however, higher than those practiced in neighbouring countries. This was possible given the export restrictions on waste for disposal. Raising the fees was not a feasible and realistic option under normal market conditions since more waste would be exported, mixed into other waste streams or disposed of legally or illegally, and this would not therefore increase AVR Nuts’ revenues. As a matter of fact, with the closure of the RDFs, it became easier for suppliers to benefit from the lower gate fees in Belgium and Germany. Without the aid, the RDFs would have been closed earlier and the possibilities of exporting waste for disposal in conformity with Regulation (EC) No 259/93 would have improved earlier. This is confirmed by the price and volume movements following the closure of the second RDF. For these reasons, the Commission considers that the measure has not spared the suppliers of hazardous waste the costs that would normally be included in their budget.
(73)
Without prejudice to the assessment of the measure on the basis of Article 86(2) of the Treaty, the Commission finds that the fourth criterion resulting from the Altmark judgment is not met. Firstly, AVR Nuts was not selected following a public tender procedure, and publication of the concession decision in the Staatscourant, after which interested parties could raise objections for a period of six weeks, cannot be the substitute for an open and transparent tender procedure. Secondly, the level of compensation was not determined on the basis of the costs which an average, well-managed undertaking adequately provided with waste treatment capacity would have incurred. As a matter of fact, given the unique position of the C2 depot and the RDFs in the country, such an average undertaking does not seem to exist in the Netherlands. The predetermined budget deficit reflects, if anything, the particular conditions under which AVR Nuts operates these installations and the costs of similar installations abroad have not been taken into account. It is clear that AVR's treatment capacity was not appropriate: overcapacity led to underutilisation of the RDFs and ultimately to closure. This is reflected in the aid measures, in particular the deficit for 2004 and the compensation for closure. Under the circumstances, the measures must be regarded as conferring a selective advantage on AVR Nuts and not simply as providing compensation that other companies in a similar situation could have received under similar conditions if they had been entrusted with the performance of this service obligation.
(74)
A selective benefit flows not only from the operating deficits and the compensation for the costs of closure, but also from the state guarantee for 30 % of the removal and follow-up costs incurred. The fact that these costs correspond to the State’s shareholding in AVR Chemie do not alter the state aid character of the measure since, as a silent partner in AVR Chemie, the State would be responsible only to the extent of its shareholding, and not for additional claims that may exceed that amount. The guarantee seems rather to result from the State’s policy objective of avoiding a situation in which, after the liquidation of AVR Nuts and AVR Chemie, no other company could be held liable for the appropriate removal and follow-up. The guarantee may have conferred benefits for the entire duration of the concession agreement since, without the guarantee, a company would (have to) build up the necessary reserves during the operational lifetime of the installations in order to be able to cope with the removal and follow-up costs without aid.
(75)
Consequently, the notified measures constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
(76)
The Commission regrets that the Netherlands has implemented a significant part of the aid in question in breach of Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
6.2 Assessment on the basis of Article 86(2) of the Treaty
(77)
Member States are free to define what they regard as services of general economic interest on the basis of the specific features of the activities. This definition can only be subject to control for manifest error (17). In its 2003 Green Paper and its 2004 White Paper on services of general interest (18), the Commission outlines the guiding principles of its approach. Section 3.4 of the White Paper stipulates that ‘in line with the Union’s policy on sustainable development, due consideration has to be taken also of the role of services of general interest for the protection of the environment and of the specific characteristics of services of general interest directly related to the environmental field, such as the water and waste sectors.’ This is in line with the case law of the Court, which ruled that ‘the management of a particular waste may properly be considered to be capable of forming the subject of a service of general economic interest, particularly where the service is designed to deal with an environmental problem’ (19).
(78)
For the following reasons, the Commission agrees with the Netherlands that the service as defined in the concession decision and the concession agreement constitutes an SGEI.
(79)
First, there is an obvious public interest in appropriate treatment when hazardous waste is disposed of. There is as well a public and Community interest in ensuring the availability of sufficient domestic capacity for such disposal. In accordance with the objective laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 75/442/EC, Member States should strive to become self-sufficient in the disposal of waste.
(80)
Second, public intervention was necessary to safeguard this public interest. Since the RDFs were operated at a loss, without the aid AVR would have closed the RDFs and the C2 depot at the end of 2001.
(81)
Third, the public interest was real. Between 2002 and 2004 significant quantities of RDF and C2 waste produced in the Netherlands were disposed of, although they were significantly below expectations on account, among other things, of the consequences of the ruling by the Court which clarified the definitions of ‘waste for disposal’ and ‘waste for recovery’. The Netherlands responded to market developments by adapting the capacity to the new perceived needs and ultimately by abandoning its policy and closing down the only remaining RDF. This, however, is not incompatible with the public interest as regards the actual quantities of RDF and C2 waste disposed of. The quantities of waste for disposal might have been smaller if the Netherlands had applied the correct definitions from the outset, but it is unlikely that all RDF and C2 waste would have been used for recovery purposes. This is confirmed by the quantities of RDF and C2 waste offered to AVR Nuts in 2004 and by the quantities of RDF waste exported for disposal in RDFs abroad. The interested parties may have been right in maintaining that all hazardous waste produced in the Netherlands during that period could have been disposed of or recovered within the country or abroad even without AVR’s RDFs. They failed, however, to demonstrate that without AVR’s RDFs no exports of waste for disposal abroad would have been necessary at all because of the absence of sufficient capacity. It is precisely in this connection that the Netherlands could legitimately base its policy on the desire to defend the public interest, in line with the objective of Article 5(1) of Directive 75/442/EC.
(82)
Fourth, the measures do not infringe the ‘polluter pays’ principle. As concluded in point 72, the suppliers of waste are not spared the costs that should normally be included in their budget.
(83)
Fifth, classification as an SGEI does not circumvent the rules that normally apply. The measure seeks to protect the environment since it ensured appropriate treatment of hazardous waste at a location near its source. The environmental aid guidelines contain rules on operating aid to promote waste management (Section E.3.1). These rules, however, were drawn up in the first place in respect of operating aid granted to companies that produce the waste concerned themselves.
(84)
Sixth, by nature, the bulk of the RDF and C2 waste is supplied by companies, but collection systems exist for the safe and easy disposal of any hazardous waste from households. Some of the hazardous waste collected can then be disposed of in the RDFs. So the service for which the aid was granted was general in character and did not favour a limited number of users.
(85)
The two joint competitors claim that there is no market failure to justify the SGEI. Moreover, in some Member States there were no RDFs at all. The objectives of Directive 75/442/EEC, i.e. self-sufficiency in waste disposal and waste disposal close to the source of the waste (proximity principle), may not correspond to a market outcome but are no less legitimate for that reason.
(86)
A public service mission needs to be clearly defined and must be explicitly entrusted through an act of public authority. In this case, the proper entrustment of the SGEI is clear from the concession decision and the concession agreement. The definition of the public service obligation in these documents is sufficiently precise. It is strictly linked to the waste for the C2 depot and to the low-calorific waste to be incinerated in the RDFs. The aid measures to compensate for the costs of the SGEI are also described in sufficient detail. However, the following must be noted.
(87)
First, there have been shortcomings as regards transparency. It may not always have been clear to competitors whether AVR IW acted on its own behalf or on behalf of AVR Nuts. In addition, the system of fees and rebates, in particular as regards high-calorific waste to fuel the RDFs, has not been sufficiently transparent from the outset. For AVR and the State, and for independent controllers, however, these issues were sufficiently clear from the concession agreement, and this made appropriate control possible.
(88)
The Commission considers that the method described in Annex I is sufficiently transparent for control purposes, and deems sufficient the additional measures to increase transparency in the execution of the SGEI that were adopted pursuant to the comments received.
(89)
Second, the concept of ‘socially acceptable fees’ for the disposal of RDF waste is rather vague at first sight. In practice, however, this has not caused a problem. The fees remained at the level to which they had been raised in the preceding years. In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, they were higher than the fees for disposal abroad. At the same time, neither the interested parties nor the Netherlands have argued that lower fees were necessary to avoid illegal practices that could be harmful to the environment. Apparently, the Netherlands regarded the fees as not being too high, given the agreement on the predetermined budget deficits, which were based on more precise assumptions regarding the fees to be applied.
(90)
Overcompensation must be avoided for all aid elements in the system. In this respect, the Commission assesses the following elements separately: 1. the compensation for the budget deficits in 2002 and 2003; 2. the compensation for the budget deficits in 2004, 2005 and 2006; 3. the compensation for the costs of closure, which consists in (a) compensation for closure costs related to the agreed investments to the extent that they have not yet been written off, and (b) closure costs resulting from early closure of the RDFs; and 4. the aid contained in the guarantee.
(91)
As regards the 2002 and 2003 budget deficits, the Commission considers the methodology for calculating the expected deficits, which are to be granted as aid, to be appropriate and sufficiently restrictive. All the elements, apart from the compensation for acquisition costs (see points 108-113), are directly related to the fulfilment of the public service obligation. There is no reason to believe that cost elements have been artificially inflated and that the assistance of an independent consultant has helped the Netherlands to calculate the aid in a restrictive way. The methodology contains a more detailed analysis of AVR Nuts’ opening balance sheet, which provides a sound basis for the estimates of AVR Nuts’ costs and revenues in the new situation. Variable costs, direct fixed costs and costs charged by other AVR companies are estimated on the basis of detailed breakdowns. Investments and depreciation are duly taken into account by means of a detailed investment plan for 2002-16 and by writing off new investments over 7,24 years. This ensured that costs were not artificially inflated by individual investments or disproportionate depreciation. The comments from interested parties raised various issues, but no proof of overcompensation was provided. For 2002 and 2003, moreover, accidents and technical difficulties caused losses that exceeded the predetermined deficits by a total of €12 million. Any overcompensation in favour of AVR Nuts during that period is, therefore, ruled out.
(92)
For the years 2004-06, the aid is based on the same methodology and so the Commission does not a priori expect any overcompensation. The predetermined budget deficit in 2004 is based entirely on the same methodology and the increase in the predetermined deficit, despite the closure of one of the RDFs, is fully explained by the various cost elements of this methodology (see the figures in Annex I). Given the high losses in excess of the predetermined deficits for 2002 and 2003, it need not surprise anyone that the predetermined deficit for 2004 was higher. The closure of the first RDF, moreover, may have reduced the variable costs, but its impact on fixed costs, which account for a significant part of total costs, has been limited. Nevertheless, in line with the Commission's general policy, overcompensation for the cost of an SGEI should be excluded not only ex ante, but also ex post. The Commission, therefore, requests the Netherlands to verify the actual costs and to adjust the aid level if necessary in order to avoid a situation in which compensation would allow AVR Nuts to earn a profit margin on its activities higher than is normal for this type of activity in this sector.
(93)
The Commission accepts that aid can be granted as compensation for closure costs related to the agreed investments to the extent they have not yet been written off. Without sufficient guarantees, one cannot expect an operator to enter into a five-year service contract that requires substantial investments. Depreciation of the investments over the period corresponding to the duration of the agreement, i.e. five years, would have been just as unreasonable. It would have increased significantly the predetermined losses over that period and hence the level of aid. The relevant provisions in the concession agreement constitute a necessary and efficient corollary to the compensation system. The fact that those provisions were applied before the planned expiry of the concession agreement does not alter this assessment. On the basis of the information provided by the Netherlands, the Commission does not expect there to be any overcompensation for this element. A few aspects, however, are not sufficiently clear, viz. whether any proceeds from the sale of assets or any profits from continued use for other purposes will be properly taken into account. Consequently, for this element too, the Commission requests the Netherlands to verify the actual costs and to adjust the aid level if necessary.
(94)
The Commission can also accept that compensation is granted for additional costs resulting from the earlier-than-expected closure of the RDFs. A Member State cannot be obliged to continue with such a contract, especially if it thereby pays less than what it probably would have had to pay if the activities had been continued. The information provided by the Netherlands on these additional costs is relatively detailed. Various elements, however, are based on estimates which seem to present a rather wide margin of uncertainty. Moreover, only the costs necessarily linked to the SGEI and to the earlier-than-expected closure can be included, and it is not sufficiently clear from the information available whether this is indeed the case. Consequently, for this element as well, the Commission requests the Netherlands to verify the actual costs and to adjust the aid level if necessary.
(95)
Lastly, the Commission can accept that aid is granted through application of the guarantee covering 30 % of the costs of removal and decontamination. Had there not been a guarantee, the operating deficits and the operating aid would probably have been higher on account of the corresponding provisions that would have had to be made. The costs as such are directly linked to the original policy objective of offering the SGEI concerned in the Netherlands. The actual costs, however, are not yet known, so the Commission will require appropriate ex post control.
(96)
To sum up, the Commission finds no overcompensation for the operating deficits for 2002 and 2003 but can allow the remaining aid elements only on condition that the Netherlands ensures that there is no overcompensation ex post over the entire period, taking into account excess losses and profits for all the years covered by the concession agreement. The aid may allow AVR Nuts to earn a reasonable profit margin on the activities concerned. The risk for AVR under the agreement was limited since predetermined losses would be fully covered by the aid, but AVR remained largely exposed to the operating risk (20), with the result that risk was not excluded, as indeed proved to be the case in practice. Given the market conditions and AVR Nuts’ risk profile, the Commission can certainly accept a profit level equivalent to the rate of return on Dutch government bonds plus 2 percentage points. If, in practice, profit is found to exceed this threshold, the Netherlands must retroactively adjust the aid level and, in accordance with Article 88(3) of the Treaty, notify any aid that allows AVR Nuts to exceed the threshold. The ex post verification must adequately verify the absence of overcompensation. To this end, the Commission requires detailed monitoring reports which must address at least the issues specified in Annex II.
(97)
The Commission exercises control of proportionality so as to ensure that the means used to perform the general interest task do not lead to unnecessary distortions of trade. Specifically, it has to be ensured that any restrictions on the rules of the EC Treaty, especially restrictions on competition and limitations on the freedoms of the internal market, do not exceed what is necessary to guarantee effective fulfilment of the task.
(98)
The Commission considers that the measures adopted by the Netherlands comply for the most part with the proportionality requirement. It is difficult to imagine by which other means the Netherlands could have ensured the availability of sufficient domestic capacity for disposing of hazardous waste. None of the interested parties has argued that there were less distortive alternatives available to meet this objective. The following aspects of the measure are considered to be proportionate as well.
(99)
Gate-fee system based on staggered rebates: Since the aim of this system is to maintain sufficient capacity for the proper disposal of RDF waste, the natural consequence is to aim for maximum capacity utilisation in order to minimise costs. As shown by the Netherlands, all suppliers could have applied for a refund, either directly or when supplying via intermediaries. The gate-fee system based on staggered rebates is justified. The system of non-discriminatory fees and staggered rebates for all suppliers, including AVR IW, has limited the distortion of competition resulting from the measure. Although there may have been some confusion in practice, the non-discriminatory nature of the system could have been clear to any interested party The Netherlands has taken sufficient additional measures to increase transparency when there appeared to be some confusion. Setting the fee for high-calorific waste at the level of competing disposal alternatives limited the distortion of competition on the market for this waste. It must be noted that no company in the Netherlands had an obligation to supply RDF waste or high-calorific hazardous waste to AVR Nuts or AVR IW. In contrast, the concession agreement obliged AVR Nuts to accept any C2 and RDF waste offered to it, whether or not supplied together with high-calorific hazardous waste. In this respect, the Commission finds insufficient evidence that there was prima facie abuse of a dominant position by AVR Nuts and that the concession agreement certainly does not provide a basis for such abuse.
(100)
Compensation in the event of closure: The provisions in the concession agreement that concern - in the event of the agreement not being extended - the compensation for the remaining book value of the as yet undepreciated investments that AVR had made during the period covered by this agreement with the consent of the State must similarly be considered to be proportionate. Without such a guarantee, AVR’s agreement could not reasonably be expected. The same applies to the guarantee by the State to cover a maximum of 30 % of the costs of removal and decontamination in the event of the installations being liquidated. Appropriate removal and decontamination are obviously in the public interest. Given its 30 % share in AVR Chemie, it is acceptable that the State should assume responsibility for its part, leaving the remainder for the other shareholder, AVR Holding.
(101)
Maintaining two RDFs at the outset: The Commission examined whether the Netherlands should have granted aid for maintaining only one RDF. The question is whether the contribution to the realisation of the objectives pursued by the Netherlands by maintaining the second RDF offsets the aid required and the unfavourable effects on competition resulting from this.
(102)
The Commission here acknowledges that the Netherlands could legitimately aim to have sufficient domestic capacity for the treatment of RDF waste in order to avoid a capacity shortfall which would oblige the State to allow the exportation of such waste. Some flexibility in the assessment is unavoidable as the flows of C2 and RDF waste that would result could not be predicted with certainty and because of the risks attaching to the availability of the installations. Such risks indeed materialised when, following a number of incidents, one of the RDFs was closed for some time in 2002. The available capacity in 2002 and 2003 was only 73 % and 75 % respectively of the permitted capacity of 100 000 tonnes and, for this reason, the Dutch authorities had to allow RDF waste to be exported, contrary to their policy aim.
(103)
When comparing expected quantities of RDF waste and the capacity of the two RDFs, the following must be noted. When the concession agreement was prepared in the period from end-2001 to mid-2002, the expected supply of RDF waste was put at around 38 500 tonnes per year. This estimate was based on past experience. Treatment requires at least the same volume of high-calorific waste. One RDF would clearly not have been sufficient for the proper treatment of this volume of waste. This figure is, however, open to criticism in three respects. First, part of the expected supply of RDF waste to AVR Nuts may have been the consequence of the restrictive application of the definition of ‘waste for recovery’ by the Netherlands up to the beginning of 2003. Second, interested parties have pointed to alternative domestic capacity for dealing with RDF waste. Third, the estimate would not take into account the possibility for AVR to treat part of the waste in its grate incinerators for municipal waste (21). On the other hand, the estimate explicitly took account of ongoing developments at the time. In addition, the supply of RDF waste for export varies from year to year and depends on the situation on the international market. The situation varies as well for different categories of waste. Moreover, in early 2002 there was still a substantial stock of RDF waste, with the result that supply at the beginning of the period was guaranteed. Furthermore, had the Dutch authorities in 2002 based the estimated flow of RDF waste on the assumption that the definition of ‘waste for recovery’ would have been correctly applied, the estimate might have been lower, but it seems unlikely that, on the basis of the information available at the time, such an estimate would have been so low that they could have confidently decided that only one RDF would suffice. This is confirmed by the fact that in 2003, when the Court already had clarified the proper definition of ‘waste for recovery’, AVR's capacity problems still forced the Netherlands to allow actual exports of RDF waste. The actual decline in the flow of RDF waste to AVR is explained to a significant extent by factors other than the increase in exports. With respect to other capacity in the Netherlands, the Commission notes that a significant part of that capacity became available only in late 2003, after the required permits had been issued to the main competing pyrolysis installation. The interested parties have failed to demonstrate that the Dutch authorities should have taken into account back in 2002 sufficient alternative domestic capacity for treating all types of RDF waste produced in the Netherlands and delivered for disposal.
(104)
The decision to keep in operation two RDFs instead of one increased the level of aid, in particular because of the investments which appeared to be necessary and in respect of which compensation had subsequently to be paid because of the closure. Some of these investments had not, however, been foreseen at the time the concession agreement was signed. The effects on the predetermined operating deficits were relatively limited because of the relatively high proportion of fixed costs. The Commission expects the effects on competitors to remain relatively limited as well: there is no indication that keeping two RDFs in operation has resulted in larger quantities of RDF and other hazardous waste being incinerated. Using RDF capacity for other types of waste, for which no evidence has been provided, is relatively inefficient and cannot be reckoned to have had a strong negative effect on competitors.
(105)
Accordingly, it appears to the Commission that the original decision to keep two RDFs in operation can be considered to be proportionate and that the decisions to close the RDFs were not unreasonably overdue.
(106)
Involvement of AVR IW: AVR IW was responsible for much of AVR Nuts’ administration and, at the same time, was a competitor for other suppliers of hazardous waste. In this way, it obtained information on intended and actual supplies of waste. As no single supplier was under an obligation to supply to AVR Nuts the quantities originally indicated and as the actual fees and discounts were ultimately based solely on actual volumes of waste supplied, it is difficult to see how AVR IW could have obtained a financial or strategic advantage by virtue of its central position. The Netherlands explained that AVR IW was unable to abuse this position and the Commission, on the basis of the comments from interested parties among other things, cannot come to this conclusion either. It may be true that AVR IW, on its own behalf, offered to treat waste at fees below those charged by AVR Nuts, but this cannot be attributed to the aid measures and could fall within the realm of competitive behaviour; any competitor was free to act in a similar manner. Similarly, even if AVR IW rerouted part of the RDF waste to its municipal waste incinerators, which has not been proved, this does not seem to have resulted in a disproportionate distortion since any supplier with knowledge of the waste could have earned similar margins by simply supplying such waste directly to other municipal waste incinerators operated by AVR or others. Moreover, as the aid was determined on the basis of a predetermined budget, the Commission expects AVR to have opted for efficient solutions, and not to have rerouted waste if this would have led to underutilisation of the installations and hence higher actual losses. In fact, such rerouting may well be regarded as efficient waste management in line with the Community principles.
(107)
Technological development: The Commission does not expect the measures to have a pronounced adverse effect on the development of alternative disposal and recovery technologies. As explained by the Netherlands, other instruments exist for encouraging such developments. In 2003, for example, a permit was granted for an innovative pyrolysis installation. The fees charged by AVR were significantly higher than the fees charged by the operator of that installation and so the distortive effect of the aid must be considered to be limited in this respect.
(108)
Aid for the acquisition of waste: In contrast to the above aspects, the measures cannot be regarded as proportionate as regards the acquisition of waste as carried out by AVR IW and for which AVR Nuts pays compensation out of the aid it receives from the State. The Commission accepts that minimising the costs of the system requires maximising the volume of waste to be treated, especially the volume of RDF waste, for which the gate fees are highest. As indicated in point 99, the system of non-discriminatory staggered rebates can be accepted for this reason. In contrast, the compensation granted to AVR IW in respect of the acquisition of waste distorts competition in a disproportionate way as AVR IW is the sole recipient. Its competitors do not receive similar compensation for acquisition costs incurred by them. As regards high-calorific hazardous waste, had there been persistent shortages, the solution could have consisted in lowering the gate fees in a non-discriminatory fashion. As regards RDF waste, the compensation for acquisition costs must be considered as disproportionate too. It confers on AVR IW a discriminatory advantage for a specific activity that is in direct competition with other waste management companies. Such acquisition is not directly in the public interest that justifies the aid, and this is certainly the case with RDF waste acquired abroad. But, even in the case of RDF waste from Dutch sources, acquisition may encourage disposal in the Netherlands at the expense of recovery in the Netherlands or elsewhere. Under specific circumstances, this may be contrary to the principle of treatment near the source. Consequently, the amount of €2,4 million intended for acquisition, included in the aid to AVR Nuts, which was based on the predetermined budget, and transferred to AVR IW cannot be justified on the basis of Article 86(2) of the Treaty. The compatibility of this part of the measure with Article 87(2) and (3) is assessed in Section 6.3 below.
6.3 Assessment on the basis of Article 87 of the compensation for acquisition costs
(109)
The Commission has examined whether the exemptions in Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty apply to the compensation for acquisition costs granted to AVR IW. The exemptions in Article 87(2) could serve as a basis for considering aid to be compatible with the common market. However, the aid (a) does not have a social character and is not granted to individual consumers, (b) does not make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences and (c) is not required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany.
(110)
Similarly, the exemptions in Article 87(3)(a), (b) and (d), which refer to aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment, aid to promote projects of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance of the economy of a Member State, and aid to promote culture and heritage conservation, do not apply in the present case. The Netherlands has not attempted to justify the aid on any of these grounds.
(111)
As regards the first part of the exemption in Article 87(3)(c), namely aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities, the Commission notes that the aid does not involve research and development, investment by small and medium-sized enterprises or the rescue or restructuring of AVR IW. Nor does the aid serve regional development purposes, and AVR IW is not located in an area where start-up investments are eligible for regional aid. Therefore, the aid cannot be declared compatible with the common market on the ground that it would facilitate the development of certain regions.
(112)
The Commission has examined whether the aid measure qualifies for exemption under Article 87(3)(c) on any other grounds and, in particular, whether the environmental aid guidelines apply to this case. Since the aid constitutes operating aid, the Commission has assessed it in the light of Section E.3.1 of those guidelines. The aid is, however, not shown to be absolutely necessary, nor is it strictly limited to compensating for extra production costs by comparison with market prices of the relevant products or services.
(113)
As none of the exemptions is applicable, the Commission concludes that this aid is incompatible with the common market and, in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, should be recovered from the recipient, AVR IW, in conformity with the provisions set out in Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (22).
7. CONCLUSION
(114)
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the following measures constitute state aid for AVR Nuts: 1. the compensation for the budget deficits in 2002 and 2003; 2. the compensation for the budget deficits in 2004 and in the remaining period 2005-06; 3. the compensation for closure costs, which consists in (a) compensation for closure costs related to the agreed investments to the extent they have not yet been written off and (b) compensation for closure costs due to the early termination of the treatment of RDF waste; and 4. the aid contained in the guarantee. The aid, except for the part of it designed to compensate for the costs of acquiring waste, can be found compatible with the common market as it constitutes compensation for the costs of an SGEI within the meaning of Article 86(2) of the Treaty, on condition that the aid does not exceed the actual losses incurred during that period and that allowance is made for no more than a reasonable profit margin. To this end, the Commission requests the Netherlands to submit annual reports on the actual use of the aid and the profitability of the activities during the year concerned. The Netherlands should also verify the compensation for closure costs and, in so doing, address the issues enumerated in Annex II. An interim report on this verification must be submitted to the Commission by the spring of 2006 and the final report by the spring of 2007. The Netherlands should notify any aid granted to AVR Nuts that would allow the company to attain a profitability level higher than the rate of return on Dutch government bonds plus 2 percentage points. This aid may not be paid out before the Commission has approved it pursuant to Article 4 or 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
(115)
However, the compensation of €2 396 000 granted to AVR IW for the costs of acquiring waste cannot be found compatible since it cannot be regarded as proportionate compensation for the SGEI. Instead, it compensates AVR IW for costs that should normally be included in the budget of a waste treatment company. None of the exemptions from the prohibition on state aid in Article 87(1) of the Treaty is applicable. Consequently, this part of the aid must be recovered directly from AVR IW. To this end, the Commission requests the Netherlands to enjoin AVR IW to repay the aid with interest in line with the conditions laid down in this decision.
(116)
The Commission asks the Netherlands to provide the information requested using the questionnaire attached in Annex III to this decision, indicating clearly the measures planned and already taken to obtain immediate and effective recovery of the aid. It calls on the Netherlands to submit within two months of the notification of the decision all documents showing that recovery proceedings have been initiated against AVR IW (such as recovery orders),
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The compensation for operating deficits, the compensation for the costs of closing down the rotating drum furnaces and the state guarantee covering 30 % of the costs of removal and decontamination, which follow from the concession agreement between the Netherlands and AVR Nuts and which have been partially implemented by the Netherlands, constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Article 2
Subject to the conditions set out in Article 3 of this decision, the state aid referred to in Article 1, with the exception of the aid referred to in Article 4 and granted to AVR IW, is compatible with the common market as it compensates the recipient for the costs of a service of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 86(2) of the Treaty.
Article 3
1. The aid for AVR Nuts shall not exceed the sum of the predetermined deficits, the actual additional losses incurred by AVR Nuts and a reasonable profit margin during the period covered by the concession agreement. If, in practice, the profit level over the period during which aid is granted proves to be higher than the rate of return on Dutch government bonds plus 2 percentage points, the Netherlands shall retroactively adjust the aid level.
2. The Netherlands shall submit a report on the application of the measures in 2004 and annual reports on the implementation of the guarantee for the costs of removal and decontamination and on the application of the measures for the C2 depot for the remaining duration. It shall submit an interim report on the verification of the compensation for closure costs by the spring of 2006 and a final report by the spring of 2007. These reports shall justify the compensation, taking due account of the issues raised in Annex II.
Article 4
The aid for AVR IW consisting in the compensation for acquisition costs amounting to €2 396 000 is incompatible with the common market.
Article 5
1. The Netherlands shall take all necessary measures to recover from the recipient, AVR IW, the aid referred to in Article 4.
2. Recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the decision.
3. The aid to be recovered shall include interest from the date on which it was at the disposal of the recipient until the date of its recovery.
4. Interest shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty.
Article 6
1 The Netherlands shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this decision, of the measures already taken and planned to recover the aid referred to in Article 4. It shall provide this information using the questionnaire attached in Annex III to this decision.
2. The Netherlands shall also submit within two months of notification of this decision documents showing that recovery proceedings have been initiated against AVR IW.
Article 7
This decision is addressed to Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Done at Brussels, 22 June 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1428/2003
of 11 August 2003
supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 on the entry of certain names in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs "ΦΑΣΟΛΙΑ ΓΙΓΑΝΤΕΣ - ΕΛΕΦΑΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΣΤΟΡΙΑΣ (Fasolia Gigantes - Elefantes Kastorias)"
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003(2), and in particular Article 6(3), (4) and (5) thereof,
(1) Under Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, Greece has sent the Commission an application for the registration of the name "ΦΑΣΟΛΙΑ ΓΙΓΑΝΤΕΣ - ΕΛΕΦΑΝΤΕΣ ΚΑΣΤΟΡΙΑΣ (Fasolia Gigantes - Elefantes Kastorias)" as a geographical indication.
(2) In accordance with Article 6(1) of that Regulation, the application has been found to meet all the requirements laid down therein and in particular to contain all the information required in accordance with Article 4 thereof.
(3) Following publication of the summary of the application in accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, the Hellenic Republic requested two minor amendments to elaborate on point 4.2 (description) and to delete the statement that the vehicles of the applicant group are used for distribution purposes. A revised summary of the application is included in Annex II.
(4) The name should therefore be entered in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications and hence be protected throughout the Community as a protected geographical indication.
(5) The Annex to this Regulation supplements the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1298/2003(4),
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The name in the Annex hereto is added to the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 and entered as a protected geographical indication (PGI) in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications provided for in Article 6(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92. The main elements of the product specification are included in Annex II. These replace the summary application published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(5).
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, 11 August 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 22 December 2009
adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a third updated list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region
(notified under document C(2009) 10422)
(2010/44/EU)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
The Continental biogeographical region referred to in Article 1(c)(iii) of Directive 92/43/EEC comprises the territory of Luxembourg and parts of the territory of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden, as specified in the biogeographical map approved on 25 April 2005 by the Committee set up by Article 20 of that Directive, hereinafter the ‘Habitats Committee’.
(2)
It is necessary in the context of a process which was initiated in 1995 to make further progress in the actual establishment of the Natura 2000 network, which is an essential element of the protection of biodiversity in the Community.
(3)
The initial list and the first two updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region, within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC, were adopted by Commission Decisions 2004/798/EC (2), 2008/25/EC (3) and 2009/93/EC (4). On the basis of Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Member State concerned shall designate the sites included in the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region as special areas of conservation as soon as possible and within six years at most, establishing conservation priorities and the necessary conservation measures.
(4)
In the context of a dynamic adaptation of the Natura 2000 network, the lists of sites of Community importance are reviewed. A third update of the Continental list is therefore necessary.
(5)
On the one hand, the third update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region is necessary in order to include additional sites that have been proposed since 2007 by the Member States as sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC. The obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC are applicable as soon as possible and within six years at most from the adoption of the third updated list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region.
(6)
On the other hand, the third update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region is necessary in order to reflect any changes in site related information submitted by the Member States following the adoption of the initial and the first two updated Community lists. In that sense, the third updated list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region constitutes a consolidated version of the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region. However, it should be stressed that the obligations resulting from Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC are applicable as soon as possible and within six years at most from the adoption of the initial or the first two updated lists of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region, depending on which list a site of Community importance was included as such for the first time.
(7)
For the Continental biogeographical region, lists of sites proposed as sites of Community importance within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 92/43/EEC have been transmitted to the Commission between November 2003 and December 2008 by the Member States concerned in accordance with Article 4(1) of that Directive.
(8)
The lists of proposed sites were accompanied by information on each site, supplied in the format established by Commission Decision 97/266/EC of 18 December 1996 concerning a site information format for proposed Natura 2000 sites (5).
(9)
That information includes the most recent and definitive map of the site transmitted by the Member States concerned, name, location and extent of the site, and the data yielded by application of the criteria specified in Annex III to Directive 92/43/EEC.
(10)
On the basis of the draft list drawn up by the Commission in agreement with each of the Member States concerned, which also identifies sites hosting priority natural habitat types or priority species, a third updated list of sites selected as sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region should be adopted.
(11)
Knowledge of the existence and distribution of the natural habitat types and species is constantly evolving, as a result of the surveillance in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore, the evaluation and selection of sites at Community level was done using the best available information at present.
(12)
Certain Member States have not proposed sufficient sites to meet the requirements of Directive 92/43/EEC for certain habitat types and species. For those habitat types and species it can therefore not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is complete. Taking into account the delay in receiving the information and reaching agreement with the Member States, it is necessary to adopt a third updated list of sites, which will need to be revised in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.
(13)
Given that knowledge on the existence and distribution of some of the natural habitat types of Annex I and species of Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC remains incomplete, it should not be concluded that the Natura 2000 network is either complete or incomplete. The list should be revised, if necessary, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC.
(14)
In the interests of clarity and transparency Decision 2009/93/EC should be replaced.
(15)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Habitats Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The third updated list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC is set out in the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
Decision 2009/93/EC is repealed.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 December 2009.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 219/2004
of 6 February 2004
concerning tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender for the export to certain third countries of wholly milled round grain A rice issued in Regulation (EC) No 1875/2003
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), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) An invitation to tender for the export refund on rice was issued under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1875/2003(3).
(2) Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/75(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1948/2002(5), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 and on the basis of the tenders submitted, to make no award.
(3) On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 a maximum refund should not be 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
No action shall be taken on the tenders submitted from 2 to 5 February 2004 in response to the invitation to tender for the export refund on wholly milled round grain A rice to certain third countries issued in Regulation (EC) No 1875/2003.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 7 February 2004.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 February 2004.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 11 March 2003
establishing the European Community Energy Star Board
(2003/168/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 175(1) thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2422/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on a Community energy efficiency labelling programme for office equipment(1), and in particular Article 8(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) In compliance with Regulation (EC) No 2422/2001, the Commission should establish a European Community Energy Star Board (hereinafter referred to as the "ECESB") to carry out the EC Energy Star programme, as defined in the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the European Community on the coordination of energy efficient labelling programmes for office equipment(2).
(2) The ECESB should consist of national representatives, as defined by Regulation (EC) No 2422/2001 and of the interested parties listed on an indicative basis in that Regulation,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The European Community Energy Star Board "ECESB" is hereby established.
Article 2
1. The Chair of the ECESB shall be held by the Commission, represented by the Directorate General for Energy and Transport.
2. The indicative list of the national representatives referred to in Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 2422/2001 shall be as set out in Part A of the Annex.
Where more than one national representative is designated, the "coordinator" shall be the representative empowered by the Member State as indicated in the Annex.
3. The indicative list of the interested Parties referred to in Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2422/2001 shall be as set out in Part B of the Annex.
4. In order to ensure a balanced participation of all relevant interested Parties in respect to each office equipment product group, the Chair may adapt the membership of interested Parties as appropriate.
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Done at Brussels, 11 March 2003.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 21 November 1994 amending Decision 93/387/EEC laying down special conditions for the import of live bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods originating in Morocco (94/767/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Council Directive 91/492/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs (1), and in particular Article 9 (4) thereof,
Whereas Commision Decision 93/387/EEC of 7 June 1993 laying down special conditions for the import of live bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods originating in Morocco (2) as amended by Decision 93/530/EEC (3), establishes the list of the dispatch establishments approved for export to the European Community;
Whereas the Moroccan competent authorities officially approved additional dispatch establishments in accordance with Article 9 (3) (c) of Directive 91/492/EEC;
Whereas point I of Annex C to Decision 93/387/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly;
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
In Annex C to Decision 93/387/EEC, point I is hereby replaced as follows:
'I. Dispatch establishments
(4) Najmat Allah, Nador 01-10-065 - Marost, Nador 01-10-066 - VIAPO Maroc, Nador 01-10-078 31. 12. Société Aquacole de la Moulouya, Essaidia 01-10-070 - SOMECOP, Tetouan 03-10-080 - Société Damjiguend SA, Tanger 04-10-079 31. 12. Oualidia Marée, Oualidia 08-10-081 31. 12. Société "Les huîtres OSTREA", Oualidia 09-10-113 - Sea Products, Sidi Moussa 09-10-112 -
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 November 1994.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1595/95 of 30 June 1995 fixing the production refund for olive oil used in the manufacture of certain preserved foods
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 organization of the market in oils and fats (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden and by Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 (2), and in particular Article 20a thereof,
Whereas Article 20a of Regulation No 136/66/EEC provides for the granting of a production refund for olive oil used in the preserving industry; whereas under paragraph 6 of that Article, and without prejudice to paragraph 3 thereof, the Commission shall fix this refund every two months;
Whereas by virtue of Article 20a (2) of the abovementioned Regulation, the production refund must be fixed on the basis of the gap between prices on the world market and on the Community market, taking account of the import charge applicable to olive oil falling within CN subheading 1509 90 00 and the factors used for fixing the export refunds for those olive oils during the reference period; whereas it is appropriate to take as a reference period the two-month period preceding the beginning of the term of validity of the production refund; whereas, however, if the oil used in the manufacture of preserved foods was produced in the Community, the above amount is to be increased by an amount equal to the consumption aid in force on the day that the said refund is applied;
Whereas the application of the above criteria results in the refund being fixed as shown below,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For the months of July and August 1995, the amount of the production refund referred to in Article 20a (2) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC shall be:
- ECU 62,18 per 100 kilograms for olive oil produced in the Community,
- ECU 50,11 per 100 kilograms for olive oil other than that referred to in the preceding indent.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 1995.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 June 1995.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1487/1999
of 6 July 1999
establishing unit values for the determination of the customs value of certain perishable goods
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 955/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council(2),
Having regard to 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), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 502/1999(4), and in particular Article 173 (1) thereof,
(1) Whereas Articles 173 to 177 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 provide that the Commission shall periodically establish unit values for the products referred to in the classification in Annex 26 to that Regulation;
(2) Whereas the result of applying the rules and criteria laid down in the abovementioned Articles to the elements communicated to the Commission in accordance with Article 173 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 is that unit values set out in the Annex to this Regulation should be established in regard to the products in question,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The unit values provided for in Article 173 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 are hereby established as set out in the table in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 July 1999.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 July 1999.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 19 December 1994 on additional financial aid from the Community for the work of the Laboratoire Central d'Hygiène Alimentaire, Paris, France, the Community reference laboratory for the testing of milk and milk-products (94/841/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), as last amended by Decision 94/370/EC (2), and in particular Article 28 thereof,
Whereas, in accordance with the provisions of Article 28 of Council Directive 92/46/EEC (3) the Laboratoire Central d'Hygiène Alimentaire, Paris, France, has been designated as the reference laboratory for the analysis and testing of milk and milk products;
Whereas, in accordance with Decision 94/94/EC (4) financial aid has already been paid to the Laboratoire Central d'Hygiène Alimentaire, France; whereas a one-year contract has been concluded between the European Community and this laboratory; whereas this contract should be extended to enable the reference laboratory to continue to perform the functions and tasks referred to in Chapter II of Annex D to Directive 92/46/EEC;
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
The Community shall grant the Laboratoire Central d'Hygiène Alimentaire, the reference laboratory designated in Chapter I of Annex D to Directive 92/46/EEC, additional financial aid amounting to not more than ECU 100 000.
Article 2
1. For the purposes of Article 1, the contract referred to in Decision 94/94/EC is hereby extended for one year.
2. The Director-General for Agriculture is hereby authorized to sign the amendment to the contract in the name of the Commission of the European Communities.
3. The financial aid provided for in Article 1 shall be paid to the reference laboratory in accordance with the procedure set out in the contract referred to in Decision 94/94/EC.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 December 1994.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1
] |
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 28 February 1984 amending Directive 75/273/EEC concerning the Community list of less-favoured farming areas within the meaning of Directive 75/268/EEC (Italy) (84/167/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 75/268/EEC of 28 April 1975 on mountain and hill farming and farming in certain less-favoured areas (1), as last amended by Directive 82/786/EEC (2), and in particular Article 2 (2) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (3),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (4),
Whereas Directive 75/273/EEC (5) indicates which areas in Italy are included in the Community list of less-favoured areas pursuant to Article 3 (3), (4) and (5) of Directive 75/268/EEC;
Whereas the Italian Government has requested, in accordance with Article 2 (1) of Directive 75/268/EEC, that the Community list of areas set out in the Annex to Directive 75/273/EEC be amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive;
Whereas the transfer of certain areas already mentioned on the list concerning areas within the meaning of Article 3 (4) and (5) of Directive 75/268/EEC to the list of areas within the meaning of Article 3 (3) of the said Directive is in line with the indices and figures set out in Directive 75/273/EEC for the determination of hill and mountain areas;
Whereas the areas to be listed for the first time meet the criteria and figures used under Directive 75/273/EEC for determining areas within the meaning of Article 3 (3), (4) and (5) of Directive 75/268/EEC;
Whereas the total surface area of the areas qualifying under Article 3 (5) of Directive 75/268/EEC does not exceed 2,5 % of the total surface area of Italy,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
The list of less-favoured areas in Italy which appears in the Annex to Directive 75/273/EEC is hereby amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive. (1) OJ No L 128, 19.5.1975, p. 1. (2) OJ No L 327, 24.11.1982, p. 19. (3) OJ No C 224, 22.8.1983, p. 1. (4) OJ No C 307, 14.11.1983. p. 102. (5) OJ No L 128, 19.5.1975, p. 72.
Article 2
This Directive is addressed to the Italian Republic.
Done at Brussels, 28 February 1984.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
DIRECTIVE 2008/92/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 22 October 2008
concerning a Community procedure to improve the transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users (recast)
(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 Article 285(1) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty (1),
Whereas:
(1)
Council Directive 90/377/EEC of 29 June 1990 concerning a Community procedure to improve the transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users (2) has been significantly amended on several occasions (3). Now that new amendments are being made to the said Directive, it is desirable, for reasons of clarity, that the provisions in question should be recast.
(2)
Energy price transparency, to the extent that it reinforces the conditions ensuring that competition is not distorted in the common market, is essential to the achievement and smooth functioning of the internal energy market.
(3)
Transparency can help to obviate discrimination against users by increasing their freedom to choose between different energy sources and different suppliers.
(4)
At present, the degree of transparency varies from one energy source and one Member State or one Community region to another, thus calling into question the achievement of an internal energy market.
(5)
However, the price paid by industry in the Community for the energy which it uses is one of the factors which influence its competitiveness and should therefore remain confidential.
(6)
The system of standard consumers used by the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) in its price publications and the price system introduced for major industrial electricity users ensure that transparency is not an obstacle to confidentiality.
(7)
It is necessary to extend the consumer categories used by Eurostat up to the limits at which the consumers remain representative.
(8)
In this way end-users price transparency would be achieved without endangering the necessary confidentiality of contracts. In order to respect confidentiality there must be at least three consumers in a given consumption category for a price to be published.
(9)
This information, which concerns gas and electricity consumed by industry for energy end-users, will also enable comparisons to be drawn with other energy sources (oil, coal, fossil and renewable energy sources) and other consumers.
(10)
Undertakings which supply gas and electricity as well as industrial gas and electricity consumers remain, independently of the application of this Directive, subject to the Treaty’s competition rules and consequently the Commission can require communication of prices and conditions of sale.
(11)
Knowledge of the price systems in force forms part of price transparency.
(12)
Knowledge of the breakdown of consumers by category and their respective market shares also forms part of price transparency.
(13)
The communication to Eurostat of prices and conditions of sale to consumers and price systems in operation as well as the breakdown of consumers by consumption category should inform the Commission sufficiently for it to decide, as necessary, on appropriate action or proposals in the light of the situation of the internal energy market.
(14)
The data supplied to Eurostat will be more reliable if the undertakings themselves compile these data.
(15)
Familiarity with the taxation and parafiscal charges existing in each Member State is important to ensure price transparency.
(16)
It must be possible to check the reliability of the data supplied to Eurostat.
(17)
The achievement of transparency presupposes the publication and circulation of prices and price systems as widely as possible among consumers.
(18)
To implement energy price transparency the system should be based on the proven expertise and methods developed and applied by Eurostat regarding the processing, checking and publication of data.
(19)
With the prospect of the achievement of the internal market in energy, the system of price transparency should be rendered operational as soon as possible.
(20)
The uniform implementation of this Directive can only take place in all the Member States when the natural gas market, in particular with regard to infrastructure, has reached a sufficient level of development.
(21)
The measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive 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).
(22)
In particular, the Commission should be empowered to make the necessary changes to Annexes I and II in the light of specific problems identified. Since those measures are of general scope and are designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive, they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC.
(23)
Since the new elements introduced into this Directive concern committee procedure only, they do not need to be transposed by the Member States.
(24)
This Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law of the Directives set out in Annex III, Part B,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
Member States shall take the steps necessary to ensure that undertakings which supply gas or electricity to industrial end-users, as defined in Annexes I and II, communicate to the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) in the form provided for in Article 3:
1.
the prices and terms of sale of gas and electricity to industrial end-users;
2.
the price systems in use;
3.
the breakdown of consumers and the corresponding volumes by category of consumption to ensure the representativeness of these categories at national level.
Article 2
1. The undertakings referred to in Article 1 shall assemble the data provided for in Article 1(1) and (2) on 1 January and 1 July of each year.
These data, drawn up in conformity with the provisions referred to in Article 3, shall be sent to Eurostat and the competent authorities of the Member States within two months.
2. On the basis of the data referred to in paragraph 1, Eurostat shall publish each May and each November, in an appropriate form, the prices of gas and electricity for industrial users in the Member States and the pricing systems used to that end.
3. The information provided for in Article 1(3) shall be sent every two years to Eurostat and to the Member States’ competent authorities.
This information shall not be published.
Article 3
The implementing provisions concerning the form, content and all other features of the information provided for in Article 1 are set out in Annexes I and II.
Article 4
Eurostat shall not disclose data supplied to it pursuant to Article 1 which might, by their nature, be subject to commercial confidentiality. Such confidential statistical data transmitted to Eurostat shall be accessible only to officials of Eurostat and may be used only for statistical purposes.
The first paragraph shall not, however, prevent the publication of such data in an aggregated form which does not enable individual commercial transactions to be identified.
Article 5
Where Eurostat notes statistically significant anomalies or inconsistencies in data transmitted under this Directive, it may ask the national bodies to allow it to inspect the appropriate disaggregated data as well as the methods of calculation or evaluation upon which the aggregated data are based, in order to assess, or even amend, any information deemed irregular.
Article 6
Where appropriate, the Commission shall make the necessary changes to Annexes I and II in the light of specific problems identified. Those measures, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 7(2).
Such changes shall, however, cover only the technical features of Annexes I and II and shall not be of a nature such as to alter the general structure of the system.
Article 7
1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee.
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5a(1) to (4) and Article 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.
Article 8
Once a year the Commission shall present a summary report on the operation of this Directive to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee.
Article 9
In the case of natural gas, this Directive will not be implemented in a Member State until five years after the introduction of that form of energy on the market in question.
The date of introduction of that energy source on a national market shall be explicitly reported to the Commission by the Member State concerned without delay.
Article 10
Directive 90/377/EEC, as amended by the acts listed in Annex III, Part A, is repealed without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law of the Directives set out in Annex III, Part B.
References to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex IV.
Article 11
This Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 12
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Strasbourg, 22 October 2008.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
REGULATION (EC) No 1923/2006 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 18 December 2006
amending Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies
(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 Article 152(4)(b) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Having regard to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),
Having consulted the Committee of the Regions,
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty (2),
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 (3) is intended to provide a single legal framework for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in the Community.
(2)
Regulation (EC) No 932/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 as regards the extension of the period for transitional measures (4) prolonged the period of application of the transitional measures provided for in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 until 1 July 2007 at the latest.
(3)
During the General Session of the World Organisation for Animal Health in May 2003, a Resolution was adopted to simplify the current international criteria for the classification of countries according to their Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) risk. A proposal was adopted at the General Session in May 2005. The Articles of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should be adapted to reflect the new internationally agreed categorisation system.
(4)
New developments concerning sampling and analysis will require comprehensive amendments to Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001. It is therefore necessary to make certain technical amendments to the existing definition of ‘rapid tests’ in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 in order to facilitate amendment of the structure of that Annex at a later stage.
(5)
In the interests of clarity of Community legislation, it is appropriate to clarify that the definition of ‘mechanically separated meat’ provided for in other Community legislation on food safety should be applicable in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 in the context of TSE eradication measures.
(6)
Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 establishes a monitoring programme for BSE and scrapie. In its opinion of 6-7 March 2003, the Scientific Steering Committee recommended the introduction of a monitoring programme for TSEs in cervids. Therefore the monitoring system provided for in that Regulation should be extended to other TSEs, with the possibility to adopt further measures to implement that system at a later stage.
(7)
A harmonised breeding programme to select for resistance to TSEs in ovine animals has been put in place as a transitional measure by Commission Decision 2003/100/EC of 13 February 2003 laying down minimum requirements for the establishment of breeding programmes for resistance to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in sheep (5). Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should be amended to provide a permanent legal basis for that programme, as well as the possibility of amending such programmes to take account of the evaluated scientific results and overall consequences of their implementation.
(8)
Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 prohibits the feeding of certain processed animal proteins to certain animals, with the possibility to provide for derogations. New developments concerning prohibitions on animal feeding may require amendments to be made to Annex IV to that Regulation. It is necessary to make certain technical amendments to the existing wording of the corresponding Article in order to facilitate amendment of the structure of that Annex at a later stage.
(9)
Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (6) establishes rules for the disposal of specified risk materials and animals infected by TSEs. Rules on transit through the Community of products of animal origin have now been adopted. Accordingly, in the interests of consistency of Community legislation, the existing rules in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 on the disposal of such materials and animals should be replaced by a reference to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, and the reference to rules on transit in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should be deleted.
(10)
New developments concerning specified risk materials will also require comprehensive amendments to Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001. It is necessary to make certain technical amendments to the existing wording of the corresponding provisions of that Regulation in order to facilitate amendment of the structure of that Annex at a later stage.
(11)
Although stunning by injection of gas in the cranial cavity is prohibited within the Community, injection of gas may also occur after stunning. It is therefore necessary to amend the relevant provisions on slaughter methods in Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 with a view to prohibiting gas injection into the cranial cavity after stunning.
(12)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1915/2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 (7) sets out new provisions on eradication of scrapie in ovine and caprine animals. Accordingly, it is necessary to prohibit the movement of ovine and caprine animals from holdings where scrapie is officially suspected.
(13)
Based on evolving scientific knowledge, Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should allow the extension to other species of the scope of the rules concerning the placing on the market and export of bovine, ovine and caprine animals, their semen, embryos and ova.
(14)
The opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee of 26 June 1998 indicates that certain restrictions regarding sourcing of raw material for the manufacture of di-calcium phosphate should be observed. Accordingly, di-calcium phosphate should be removed from the list of products which are not subject to restrictions on placing on the market under Regulation (EC) No 999/2001. The absence of restrictions applicable to milk and dairy products should be clarified.
(15)
Based on evolving scientific knowledge and risk classification, and notwithstanding the possibility to adopt safeguard measures, Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should permit the adoption in accordance with the comitology procedure of more specific requirements for the placing on the market and export of products of animal origin originating from Member States or third countries with a controlled or undetermined risk of TSE.
(16)
The measures necessary for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 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 (8).
(17)
In particular, the Commission should be empowered to adopt decisions approving the rapid tests, adapting the age of the animals, introducing the tolerance level, allowing feeding of young animals of ruminant species with proteins derived from fish and extending certain provisions to other animal species; to establish rules providing for exemptions from the requirement to remove and destroy specific risk material; to establish criteria to demonstrate improvement of the epidemiological situation and criteria for granting exemptions from certain restrictions as well as production processes. Since those measures are of general scope and are designed to amend non-essential elements of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 and/or to supplement that Regulation by the addition of new non-essential elements, those measures should be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC.
(18)
Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 is hereby amended as follows:
1)
the following recital shall be inserted:
‘(8a)
The feeding to non-ruminants of certain processed animal proteins originating from non-ruminants should be allowed taking into account the prohibition on intra-species recycling as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption (9) and the control aspects in particular linked to the differentiation of processed animal proteins specific to certain species as laid down in the Communication on the TSE Road map adopted by the Commission on 15 July 2005.
2)
the following recitals shall be inserted:
‘(11a)
In its resolution of 28 October 2004 (10), the European Parliament expressed concerns about feeding animal proteins to ruminants as they do not form part of the natural nutrition of adult cattle. In the wake of the BSE crisis and the foot-and-mouth disease crisis it has increasingly become accepted that the best way to ensure human and animal health is to keep and nourish animals in a way that respects the particularities of each species. Pursuant to the precautionary principle and in keeping with the natural diet and living conditions of ruminants, it is therefore necessary to maintain the prohibition on the feeding of animal proteins to ruminants in forms not normally constituting part of their natural diet.
(11b)
Mechanically separated meat is obtained by removing meat from bones in such a way that the muscle fibre structure is destroyed or modified. It can contain parts of the bones and the periosteum (bone skin). Thus, mechanically separated meat is not comparable with regular meat. Consequently its use for human consumption should be reviewed.
3)
in Article 3, paragraph 1 shall be amended as follows:
(a)
point (l) shall be replaced by the following:
‘(l)
rapid tests: the screening methods listed in Annex X, for which the results are known within 24 hours;’;
(b)
the following points shall be added:
‘(n)
mechanically separated meat or “MSM”: the product obtained by removing meat from flesh-bearing bones after boning, using mechanical means resulting in the loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure;
(o)
passive surveillance: the reporting of all animals suspected of being infected by a TSE and, where TSE cannot be excluded by clinical investigation, the laboratory testing of such animals;
(p)
active surveillance: the testing of animals not reported as suspected of being infected by a TSE, such as emergency slaughtered animals, animals with observations at ante mortem inspection, fallen stock, healthy slaughtered animals and animals culled in connection with a TSE case, in particular in order to determine the evolution and prevalence of TSE in a country or region thereof.’;
4)
Article 5 is hereby amended as follows:
(a)
paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:
‘1. The BSE status of Member States or third countries or regions thereof (hereinafter referred to as “countries or regions”) shall be determined by classification into one of the following three categories:
-
negligible BSE risk as defined in Annex II,
-
controlled BSE risk as defined in Annex II,
-
undetermined BSE risk as defined in Annex II.
The BSE status of countries or regions may be determined only on the basis of the criteria set out in Annex II, Chapter A. These criteria shall include the outcome of a risk analysis on the basis of all the potential factors for the appearance of bovine spongiform encephalopathy as defined in Annex II, Chapter B, and their development over time, as well as comprehensive active and passive surveillance measures taking into account the risk category of the country or region.
Member States, and third countries wishing to be retained on the list of third countries approved for the export to the Community of the live animals or of the products covered by this Regulation, shall submit to the Commission an application for their BSE status to be determined, accompanied by the relevant information on the criteria set out in Annex II, Chapter A, and on the potential risk factors specified in Annex II, Chapter B, and their development over time.’;
(b)
paragraph 4 shall be replaced by the following:
‘4. Member States and third countries which have not submitted an application in accordance with the third subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall, with respect to the dispatch from their territory of live animals and products of animal origin, comply with the import requirements applicable to countries with an undetermined BSE risk, until they have submitted such an application and a final decision has been taken on their BSE status.’;
5)
Article 6 is hereby amended as follows:
(a)
paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:
‘1. Each Member State shall carry out an annual monitoring programme for TSEs based on active and passive surveillance in accordance with Annex III. If available for the animal species, that programme shall include a screening procedure using rapid tests.
Rapid tests shall be approved for that purpose in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(3) and listed in Annex X.’;
(b)
the following paragraphs shall be inserted:
‘1a. The annual monitoring programme referred to in paragraph 1 shall cover as a minimum the following subpopulations:
(a)
all bovine animals above 24 months of age sent for emergency slaughter or with observations at ante mortem inspections;
(b)
all bovine animals above 30 months of age slaughtered normally for human consumption;
(c)
all bovine animals above 24 months of age not slaughtered for human consumption, which have died or been killed on the farm, during transport or in an abattoir (fallen stock).
Member States may decide to derogate from the provision under point (c) in remote areas with a low animal density, where no collection of dead animals is organised. Member States making use of this possibility shall inform the Commission and submit a list of the areas concerned together with a justification for the derogation. The derogation shall not cover more than 10 % of the bovine population in a Member State.
1b. After consultation of the appropriate scientific committee, the age laid down in paragraph 1a(a) and (c) may be adapted according to scientific progress in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(3).
At the request of a Member State which can demonstrate the improvement of the epidemiological situation of the country, according to certain criteria to be laid down in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(3), the annual monitoring programmes for that particular Member State may be revised.
The Member State concerned shall provide proof of its capability to determine the effectiveness of the measures in place and ensure protection of human and animal health based on a comprehensive risk analysis. In particular, the Member State shall demonstrate:
(a)
a clearly declining or consistently low BSE prevalence, based on up-to-date testing results;
(b)
that it has implemented and enforced for at least six years a full BSE testing scheme (Community legislation on traceability and identification of live animals and BSE surveillance);
(c)
that it has implemented and enforced for at least six years Community legislation on total feed ban for farmed animals.’;
(c)
the following paragraph shall be added:
‘5. Rules for the implementation of this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2).’;
6)
the following Article shall be inserted:
‘Article 6a
Breeding Programmes
1. Member States may introduce breeding programmes to select for resistance to TSEs in their ovine populations. Those programmes shall include a framework to recognise the TSE-resistant status of certain flocks and may be extended to include other animal species based on scientific evidence corroborating the resistance to TSE of particular genotypes of those species.
2. Specific rules for the programmes provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2).
3. Member States which introduce breeding programmes shall submit regular reports to the Commission in order to enable the programmes to be scientifically evaluated, in particular with regard to their impact on the incidence of TSEs but also on genetic diversity and variability and on the maintenance of old or rare ovine breeds or of those that are well-adapted to a particular region. The scientific results and overall consequences of the breeding programmes shall be evaluated regularly, and where necessary, those programmes shall be amended accordingly.’;
7)
Article 7 is hereby amended as follows:
(a)
paragraphs 1 to 4 shall be replaced by the following:
‘1. The feeding to ruminants of protein derived from animals shall be prohibited.
2. The prohibition provided for in paragraph 1 shall be extended to animals other than ruminants and restricted, as regards the feeding of those animals with products of animal origin, in accordance with Annex IV.
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply without prejudice to the provisions laid down in Annex IV setting out the derogations from the prohibition contained in those paragraphs.
The Commission may decide in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(3), based on a scientific assessment of the dietary needs of young ruminants and subject to the rules adopted for the implementation of this Article provided for in paragraph 5 of this Article, and following an assessment of the control aspects of this derogation, to allow the feeding of young animals of ruminant species with proteins derived from fish.
4. Member States, or regions thereof, with an undetermined BSE risk shall not be permitted to export or store feed intended for farmed animals which contains protein derived from mammals or feed intended for mammals, except feed for dogs, cats and fur animals, which contains processed protein derived from mammals.
Third countries, or regions thereof, with an undetermined BSE risk shall not be permitted to export to the Community feed intended for farmed animals which contains protein derived from mammals or feed intended for mammals, except feed for dogs, cats and fur animals, which contains processed protein derived from mammals.
At the request of a Member State or third country a decision in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2) may be taken, following detailed criteria to be laid down in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(3), to grant individual exemptions from the restrictions in this paragraph. Any exemption shall take account of the provisions provided for in paragraph 3 of this Article.’;
(b)
the following paragraph shall be inserted:
‘4a. Based on a favourable risk assessment taking into account at least the amount and possible source of contamination and the final destination of the consignment, a decision may be taken in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(3) to introduce a tolerance level for insignificant amounts of animal proteins in feedingstuffs caused through adventitious and technically unavoidable contamination.’;
(c)
paragraph 5 shall be replaced by the following:
‘5. Rules for the implementation of this Article, in particular rules on the prevention of cross-contamination and on the methods of sampling and analysis required to check compliance with this Article, shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2). Those rules shall be based on a report of the Commission covering sourcing, processing, control and traceability of feedingstuffs of animal origin.’;
8)
in Article 8, paragraphs 1 to 5 shall be replaced by the following:
‘1. The specified risk material shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with Annex V to this Regulation and with Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002. It shall not be imported into the Community. The list of specified risk material referred to in Annex V shall include at least the brain, spinal cord, eyes and tonsils of bovine animals aged over 12 months and the vertebral column of bovine animals above an age to be determined in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(3). Taking into account the different risk categories laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) and the requirements of Article 6(1a) and (1b) (b), the list of specified risk material in Annex V shall be amended accordingly.
2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply to tissues from animals which have undergone an alternative test approved for that distinct purpose in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(3) provided that this test is listed in Annex X, is applied under the conditions provided for in Annex V and the test results are negative.
The Member States which authorise the use of an alternative test pursuant to this paragraph shall inform the other Member States and the Commission.
3. In Member States, or regions thereof, with a controlled or undetermined BSE risk, the laceration, after stunning, of central nervous tissue by means of an elongated rod-shaped instrument introduced into the cranial cavity, or by means of gas injection into the cranial cavity in connection with stunning, shall not be used on bovine, ovine or caprine animals whose meat is intended for human or animal consumption.
4. The data relating to age set out in Annex V may be adjusted. Such adjustments shall be based on the latest proven scientific findings concerning the statistical probability of the occurrence of a TSE in the relevant age groups of the Community's bovine, ovine and caprine population.
5. Rules providing for exemptions from paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article may be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(3), with regard to the date of the effective enforcement of the feeding prohibition provided for in Article 7(1) or, as appropriate for third countries or regions thereof with a controlled BSE risk, with regard to the date of the effective enforcement of the ban of mammalian protein in feed for ruminants with a view to limiting the requirements to remove and destroy specified risk material to animals born before that date in the countries or regions concerned.’;
9)
in Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be replaced by the following:
‘1. The products of animal origin listed in Annex VI shall be produced using production processes approved in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(3).
2. Bones of bovine, ovine and caprine animals from countries or regions with a controlled or undetermined BSE risk shall not be used for the production of mechanically separated meat (MSM). Before 1 July 2008, the Member States shall submit a report to the Commission on the use and the production method of MSM in their territory. This report shall include a statement as to whether the Member State intends to continue with the production of MSM.
The Commission shall thereupon present a communication to the European Parliament and the Council on the future necessity and use of MSM in the Community, including the information policy towards consumers.’;
10)
Article 12 is hereby amended as follows:
(a)
paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:
‘1. Any animal suspected of being infected by a TSE shall be either placed under an official movement restriction until the results of a clinical and epidemiological examination carried out by the competent authority are known, or killed for laboratory examination under official control.
If a TSE is officially suspected in a bovine animal at a holding in a Member State, all other bovine animals at that holding shall be placed under an official movement restriction until the results of the examination are available. If a TSE is officially suspected in an ovine or caprine animal at a holding in a Member State, all other ovine and caprine animals at that holding shall be placed under an official movement restriction until the results are available.
However, if there is evidence that the holding where the animal was present when the TSE was suspected is unlikely to be the holding where the animal could have been exposed to the TSE, the competent authority may decide that only the animal suspected of being infected shall be placed under an official movement restriction.
If considered necessary, the competent authority may also decide that other holdings or only the holding of exposure shall be placed under official control depending on the epidemiological information available.
In accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2) and by way of derogation from the official movement restrictions provided for in this paragraph, a Member State may be exempted from implementing such restrictions if it applies measures offering equivalent safeguards based on an appropriate assessment of the possible risks for human and animal health.’;
(b)
paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following:
‘3. All parts of the body of the suspect animal shall be either retained under official control until a negative diagnosis has been made, or disposed of in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002.’;
11)
in Article 13, paragraph 1 is hereby amended as follows:
(a)
point (a) of the first subparagraph shall be replaced by the following:
‘(a)
all parts of the body of the animal shall be disposed of in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 except for material retained for records in accordance with Annex III, Chapter B, of this Regulation.’;
(b)
point (c) of the first subparagraph shall be replaced by the following:
‘(c)
all animals and products thereof at risk, as listed in Annex VII, point 2, of this Regulation, identified by the inquiry referred to in point (b) of this paragraph shall be killed and disposed of in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002.’;
(c)
after the first subparagraph, the following subparagraph shall be inserted:
‘At the request of a Member State and based on a favourable risk assessment taking particularly into account the control measures in that Member State, a decision may be taken in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2) to allow the use of bovine animals referred to in this paragraph until the end of their productive lives.’;
12)
in Article 15, paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following:
‘3. In accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(3), the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 may be extended to other animal species.
4. Rules for implementing this Article may be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2).’;
13)
Article 16 is hereby amended as follows:
(a)
in paragraph 1, point (b) shall be replaced by the following:
‘(b)
milk and dairy products, hides and skins, and gelatine and collagen derived from hides and skins.’;
(b)
paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be replaced by the following:
‘2. Products of animal origin imported from a third country with a controlled or undetermined BSE risk shall come from healthy bovine, ovine and caprine animals which have not been subjected to a laceration of the central nervous tissue or gas injection into the cranial cavity as referred to in Article 8(3).
3. Food products of animal origin containing material obtained from bovine animals originating in a country or region with an undetermined BSE risk shall not be placed on the market unless they come from animals which:
(a)
were born eight years after the date from which the prohibition on the feeding to ruminants of animal protein derived from mammals was effectively enforced; and
(b)
were born, raised and have stayed in herds with a certified history of freedom from BSE for at least seven years.
Furthermore, food products of ruminant origin shall not be dispatched from a Member State or a region thereof with an undetermined BSE risk to another Member State or be imported from a third country with an undetermined BSE risk.
This prohibition shall not apply to products of animal origin listed in Annex VIII, Chapter C, and fulfilling the requirements of Annex VIII, Chapter C.
They must be accompanied by an animal health certificate issued by an official veterinarian certifying that they have been produced in conformity with this Regulation.’;
14)
the following Article shall be inserted:
‘Article 23a
The following measures which are designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation, including by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 24(3):
(a)
approval of the rapid tests referred to in Article 6(1) and Article 8(2),
(b)
adaptation of the age referred to in Article 6(1b),
(c)
criteria to demonstrate improvement of the epidemiological situation referred to in Article 6(1b),
(d)
decision to allow feeding of young animals of ruminant species with proteins derived from fish as referred to in Article 7(3),
(e)
criteria for granting exemptions from the restrictions referred to in Article 7(4),
(f)
decision to introduce a tolerance level as referred to in Article 7(4a),
(g)
decision on age as referred to in Article 8(1),
(h)
rules providing for exemptions from the requirement to remove and destroy specified risk material as referred to in Article 8(5),
(i)
approval of production processes referred to in Article 9(1),
(j)
decision to extend certain provisions to other animal species as referred to in Article 15(3).’
15)
Article 24 shall be replaced by the following:
‘Article 24
Committees
1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. However, the Standing Committee on Zootechnics shall also be consulted by the Commission with regard to Article 6a.
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 time-limits referred to in Article 5(6) of that Decision shall be three months and, in the case of safeguard measures referred to in Article 4(2) of this Regulation, 15 days.
3. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5a (1) to (4) and Article 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.’;
16)
the following Article shall be inserted:
‘Article 24a
Decisions to be adopted in accordance with one of the procedures referred to in Article 24 shall be based on an appropriate assessment of the possible risks for human and animal health and shall, taking into account existing scientific evidence, maintain, or if scientifically justified increase, the level of protection of human and animal health ensured in the Community.’.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 18 December 2006.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 19 June 1997 on the approval of the single programming document for Community structural assistance in the regions of West Cumbria and Furness concerned by Objective 2 in the United Kingdom (Only the English text is authentic) (97/720/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 1,117 million of the corresponding single programming document covering the period 1994 to 1996, pursuant to Commission Decision C(96) 3684 of 17 December 1996;
Whereas the United Kingdom Government has submitted to the Commission on 2 August 1996 the single programming document as referred to in Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 for the regions of west Cumbria and Furness; 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 Article 20 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 provides, subject to available funding, for a single commitment where the Community assistance granted is less than ECU 40 million for the whole programming period;
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 the regions of west Cumbria and Furness concerned by Objective 2 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. SME start-up, development and growth,
2. knowledge-based industries and advanced technologies,
3. tourism development,
4. community economic development;
(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 1,117 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 32,374 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 34,248 million for the public sector and ECU 11,955 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 23,991 million,
- ESF: ECU 8,383 million.
2. The budgetary commitments at the moment of approval of the single programming document refer to the total Community assistance.
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, 19 June 1997.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 20 August 2001
amending Decision 95/453/EC laying down special conditions for the import of bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods originating in the Republic of Korea
(notified under document number C(2001) 2556)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2001/676/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 91/492/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs(1), as last amended by Directive 97/79/EC(2), and in particular Article 9(4) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 1 of Commission Decision 95/453/EC of 23 October 1995 laying down special conditions for the import of live bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods originating in the Republic of Korea(3), as last amended by Decision 1999/530/EC(4), states that the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries - National Fishery Products Inspection Station (NFPIS) shall be the competent authority in the Republic of Korea for verifying and certifying compliance of fishery and aquaculture products with the requirements of Directive 91/492/EEC.
(2) Following a restructuring of the Korean administration, the competent authority for issuing health certificates for fishery products (NFPIS) has changed to the "National Fisheries Products Quality Inspection Service (NFPQIS)" and this new authority is capable of effectively verifying the application of the laws in force. It is, therefore, necessary to modify the nomination of the competent authority identified by Decision 95/453/EC.
(3) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Article 1 of Decision 95/453/EC is replaced by the following: "Article 1
The National Fisheries Products Quality Inspection Service (NFPQIS) shall be the competent authority in the Republic of Korea for verifying and certifying that bivalve molluscs, echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods fulfil the requirements of Directive 91/492/EEC."
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 August 2001.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION 2006/366/CFSP
of 20 March 2006
concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of Georgia on the status in Georgia of the European Union Special Representative for the South Caucasus and his/her support team
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 24 thereof,
Having regard to the recommendation from the Presidency,
Whereas:
(1)
Further to the decision to respond to the situation following the closure of the OSCE border monitoring mission in Georgia by strengthening the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the South Caucasus, the Council adopted, on 28 July 2005, Joint Action 2005/582/CFSP amending and extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for the South Caucasus (1).
(2)
Further to Council Decision of 3 October 2005 authorising the Presidency, assisted where necessary by the Secretary-General/High Representative, to open negotiations, the Presidency negotiated an agreement between the European Union and the Government of Georgia on the status in Georgia of the EUSR for the South Caucasus and his/her support team.
(3)
The Agreement should be approved,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Agreement between the European Union and the Government of Georgia on the status in Georgia of the European Union Special Representative for the South Caucasus and his/her support team is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.
The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.
Article 3
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 4
This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.
Done at Brussels, 20 March 2006.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1553/2006
of 17 October 2006
establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in ICES zones I and IIb by vessels flying the flag of The United Kingdom
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1), and in particular Article 26(4) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to common fisheries policy (2), and in particular Article 21(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Council Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 of 22 December 2005 fixing for 2006 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 catch limitations are required (3), lays down quotas for 2006.
(2)
According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2006.
(3)
It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing for that stock and its retention on board, transhipment and landing,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Quota exhaustion
The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2006 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.
Article 2
Prohibitions
Fishing for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. It shall be prohibited to retain on board, tranship or land such stock caught by those vessels after that date.
Article 3
Entry into force
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, 17 October 2006.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1325/98 of 25 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 884/98 on the sale, at prices fixed in advance, of beef held by certain intervention agencies, with a view to their processing in the Community
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2634/97 (2), and in particular Article 7(3) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 884/98 of 24 April 1998 on the sale, at prices fixed in advance, of beef held by certain intervention agencies, with a view to their processing in the Community (3) provides for a sale of intervention stocks held by various Member States; whereas the quantities and prices stated in that Regulation should be amended to take account of the stocks already sold; whereas to improve access to the beef, greater flexibility in the pricing system should be allowed; whereas Regulation (EC) No 884/98 should be amended accordingly;
Whereas 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
Regulation (EC) No 884/98 is hereby amended as follows:
1. In the first subparagraph of Article 1(1), the indent '1 000 tonnes of bone-in forequarters held by the Austrian intervention agency` is replaced by '2 000 tonnes of bone-in forequarters held by the Austrian intervention agency`; the indent '3 000 tonnes of deboned beef held by the Irish intervention agency` is replaced by '4 000 tonnes of deboned beef held by the Irish intervention agency`; '3 000 tonnes of deboned beef held by the French intervention agency` is replaced by '4 000 tonnes of deboned beef held by the French intervention agency`; and '3 500 tonnes of deboned beef held by the United Kingdom intervention agency` is replaced by '5 000 tonnes of deboned beef held by the United Kingdom intervention agency`;
2. In Article 5(2), the figure of '1 700` in the third indent is replaced by '1 800`. In the fourth indent, the figure of '1 500` is replaced by '1 600`.
3. Annex I is replaced by Annex I of this Regulation.
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, 25 June 1998.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 17/97
of 8 January 1997
amending Annexes I, II, III and IV of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2034/96 (2) and in particular Articles 6, 7 and 8 thereof,
Whereas, in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90, maximum residue limits must be established progressively for all pharmacologically active substances which are used within the Community in veterinary medicinal products intended for administration to food-producing animals;
Whereas maximum residue limits should be established only after the examination within the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products of all the relevant information concerning the safety of residues of the substance concerned for the consumer of foodstuffs of animal origin and the impact of residues on the industrial processing of foodstuffs;
Whereas, in establishing maximum residue limits for residues of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin, it is necessary to specify the animal species in which residues may be present, the levels which may be present in each of the relevant meat tissues obtained from the treated animal (target tissue) and the nature of the residue which is relevant for the monitoring of residues (marker residue);
Whereas, for the control of residues, as provided for in appropriate Community legislation, maximum residue limits should usually be established for the target tissues of liver or kidney; whereas, however, the liver and kidney are frequently removed from carcasses moving in international trade, and maximum residue limits should therefore also always be established for muscle or fat tissues;
Whereas, in the case of veterinary medicinal products intended for use in laying birds, lactating animals or honey bees, maximum residue limits must also be established for eggs, milk or honey;
Whereas, eprinomectin should be inserted into Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90;
Whereas zinc acetate, zinc chloride, zinc gluconate, zinc oleate, zinc stearate, chlorhexidine, glycerol formal, hesperidin, hesperidin methyl chalcone, menbutone and quatresin should be inserted into Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90;
Whereas, in order to allow for the completion of scientific studies, flumequine, doxycycline and albendazole sulfoxide should be inserted into Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90;
Whereas it appears that maximum residue limits cannot be established for chlorpromazine because residues, at whatever limit, in foodstuffs of animal origin constitute a hazard to the health of the consumer, whereas chlorpromazine should therefore be inserted into Annex IV to Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90;
Whereas a period of 60 days should be allowed before the entry into force of this Regulation in order to allow Member States to make any adjustment which may be necessary to the authorisations to place the veterinary medicinal products concerned on the market which have been granted in accordance with Council Directive 81/851/EEC (3), as last amended by Directive 93/40/EEC (4) to take account of the provisions of this Regulation;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annexes I, II, III and IV of Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the sixtieth 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, 8 January 1997.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1566/93 of 14 June 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 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 Article 17 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 (4) provides that one particular form of de-acidification is permitted on a transitional basis only; whereas, so that a final decision can be taken regarding this technique, current practice should be continued at least until the end of the 1993/94 wine year;
Whereas Article 46 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 provides that campaigns to promote the consumption of grape juice may be conducted only until the 1992/93 wine year and whereas they should be continued for one wine year so that their effectiveness may be assessed;
Whereas Articles 18 (3), 20 (2), 39 (12) and 65 (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 provide that, during the 1992/93 wine year, the Commission is to submit to the Council reports on wine-growing zones, enrichment, the effects of the structural measures and their link with compulsory distillation, maximum sulphur dioxide levels in wine and any proposals arising therefrom; whereas the drafting of some of those reports has required the organization of studies entailing the participation of independent experts which have not yet been completed;
Whereas the significance for the sector of the abovementioned problems calls for the highest degree of consistency between the solutions to be proposed; whereas, when achieving such consistency, the requisite proposals must be drawn up when all data are available and accordingly certain time limits must be deferred by one wine year,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 is hereby amended as follows:
1. in Article 17 (3), '31 August 1993' shall be replaced by '31 August 1994';
2. the second subparagraph of Article 18 (3) shall be replaced by the following:
'Before the end of the 1993/94 wine year, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the demarcation of wine-growing zones in the Community. The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure provided for in
Article 43
(2) of the Treaty, shall decide on the demarcation of the wine-growing zones for the Community as a whole, such provisions applying from the 1994/95 wine year.';
3. Article 20 (2) shall be replaced by the following:
'2. Before 1 September 1993, the Commission shall present to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the conclusions of the study provided for in paragraph 1 together with any suitable proposals. The Council, acting on those proposals in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 43 (2) of the Treaty, shall decide in 1994 on the measures to be taken with regard to the increase in the natural alcoholic strength by volume of the products referred to in Article 18 (1).';
4. the final subparagraph of Article 32 (3) shall be replaced by the following:
'By way of derogation from the first and second subparagraphs, producers who have concluded long-term storage contracts for the 1992/93 wine year may request termination of such contracts (up to a maximum limit of 90 % of the volume under contract). In such cases aid shall be paid for such period of storage that has actually elapsed.
However for wines to be delivered for compulsory distillation referred to in Article 39, the abovementioned request shall take effect as from 1 July 1993.';
5. in Article 39:
- the third and fourth subparagraphs of paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following:
'Until the end of the 1993/94 wine year:
- the uniform percentage shall be 85,
- the consecutive reference years shall be 1981/82, 1982/83 and 1983/84.
From the 1994/95 wine year onwards, the uniform percentage and consecutive reference years shall be determined by the Commission, which shall fix:
- the uniform percentage on the basis of the quantities that must be distilled in accordance with paragraph 2 in order to eliminate the production surplus for the year in question,
- the consecutive reference year on the basis of the trend of production, and, in particular, the effects of the grubbing policy.',
- paragraph 10 shall be replaced by the following:
'10. By way of derogation from this Article, for the 1985/86 to 1993/94 wine years, compulsory distillation in Greece may be implemented in accordance with special provisions taking account of the difficulties encountered in that country in particular as regards knowledge of yield per hectare. These provisions shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 83.',
- the first subparagraph of paragraph 11 shall be replaced by the following:
'If, during the 1987/88 to 1993/94 wine years, difficulties likely to jeopardize the execution or balanced application of the compulsory distillation operation referred to in paragraph 1 occur, the measures necessary in order to ensure effective application of the distillation scheme shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 83.',
- paragraph 12 shall be replaced by the following:
'12. Before the end of the 1993/94 wine year, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report outlining, in particular, the effect of the structural measures applicable in the wine sector and, where appropriate, proposals to repeal or replace the provisions of this Article by other measures designed to maintain balance on the wine market.';
6. Article 46 (4) shall be replaced by the following:
'4. During the 1985/86 to 1993/94 wine years, a part to be determined of the aid provided for in the first indent of paragraph 1 shall be set aside for the organization of campaigns to promote the consumption of grape juice. The aid may, for the purposes of organizing such campaigns, be fixed at a level higher than that resulting from the application of paragraph 3.';
7. Article 65 (5) shall be replaced by the following:
'5. The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council before 1 April 1994, in the light of experience gained, a report on the maximum sulphur dioxide levels of wine, accompanied, where appropriate, by proposals on which the Council shall act in accordance with the procedure laid down by Article 43 (2) of the Treaty before 1 September 1993.'
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 September 1993.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 14 June 1993.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
of 21 December 1989
amending for the fifth time Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products
(89/679/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 100a thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),
In cooperation with the European Parliament (2),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3),
Whereas Directive 76/768/EEC (4), as last amended by Directive 88/667/EEC (5), establishes, for the purposes of adapting technical requirements laid down by the Directive to technical progress, a procedure for close cooperation between Member States and the Commission within a committee on the adaptation to technical progress of the directives on the removal of technical barriers to trade in the cosmetics products sector;
Whereas, in the case of Annexes III to VII, the procedure involving that committee applies until 31 December 1988; whereas the period during which the procedure applies should be extended indefinitely,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
The second subparagraph of Article 8 (2) of Directive 76/768/EEC shall be deleted.
Article 2
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 December 1989.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 8 May 1996 establishing an inventory and a common nomenclature of ingredients employed in cosmetic products (Text with EEA relevance) (96/335/EC)
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 (), as amended by Commission Directive 95/34/EC (), and in particular Article 5a and Article 7(2) thereof,
After consultation of the Scientific Committee on Cosmetology,
Whereas the inventory of ingredients used in cosmetic products must include a section on perfume and aromatic raw materials and a section on other substances;
Whereas this inventory must contain information on the identity of each ingredient, notably the chemical, INCI (ex-CTFA), Ph. Eur., INN and Iupac names, the Einecs/ Elincs, CAS and Colour Index numbers, the common name referred to in Article 7 (2) of Directive 76/768/EEC, as well as the ingredient's functions and, where appropriate, any restrictions and conditions of use and warnings which must be printed on the label;
Whereas, in addition to providing necessary information on the ingredients used in cosmetic products, the inventory must be seen in the context of the obligation laid down by Article 6 (1) of Directive 76/768/EEC, which stipulates indication on the product and/or packaging of the function of the product and the list of ingredients as of 1 January 1997 in the case of cosmetic products placed on the market;
Whereas the proposed inventory must be sufficiently complete to allow the labelling of ingredients for cosmetic products;
Whereas it shall, however, be indicative and shall not constitute a list of substances authorized for use in cosmetic products;
Whereas it must be periodically updated;
Whereas a common ingredients nomenclature will make it possible to identify the substances by using a single name in all the Member States, with the result that consumers will easily be able to recognize substances which they have been advised to avoid (for example because of allergies), no matter where they buy cosmetic products in the Community;
Whereas the INCI (International Nomenclature Cosmetic Ingredient) names best meet these requirements, being relatively simple and, moreover, already in use at international level;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on the Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Directives on the Removal of Technical Barriers to Trade in the Cosmetic Products Sector;
DECIDES:
Article 1
The inventory of ingredients used in cosmetic products provided for in Article 5a of Directive 76/768/EEC and reproduced in the Annex is adopted.
Article 2
The INCI (International Nomenclature Cosmetic Ingredient) names contained in the inventory shall constitute the common nomenclature for the purposes of Article 7 (2) of Directive 76/768/EEC.
Done in Brussels, 8 May 1996.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 3498/93 of 20 December 1993 determining the operative events applicable specifically to the olive oil sector
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92 of 28 December 1992 on the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 6 (2) thereof,
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92 introduces a new agri-monetary system from 1 January 1993; whereas, under this system, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1068/93 of 30 April 1993 on detailed rules for determining and applying the agricultural conversion rates (2), lays down the operative events for the agricultural conversion rates applicable from the beginning of the 1993/94 marketing year; whereas, without prejudice to the possibilities for advance fixing provided for in Articles 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 1068/93, the operative events for the agricultural conversion rates applicable to the olive oil sector should accordingly be laid down in detail;
Whereas Article 5 of Council Regulation 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organization of the market in oils and fats (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3179/93 (4), provides for an aid scheme for the production of olive oil; whereas the scheme provides for the grant of aid to oil producers whose average production is at least 500 kg of olive oil, subject in particular to the submission of proof that the oil has been processed at an approved mill; whereas the economic aim of the said aid is achieved once the olives have been processed into oil; whereas in this case, and given the very large number of oil producers involved, the application of Article 10 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1068/93 should be clearly specified;
Whereas the aforementioned scheme applicable to oil producers whose average production is less than 500 kg of oil provides for the grant of a flat-rate aid based on the number of trees in production and therefore not linked to the quantity actually produced; whereas the processing of olives into oil occurs in the producer Member States on average during the month of January;
Whereas the flat-rate aid per hectare provided for by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 of 19 July 1993 introducing specific measures for the smaller Aegean islands concerning certain agricultural products (5) aims in particular to maintain production potential and to preserve the countryside and the natural environment;
Whereas, in respect of the production refund for olive oils used in the manufacture of certain preserved foods, as provided for in Article 20a of Regulation 136/66/EEC the operative event should be fixed in accordance with Article 10 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1068/93;
Whereas with a view to facilitating the uniform application of the operative events, amended Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3224/74 of 20 December 1974 defining the event in which the subsidy in respect of olive oil becomes due and payable (6) should be repealed and some existing provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2677/85 of 24 Sepember 1985 laying down implementing rules in respect of the system of consumption aid for olive oil (7), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 643/93 (8), should be clarified;
Whereas the operative event should be applicable as form the beginning of the marketing year;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Oils and Fats,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. The operative event for the agricultural conversion rate applicable to the production aid referred to in Article 5 of Regulation 136/66/EEC and granted to olive oil producers whose average production is at least 500 kg of olive oil shall be deemed to occur on the first day of the month in which, for a given batch, the olives enter an approved mill as laid down in Article 98 (2) (a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3061/84 (9), relating to the keeping of standardized daily stock records.
2. The operative event for the agricultural conversion rate applicable to the production aid referred to in Article 5 of Regulation 136/66/EEC and granted to olive oil producers whose average production is below 500 kg of olive oil shall be deemed to occur on 1 January following the beginning of the marketing year for which the aid is granted.
Article 2
The operative event for the agricultural conversion rate applicable to the flat-rate aid per hectare for the maintenance of olive groves provded for in Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 shall be deemed to occur on 1 January of the year in question.
Article 3
The operative event for the agricultural conversion rate applicable to the production refund for olive oil used in the manufacture of certain preserved foods shall be deemed to occur on the day upon which the request for verification referred to in Article 2 of Commission 1963/79 (1) is lodged.
Article 4
The second subparagraph of Article 7 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2677/85 is hereby replaced by the following:
'The operative event for the agricultural conversion rate applicable to the consumption aid shall be deemed to occur on the day the packaged oil leaves the approved packaging plant.'
Article 5
Regulation (EEC) No 3224/74 is hereby repealed.
Article 6
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 form 1 November 1993.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 December 1993.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 131/2008
of 14 February 2008
establishing that no award shall be made in the framework of the standing invitation to tender of white sugar provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1060/2007
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 the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1060/2007 of 14 September 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.
(2)
Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 13 February 2008, it is appropriate to decide that no award shall be made for that partial invitation to tender.
(3)
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
For the partial invitation to tender ending on 13 February 2008, for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2007, no award shall be made.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 15 February 2008.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 February 2008.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 3 July 1997 concerning a request for exemption submitted by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 8 (2) (c) of Council Directive 70/156/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers (Only the English text is authentic) (97/499/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers (1), as last amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 96/79/EC (2), and in particular Article 8 (2) (c) thereof,
Whereas the request submitted by the United Kingdom on 25 July 1996, which reached the Commission on 31 July 1996, contains the information required by Article 8 (2) (c); whereas the request concerns the fitting of one type of vehicle with two types of third stop lamp falling within category ECE S3 by virtue of ECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) Regulation No 7 carried out in accordance with ECE Regulation No 48;
Whereas the reasons given in the request, according to which the fitting of the stop lamps and the stop lamps themselves do not meet the requirements of Council Directive 76/758/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to end-outline marker lamps, front position (side) lamps, rear position (side) lamps and stop lamps for motor vehicles and their trailers (3), as last amended by Commission Directive 89/516/EEC (4), and of Council Directive 76/756/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on motor vehicles and their trailers (5), as last amended by Commission Directive 91/663/EEC (6), are well founded; whereas the descriptions of the tests, the results thereof and their compliance with ECE Regulations No 7 and No 48 ensure a satisfactory level of safety;
Whereas the Community Directives concerned will be amended in order to permit the production and fitting of such stop lamps;
Whereas the measure provided for by this Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Adaptation to Technical Progress set up by Directive 70/156/EEC,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The request submitted by the United Kingdom for an exemption concerning the production of two types of third stop lamp falling within category ECE S3 by virtue of ECE Regulation No 7 and the fitting thereof in accordance with ECE Regulation No 48 on the type of vehicle for which they are intended is hereby approved.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Done at Brussels, 3 July 1997.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2017/2006
of 20 December 2006
amending Council Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 as regards the catch limits for the stock of Norway pout in ICES zones IIa (EC waters), IIIa and IV (EC waters)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 of 22 December 2005 fixing for 2006 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 catch limitations are required (1), and in particular Article 5(7) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Pursuant to Article 5(7) of Regulation (EC) No 51/2006, the Commission may revise the catch limits for the stock of Norway pout in ICES zones IIa (EC waters), IIIa and IV (EC waters) in the light of scientific information collected during the first half of 2006.
(2)
Following new scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) as well as the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STEFC), new catch limits for the stock of Norway pout in ICES zones IIa (EC waters), IIIa and IV (EC waters) were established by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1259/2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 (2).
(3)
Norway pout is a North Sea stock which is shared with Norway but which is currently not managed jointly by the two Parties.
(4)
Following the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1259/2006, the Community held consultations with Norway, which did not result in agreement between Norway and the Community on an allocation key for that stock for 2006.
(5)
In the absence of an allocation key between Norway and the Community for that stock and in recognition of the fact that Norway should be able to fish part of the total allowable catch (TAC) recommended by ICES and STECF, the Community should set an autonomous Community catch limit which is lower than the recommended TAC.
(6)
The autonomous Community catch limit should be fixed at a level of 75 % of the recommended TAC. That percentage corresponds to the Community share of total catches on this stock during the last five years and represents the estimated zone attachment calculated through survey data obtained during recent years. However, such approach should be without prejudice to the Community position as regards any future allocation negotiations with Norway.
(7)
Annex IA to Regulation No 51/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(8)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex IA to Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.
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, 20 December 2006.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1135/2008
of 17 November 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 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 18 November 2008.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 17 November 2008.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 643/90 of 5 March 1990 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2841/72 on safeguard measures provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation
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 a Supplementary Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation was signed on 31 October 1989 with the aim of eliminating and preventing quantitative restrictions on exports or measures having equivalent effect (1);
Whereas the Protocol provides for the insertion in the Agreement of a specific safeguard clause designed to
mitigate the problems likely to arise as a result of the abolition of the export restrictions; whereas implementing provisions should be laid down by amending Regulation (EEC) No 2841/72 (2);
Whereas Article 7 of the said Regulation provides that, in order to avoid compromising the unity of the common market, the Commission may propose to the Council that
the Regulation, and in particular Article 4 (3) thereof, be amended as necessary in the light of experience; whereas,
in the context of the completion of the internal market in 1992, the national safeguard measures should be abolished and replaced by a Community procedure in accordance
with the detailed rules set by the Council in Decision 87/373/EEC (3),
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Sole Article
Regulation (EEC) No 2841/72 is hereby amended as follows:
1. in Article 1 (1), 'for the purpose of taking the measures provided for in Articles 22, 24 and 26 of the Agreement'
is replaced by 'for the purpose of taking the measures provided for in Articles 22, 24, 24a and 26 of the Agreement';
2. Article 4 is replaced by the following:
'Article 4
1. Where exceptional circumstances require immediate action in the situations referred to in Articles 24, 24a and 26 of the Agreement or in the case of export aids that have a direct and immediate effect on trade, the precautionary measures provided for in Article 27 (3) (e) of the Agreement may be adopted in accordance with the procedure set out hereafter.
2. The Commission shall be assisted by the committee composed of representatives of the Member States and chaired by the representative of the Commission.
The committee shall meet when convened by its chairman. The latter shall communicate any appropriate information to the Member States without delay.
3. After consulting the committee the Commission may decide on appropriate measures either on its own initiative or at the request of a Member State. All the Member States shall be notified of the Commission's decision, which shall apply immediately.
4. Where the Commission is asked to take action by a Member State, it shall take a decision within a maximum period of five working days of receipt of the request.
5. Any Member State may refer the Commission's decision to the Council within a maximum period of five working days of notification of the decision.
The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may
take a different decision within a maximum period of 10 working days of such referral.';
3. Article 7 is hereby repealed.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 5 March 1990.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION 2009/949/JHA
of 30 November 2009
adjusting the basic salaries and allowances applicable to Europol staff
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees (1), (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Staff Regulations’), and in particular Article 44 thereof,
Having regard to the initiative of the Czech Republic,
Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament (2),
Having regard to the review of remuneration of officials of Europol by the Management Board of Europol,
Whereas:
(1)
In the review of the remuneration of officials of Europol, the Management Board took account of the changes in the cost of living in the Netherlands, as well as of the changes in salaries in the public service in the Member States.
(2)
The review period from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 justifies an increase of 1,2 % of remuneration for the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009.
(3)
It is for the Council, acting unanimously, to adjust the basic salaries and allowances of officials of Europol, on the basis of the review,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Staff Regulations are hereby amended as follows:
With effect from 1 July 2008:
(a)
Article 45, the table of basic monthly salaries shall be replaced by the following:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
15 578,99
2
13 989,27
3
9 601,74
9 849,73
10 097,73
10 364,80
10 631,87
10 911,63
11 190,13
11 483,94
11 779,62
12 091,21
12 399,59
4
8 361,77
8 584,33
8 803,72
9 035,81
9 267,91
9 512,71
9 754,34
10 011,89
10 269,40
10 539,67
10 809,91
5
6 889,73
7 070,95
7 248,99
7 439,76
7 630,53
7 834,00
8 034,30
8 247,32
8 457,16
8 679,71
8 902,28
6
5 904,14
6 059,89
6 215,70
6 381,03
6 543,17
6 714,86
6 886,55
7 067,78
7 248,99
7 439,76
7 630,53
7
4 921,68
5 052,05
5 179,21
5 315,93
5 452,63
5 595,72
5 738,78
5 891,40
6 040,83
6 199,81
6 358,77
8
4 184,07
4 295,35
4 403,43
4 521,09
4 635,53
4 756,36
4 877,17
5 007,54
5 134,71
5 271,42
5 404,94
9
3 688,09
3 786,64
3 885,22
3 986,93
4 088,69
4 196,78
4 304,89
4 419,34
4 530,66
4 651,45
4 769,08
10
3 198,47
3 284,32
3 366,96
3 455,97
3 541,84
3 637,22
3 732,59
3 831,15
3 926,53
4 031,46
4 133,20
11
3 099,91
3 182,58
3 262,04
3 347,90
3 433,73
3 525,93
3 614,97
3 710,35
3 805,73
3 907,48
4 006,00
12
2 460,87
2 527,59
2 591,18
2 657,97
2 724,74
2 797,85
2 870,98
2 947,29
3 020,41
3 099,91
3 179,39
13
2 114,28
2 171,52
2 225,57
2 285,99
2 343,22
2 406,79
2 467,21
2 533,97
2 597,58
2 667,51
2 734,26
(b)
in Article 59(3), the amount ‘EUR 1 036,76’ shall be replaced by ‘EUR 1 049,20’;
(c)
in Article 59(3), the amount ‘EUR 2 073,51’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 2 098,39’;
(d)
in Article 60(1), the amount ‘EUR 276,48’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 279,80’;
(e)
in Article 2(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 289,03’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 292,50’;
(f)
in Article 3(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 12 566,73’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 12 717,53’;
(g)
in Article 3(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 2 827,52’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 2 861,45’;
(h)
in Article 3(2) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 16 965,09’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 17 168,67’;
(i)
in Article 4(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 1 256,68’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 1 271,76’;
(j)
in Article 4(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 942,53’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 953,84’;
(k)
in Article 4(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 628,33’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 635,87’;
(l)
in Article 4(1) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 502,66’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 508,69’;
(m)
in Article 5(3) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 1 773,42’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 1 794,70’;
(n)
in Article 5(3) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 2 364,57’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 2 392,94’;
(o)
in Article 5(3) of Appendix 5, the amount ‘EUR 2 955,70’ shall be replaced by: ‘EUR 2 991,17’.
Article 2
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 3
This Decision shall take effect on the day following its adoption.
Done at Brussels, 30 November 2009.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 177/89
of 23 January 1989
extending the provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of paint, distemper, varnish and similar brushes originating in the People's Republic of China
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), and in particular Article 11 (5) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas by Regulation (EEC) No 3052/88 (2), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3453/88 (3), the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of paint, distemper, varnish and similar brushes originating in the People's Republic of China;
Whereas it has not been possible to complete the full examination of the facts and hear the parties involved within the stipulated period and the period of validity of the provisional duty should therefore be extended for a further period;
Whereas the exporter has been consulted and has not objected to an extension,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of paint, distemper, varnish and similar brushes originating in the People's Republic of China imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 3052/88, is hereby extended for a period not exceeding two months.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Without prejudice to Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 or any other decision taken by the Council, it shall apply until the entry into force of an act of the Council adopting definitive measures or until the end of a period of two months beginning on 4 February 1989, whichever is the earlier.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 January 1989.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 6 April 1976 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (76/403/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 100 and 235 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 any disparity between the provisions on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) already applicable or in preparation in the various Member States may create unequal conditions of competition and thus directly affect the functioning of the common market ; whereas it is therefore necessary to approximate laws in this field, as provided for in Article 100 of the Treaty;
Whereas it seems necessary for this approximation of laws to be accompanied by Community action so that one of the aims of the Community in the fields of improvement of living conditions, harmonious development of economic activities throughout the Community and continuous and balanced expansion can be achieved by more extensive rules on the disposal of PCBs ; whereas certain specific provisions to this effect should therefore be laid down ; whereas Article 235 of the Treaty should be invoked as the powers required for this purpose have not been provided for by the Treaty;
Whereas PCBs present hazards which are widely recognized as being harmful to human health and the environment ; whereas these substances must therefore be controlled at each stage of their use;
Whereas the programme of action of the European Communities on the environment (3), recognizes the need for Community action with respect to waste the treatment of which, because of its toxicity and non-degradability, requires solutions extending beyond the national framework;
Whereas Directive 75/442/EEC (4) relates to the disposal of waste in general ; whereas it is necessary to lay down special arrangements for particularly dangerous waste to ensure that human health and the environment will be safeguarded against harmful effects from such waste or from uncontrolled abandonment or dumping ; whereas such arrangements should be adopted for PCB;
Whereas, in order to avoid as far as possible the risks of dispersion into the environment, Member States should take the necessary measures to make mandatory the disposal of waste PCB or of PCB in objects or equipment no longer capable of being used;
Whereas provision should also be made for the setting up or designation by the Member States of installations, establishments or undertakings to be responsible for the disposal of PCB ; whereas anyone in possession of PCB which he wishes to dispose of must make it available to such installations, establishments or undertakings,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
For the purpose of applying this Directive: (a) PCB means : polychlorinated biphenyls,
polychlorinated terphenyls,
mixtures containing one or both of such substances; (1)OJ No C 157, 14.7.1975, p. 87. (2)OJ No C 263, 17.11.1975, p. 34. (3)OJ No L 112, 20.12.1973, p. 3. (4)OJ No L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(b) disposal means: - the collection and/or destruction of PCB,
- the transformation operations necessary for regenerating PCB.
Article 2
Member States shall take the necessary measures to prohibit the uncontrolled discharge, dumping and tipping of PCB and of objects and equipment containing such substance.
Article 3
Member States shall take the necessary measures to make compulsory the disposal of waste PCB and PCB contained in objects and equipment no longer capable of being used.
Article 4
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that PCB is disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment.
Article 5
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, as far as possible, the regeneration of waste PCB and PCB contained in objects and equipment no longer capable of being used is promoted.
Article 6
For the purpose of applying Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5, the competent authorities of the Member States shall set up or designate the installations, establishments or undertakings which are authorized for the purposes of disposing of PCB on their own account and/or on behalf of third parties.
Article 7
Anyone holding PCB who is not authorized to dispose of it within the meaning of Article 6 shall hold it available for disposal by the installations, establishments or undertakings referred to in that Article.
Article 8
In accordance with the "polluter pays" principle, the cost of disposing of PCB, less any proceeds derived from treating the PCB, shall be borne by: - the holder who has the PCB handled by an installation, establishment or undertaking referred to in Article 6,
- and/or the previous holders or the producer of the PCB or of the equipment containing PCB.
Article 9
Each Member State shall lay down the special provisions with which the holders of PCB and the installations, establishments or undertakings referred to in Article 6 must comply pursuant to this Directive.
Article 10
Every three years, each Member State shall draw up for the Commission a situation report, within the framework of the report referred to in Article 12 of Directive 75/442/EEC, on the disposal of PCB in their territory. To this effect, the installations, establishments or undertakings referred to in Article 6 must supply the competent authorities referred to in that same Article with particulars of the disposal of the PCBs. The Commission shall circulate this report to the other Member States.
The Commission shall report every three years to the Council and to the European Parliament on the application of this Directive.
Article 11
Member States shall bring into force the measures needed in order to comply with this Directive within 24 months of its notification and shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
Article 12
Member States shall communicate to the Commission the texts of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
Article 13
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 6 April 1976.
|
[
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3986/89
of 21 December 1989
amending Annexes II, III bis and VII to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4135/86 with regard to certain textile products originating in Yugoslavia (categories 5, 6, 7 and 15)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4135/86 of 22 December 1986 on rules for imports of certain textile products originating in Yugoslavia (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 669/88 (2), and in particular Article 16 thereof,
Whereas, with a view to the introduction of the combined nomenclature, the Community has negotiated with Yugoslavia an Agreed Minute modifying the quantitative limits for categories 5, 6, 7 and 15 products provided for in the Additional Protocol to the Cooperation Agreement between the EEC and Yugoslavia on trade in textiles;
Whereas the Council has decided, on 18 July 1989, that this Agreed Minute should be applied provisionally pending its formal conclusion;
Whereas it is therefore necessary to amend Annexes II, III bis and VII to Regulation (EEC) No 4135/86;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the 'Yugoslavia' Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annexes II, III bis and VII to Regulation (EEC) No 4135/86 are hereby amended for Yugoslavia in accordance with the Annex hereto.
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 with effect from 1 January 1988.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 December 1989.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1846/2003
of 20 October 2003
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 1947/2002(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 21 October 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 October 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1619/2002
of 12 September 2002
fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the sixth partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1331/2002
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector(1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 680/2002(2), and in particular Article 27(5) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1331/2002 of 23 July 2002 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar(3), for the 2002/2003 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar.
(2) Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2002 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question.
(3) Following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the sixth partial invitation to tender, the provisions set out in Article 1 should be adopted.
(4) 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
For the sixth partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2002 the maximum amount of the export refund is fixed at 48,570 EUR/100 kg.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 September 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 September 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission decision
of 30 October 2001
on the State aid granted by Germany to Graf von Henneberg Porzellan GmbH, Ilmenau
(notified under document number C(2001) 3303)
(Only the German text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2002/865/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 called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above(1) and having regard to their comments,
Whereas:
I. PROCEDURE
(1) By letters dated 16 November 1998 and 24 March 1999, the Commission received complaints from competitors alleging misuse of purported State aid granted to Graf von Henneberg Porzellan GmbH located in Ilmenau, Thuringia.
(2) Following an information request by the Commission on 6 January 1999, Germany submitted replies on 3 and 25 May 1999. After further information provided by complainants and a meeting between Commission officials and the German authorities on 23 September 1999, the Commission requested on 30 September 1999 that the case be notified. After the Commission had sent a reminder on 9 November 1999, Germany submitted further information, but refused to notify the aid. On 10 November 1999, the case was registered as non-notified aid NN 135/99.
(3) By letter dated 13 July 2000, the Commission informed Germany that it had initiated the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the aid. At the same time Germany was enjoined to provide all necessary information and data to allow assessment of whether a number of aid measures complied with the terms of approved aid schemes under which they had allegedly been granted.
(4) The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(2). The Commission invited interested parties to submit comments on the aid. The Commission received comments from an association of the European ceramics industry (Cérame-Unie) and from the undertaking. These comments were forwarded to Germany by letter dated 18 December 2000.
(5) On 18 September 2000, Germany responded to the information injunction and informed the Commission of further aid measures, which had not been notified before. The Commission posed questions on 13 November 2000. Replies were received on 19 December 2000. A meeting with representatives of the German authorities was held on 9 January 2001. Further questions were sent out on 24 January 2001. Replies were received on 6 March 2001.
(6) By letter dated 25 April 2001, the Commission informed Germany that it had extended the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty to those aid measures which did not comply with the terms of the approved aid schemes under which they had been allegedly awarded as well as to those aid measures of which the Commission had not been informed before.
(7) The Commission decision to extend the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(3). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid. The Commission received comments from one of the complainants as well as from the aid recipient. By letters dated 28 and 30 August 2001, these comments were forwarded to Germany, which was given the opportunity to react.
(8) On 28 June 2001 Germany replied to the extension of the formal investigation procedure submitting extensive information on the relevant aid measures.
II. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID
A. The company
(9) Graf von Henneberg Porzellan GmbH manufactures porcelain dishes and china. It is located in a region eligible for aid under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty. The following data on its operation correspond to the management reports submitted to the Commission:
TABLE
(10) The company was created on 1 March 1990 by transforming the volkseigenen Betrieb Henneberg Porzellan Ilmenau into a private limited company under the name Graf Von Henneberg Porzellan GmbH (GvH1). It was registered at the Meiningen Local Court on 23 August 1990 under number HRB 327.
(11) On 23 August 1991, the Treuhandanstalt (THA) privatised GvH1 after an open call for tender by selling it for DEM 7,5 million to Mr Jamalian. The sale was conditional upon payment of the purchase price, though the THA waived this condition on 17 September 1992. On 18 September 1992, Mr Jamalian became sole manager and shareholder of the company.
(12) On 7 January 1993, the THA revised the privatisation contract, waiving the payment of the purchase price and to certain other obligations agreed upon privatisation. Mr Jamalian agreed to increase the company's capital by DEM 7,5 million. This capital increase never took place.
(13) On 11 July 1995, GvH1 filed for bankruptcy. By the end of that month the Thuringia Landesentwicklungsgesellschaft (LEG) requested a consultancy firm, Project Management Eschbach (PME), to propose a solution for the company including a state participation. On 17 August 1995, the Meiningen local court initiated bankruptcy proceedings (Gesamtvollstreckungsverfahren) and the undertaking became Graf von Henneberg Porzellan in Abwicklung (GvHiA). On 24 August 1995, PME presented its proposals to local authorities and representatives from the State-owned Thuringia Industriebeteiligungs GmbH & Co. KG (TIB), including Mr Frowein, then employee of the TIB. According to Germany, the administrator in bankruptcy continued business activities and sought an investor. Germany states that some potential investors showed interest, but none made an offer. On 30 November 1995, all employment contracts with the workforce were cancelled.
(14) On 18 December 1995, a new company was created under the same name: Graf von Henneberg Porzellan GmbH (GvH2). GvHiA took over 51 % and the TIB 49 % of the shares. GvH2 was set up with capital of DEM 1 million, of which DEM 0,51 million was contributed by GvHiA and DEM 0,49 million by the TIB. According to Germany, GvH2 was no longer in difficulty. On 1 January 1996, the majority of the workforce of GvHiA was taken over by GvH2. On 8 January 1996, GvH2 acquired the assets(4) of GvHiA for DEM 8,5 million. The price was fully financed through a loan from the Thuringia Aufbaubank (TAB). This price was indicated in a report by PME, but without any explanation of how it was determined. On 18 January 1996, the company was registered at the Meiningen Local Court under number HRB 3738.
(15) According to Germany, an investor had been sought since GvH2 was set up, but none was found until 28 August 1998, when all the shares in GvH2 were sold to Mr Frowein for DEM 0,2 million. There is no indication of how this price was determined. After this share deal, Germany refers to the company as GvH3. According to the press, in September 1999 Mr Frowein acquired the shares in Glashütte Schmiedefeld GmbH, a competitor involved in bankruptcy proceedings, and the company with 30 employees became a subsidiary of GvH2/3 producing glass.
B. The restructuring
(a) Restructuring plans for GvH1
(16) The first plan devised by the THA and adapted by Mr Jamalian stretched from the second half of 1990 to 1993. Its main points were: concentration on the new Bundesländer and east European markets; positioning of the trade mark "Graf von Henneberg" in the low/middle price segment; reduction of costs (personnel, material and energy); improvement of efficiency (training, computerisation, new ordering and distribution system, recycling, reorganisation of stock); improvement of productivity. The plan foresaw investments of DEM 22,259 million, covering of losses of DEM 44,410 million and interest payments of DEM 8,927 million. It was to be financed by credits of some DEM 60 million and amortisation of debt.
TABLE
(17) By the end of 1992, GvH1 lost orders from Russia and Iran and faced the failure of an oven, which led to an acute crisis and to a revision of the plan for the period 1993 to 1996. Its key points were: reorganisation of GvH1's structure; reduction of costs, personnel and surface; direct distribution of products and telephone marketing in Germany; design of a new distribution strategy for south European markets. It was pointed out that without new liquidity, insolvency would be unavoidable. The plan was contingent upon a capital contribution of DEM 7,5 million by Mr Jamalian, which never took place.
TABLE
(b) Restructuring plans for GvH2/3
(18) Three reports by PME were presented as the first restructuring plan for GvH2. A first report presented several scenarios involving a combined solution for several porcelain manufacturers in Thuringia, though this was not the solution chosen. A part of a second report analysed a model for the continuation of the company. This was given substance in a third report, a cost analysis forecasting results for 1996 to 1997 on the basis of the TIB participation. Its main points were: sale of the assets for DEM 8,5 million; between 317 and 329 employees (plus 8 trainees); outsourcing of mass production of porcelain in 1997; 4 % price increase; reorganisational measures (concentration of production eliminating several areas and reducing surface, saving energy, investments of DEM 4,685 million and repairs). Three possible results for 1996 to 1997 were forecast depending on possible turnover figures.
TABLE
(19) Following the takeover by Mr Frowein, the plan was revised. The reasons identified for the failure of previous restructurings were mismanagement, over optimistic forecasts and non-implementation of the restructuring plans. A set of short-term measures were designed for stabilisation: staff cutbacks affecting mainly management positions and creation of a profit centre in charge of logistics. A set of medium-term measures were intended for consolidation: diversification of production, direct distribution, cooperation with porcelain manufacturers and investments of DEM 3 million.
(20) The revision had foreseen cumulated losses of DEM 0,8 million as at June 1998. However, two months later losses amounted to DEM 3,169 million and no cooperation with other manufacturers had been set up. The plan was again revised, foreseeing moderate growth based on the strengthening of porcelain production for hotels, an increase in production in Germany, the stabilisation of exports and investments of DEM 1,750 million.
TABLE
C. The financial measures
(21) The following tables list all the financial measures taken in support of GvH1, GvHiA and GvH2/3. It should be noted that the amounts and dates indicated correspond to the latest information submitted by Germany.
(a) Financial measures in support of GvH1:((Guarantees relating to credits, the full amount of which is included in the total, have not been included to avoid double counting. The guarantee under measure 10 has been included since the credits to which it relates seem not to be any of those included in the table.))
TABLE
Measures taken by the THA
(22) Measures 1 to 3: three different debts taken over by the THA: old debts dating from before 1 July 1990 and credits from the Deutsche Bank Ilmenau.
(23) Measure 9: the payment of the purchase price was postponed several times and finally waived upon revision of the privatisation contract.
(24) Measure 10: a guarantee of DEM 8,629 million including interest and a processing fee.
(25) Measure 11: According to Germany these grants were paid in compensation for losses of DEM 17,5 million generated by a loss of orders from Russia and for losses of DEM 26,337 million due to a defective oven. The THA agreed originally to pay DEM 25 million. According to Germany, only DEM 13,871 million were paid out. The outstanding amount was offset against the guarantee above.
Measures taken by the Land of Thuringia
(26) Measure 4: direct investment grants of DEM 6,812 million.
(27) Measure 13: a grant of DEM 5 million.
(28) Measures 15, 16 and 19: 90 % subsidiary guarantees covering credits under measures 12, 17 and 21.
(29) Measure 25: investment tax refunds of DEM 1,7 million.
Measures from State-owned financial entities
(30) Measures 5, 20 and 21: credits from the Hessische Landesbank (HeLaBa).
(31) Measure 6: an 80 % guarantee from the Berliner Industriebank, now Deutsche Ausgleichsbank (DtA), amounting to DEM 7,68 million.
(32) Measures 7, 8, 12, 17 and 18: credits from the Bayerische Landesbank. Measure 12 was an advance financing for the grants under measure 11 expected from the THA.
(33) Measures 22 and 23: credits from the Sparkassen Ilmenau and Erfurt.
(34) Measure 24: an advance payment of DEM 2 million for real estate allegedly worth DEM 4,6 million, which was to be taken over by the Thuringia Finance Ministry. The price was determined by a public real estate agency.
Other measures
(35) Measure 14: a non-reimbursable subsidy for short-term liquidity. Germany states that this subsidy was never granted, consequently its amount has been eliminated from the table above.
(36) Measure 26: grants for R & D from the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs.
(37) Measure 27: grants under a programme for the promotion of employment, Labour Promotions Law (Arbeitsförderungsgesetz, "AFG").
Securities
(38) Credits under measures 5, 7, 8, 18, 20 and 22 were assured within a security pool subscribed by the awarding banks. The following securities were provided: a first, second and third range mortgage on GvH1's real estate valued at DEM 5 million, DEM 16 million and DEM 17,2 million respectively, the 80 % subsidiary guarantee under measure 6 and a mortgage on GvH1's machinery and installations (valued at DEM 2,280 million by an expert). In addition personal guarantees by Mr Jamalian were provided to each bank.
(39) Credits under measure 12(5) 17 and 21 were assured by State guarantees covering 90 % of the risk of default.
(b) Claims registered as part of the estate of bankruptcy and financial measures in favour of GvHiA
(40) The Bayerische Landesbank registered claims of some DEM 47 million plus cumulated interest.
(41) The Federal Institute for Special Tasks associated with Unification (the BvS) registered some DEM 1,430 million. According to Germany, DEM 0,942 million as revenue from the sale of real estate (see measure 30 below), DEM 0,4 million as compensation for damages which had been agreed to within the revision of the privatisation contract and interest.
(42) The Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs registered claims of DEM 0,467 million plus interest (measure 26).
(43) The HeLaBa registered claims of some DEM 31,707 million. According to Germany this amount consisted of measures 5, 20 and 21 plus interest on arrears.
(44) The Sparkasse Ilmenau registered its credit under measure 22 plus interest.
(45) The Sparkasse Erfurt registered claims of some DEM 1,995 million plus interest. The information submitted specified only credits of DEM 1,5 million. It thus seems that a further DEM 0,4 million had been granted to GvH1 by this entity. Germany has provided no explanation for the difference.
(46) The TAB registered DEM 8,824 million, of which some DEM 2 million corresponded to measure 24 plus interest. According to Germany the remaining amount related to direct investment grants under measure 4, which the TAB registered for the Land of Thuringia.
(47) The Commission further notes that the town of Ilmenau registered claims on taxes from the period 1991 to 1995 of DEM 0,557 million as part of the estate in bankruptcy.
(48) The information available indicates that the State was the main creditor of GvH1. There is some indication that some of the amounts were collected as part of the bankruptcy proceedings, but, on the basis of the information available to it, the Commission cannot determine the exact amounts collected by the relevant lenders.
(c) Financial measures in support of GvHiA((The guarantee under measure 29 has not been included since it relates to the credit under measure 28, which has been fully included.))
TABLE
(49) Measure 28: a loan of DEM 2 million which, according to Germany, was paid back on 30 June 1996.
(50) Measure 29: the loan referred to in paragraph 49 was guaranteed up to 50 % by the TAB.
(51) Measure 30: the privatisation contract, as amended in 1993, provided that certain real estate of GvH1 was to be sold and the price paid to the THA. On this basis, DEM 0,942 million were registered as part of the estate of bankruptcy, presumably 9 % of the proceeds on the sale of real estate not taken over by GvH2. This debt was waived by the BvS within the bankruptcy proceedings.
(d) Financial measures in support of GvH2/GvH3((the amount of measure 43 has not been included in the total because it relates to credits, the full amount of which has been included in the total.))
TABLE
Measures from State-owned entities
(52) Measure 31: a participation by the TIB in GvH2's initial capital.
(53) Measure 32: a loan from the TIB of DEM 0,5 million. According to Germany the loan was paid back the same month as it was granted, including interest.
(54) Measure 33: a loan from the TAB for the purchase of assets. Germany states that part of this loan was paid back through direct investment grants (measure 36 below).
(55) Measures 34, 35, 37 and 38: credits from the TAB.
(56) On 27 August 1998, the TAB offered to waive the repayment of DEM 11,467 million against future profits to be generated between 1998 and 2002 (Besserungsschein) capped at DEM 2 million. However, this offer has not yet been accepted and will therefore not be assessed.
(57) Measure 41: the TAB renounced to its position in the list of creditors for credits under measures 33 and 35 to avoid insolvency.
Measures taken by the Land of Thuringia
(58) Measure 36: direct investment grants.
(59) Measure 40: investment allowances of DEM 0,090 million granted until 1998. The Commission has not been informed on whether a further DEM 0,023 million, demanded for 1999, have been paid out.
Other measures
(60) Measure 39: GvH2, as legal successor of GvH1, obtained grants of DEM 2044 million under the AFG programme for the promotion of the employment.
(61) Measure 42: a series of grants awarded from 1996-2000.
(62) Measure 43: grants for R & D awarded from 1997-2000.
D. The market
(63) Graf von Henneberg GmbH produces china and porcelain dishes for the household sector and for professional use, in particular for hotels and decorators (NACE 26.21). Products are also exported.
(64) In the relevant economic sector of tableware and decorative porcelain there is intensive trade among Member States. While decorative porcelain is produced throughout Europe, important regional concentrations of tableware producers exist in Northern Bavaria (Germany), Staffordshire (United Kingdom) and the Limousin (France). Next to a plethora of SMEs, there is also a number of large undertakings. The latter include Villeroy & Boch (Germany/Luxembourg), Hutschenreuther and Rosenthal (Germany) and Royal Doulton and Wedgewood (United Kingdom), which account for more than a third of overall production in the Community. The special requirements of the hotel and catering trades have given rise to the "hotelware" sector, with specially designed hard-wearing ceramics. The United Kingdom, Germany and Italy are the main producing and consuming countries. A close relationship to the final-consumer and the need to compete on design are special features to this very labour-intensive industry, with its enormous array of products. Sales to third countries exceed European imports in value; imports in tonnage are, however, at a higher level than exports mainly due to the extremely low-price imports from China(6).
(65) There is overcapacity in the porcelain industry. Production and consumption both registered continuing growth between 1984 and 1991, but contracted in 1992 and 1993. A recovery expected for 1994 did not occur. The trade balance of the last years was positive, but the share of imports increased markedly, in particular for household china. The growth of exports is not sufficient to offset the increasing competition in the sector. On the contrary, strong competition and overcapacities have been reinforced due to new market entrants from South-East Asia and Eastern European countries, in particular Czech Republic and Hungary, all benefiting from preferential trading arrangements with the Community(7).
III. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
(66) In its initiation of the formal investigation procedure, the Commission analysed the financial measures in support of GvH1, GvHiA and GvH2 in the light of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. The Commission considered that the measures constituted aid and seriously doubted their compliance with the common market.
(67) The Commission also doubted whether a number of aid measures complied with the terms of the approved aid schemes under which they were purportedly granted. The Commission therefore issued an information injunction within the context of the initiation of the formal investigation procedure.
(68) Following the information supplied by Germany after the initiation of the formal investigation procedure, the Commission found that details of numerous measures had not yet been notified. The information submitted also did not dispel the Commission's doubts regarding the compliance of the aid allegedly granted under approved aid schemes with the relevant schemes. Consequently, the Commission extended the formal investigation procedure to cover these measures.
IV. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
(69) Within the context of the initiation of the formal investigation procedure, the Commission received comments from an association of the European ceramic industry (Cerame-Unie) and from GvH3. These comments were forwarded by letter dated 18 December 2000 to Germany, which was thus given the opportunity to react.
(70) Within the context of the extension of the formal investigation procedure, the Commission received comments from one of the complainants stating that he had not been allowed to make an offer for the assets of GvH1. Comments were also received from the aid recipient. These comments were forwarded to Germany by letters dated 28 and 30 August 2001.
V. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY
(71) Germany responded to both the initiation and the extension of the formal investigation procedure, pointing out that GvH1 and GvH2 were different undertakings without continuity, which should be treated within different proceedings. Germany further stated that the financial measures in support of GvH1 either did not constitute aid or constituted existing aid. As regards GvH2, Germany stated that it has never been a company in difficulty, hence financial measures in support of it either did not constitute aid or constituted existing aid or should be regarded as de minimis aid.
(72) Germany submitted no reaction to the comments from interested parties received within the context of the initiation of the formal investigation procedure. As regards those received within the context of the extension of the formal investigation procedure, in its responses of 5 and 21 September 2001 Germany supported the information submitted by the undertaking and denied that any competitor had been excluded from the sale.
VI. ASSESSMENT
A. Aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty
(73) Financial assistance deriving from public resources was awarded to GvH1, GvHiA and GvH2/3, giving these entities advantages over their competitors. As the porcelain market is a highly competitive European product market suffering from overcapacity, financial advantages favouring a company in respect to its competitors threaten to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.
(74) In its extension of the formal investigation procedure, the Commission concluded that measure 1 did not constitute aid. The remaining measures were still regarded as State aid. Germany has not contested the Commission's view expressed in its initiation and extension of the formal investigation procedure that GvH1 and GvHiA were companies in difficulty. Germany insists, however, that part of the measures do not constitute aid. The Commission substantiates its view again below.
(75) Measures 9 and 11: Germany first claimed that these measures were covered by the relevant THA-regime. When the Commission found that they manifestly were not covered by this scheme, Germany alleged that they did not constitute aid. According to Germany, the THA should have been held responsible for the losses generated by the loss of orders from Russia and by those due to a defective oven. In Germany's view, the THA risked incurring higher losses in confronting Mr Jamalian in court, since Mr Jamalian threatened to annul the privatisation contract rather than accepting the revision of the privatisation contract. Germany states that the award of these measures was in line with the behaviour of a private investor.
(76) The privatisation contract did not provide for any obligation to indemnify for a loss of orders. By the end of 1992 when the orders were lost the privatisation to Mr Jamalian was already effective. There is therefore no justification for the THA being held responsible for those losses, nor for Mr Jamalian annulling the privatisation contract on that basis. As regards the indemnification for a defective oven, the privatisation contract provided that all warranty liabilities would be limited to 10 % of the purchase price and that the THA's liability would expire three months after the discovery of the failure, by 31 December 1992 at the latest. The Commission has not been informed when the failure was discovered or when legal actions against Mr Jamalian were undertaken. No calculations or reports justifying that the amount paid effectively amounted to a fair indemnification have been provided. Finally, the settlement took place after the THA's warranty liability expired and the compensation exceeded the limit provided for in the privatisation contract. Therefore the Commission cannot conclude that these measures do not constitute aid.
(77) As far as measure 9 is concerned, the waiver of the purchase price was carried out in favour of Mr Jamalian, and the Commission does not therefore consider this aid to GvH1.
(78) Measure 10: this guarantee from the THA was first claimed to fall under the relevant THA-regime. When the Commission established that it was manifestly not covered by this aid scheme, Germany alleged that it did not constitute aid. Germany stated that GvH1's real estate should have allowed the company to obtain liquidity from banks. However, due to unforeseen administrative delays in transmitting property, the real estate was not immediately available free from encumbrances and the THA awarded this guarantee to allow GvH1 obtain liquidity.
(79) The Commission notes, however, that the privatisation contract did not impose on the THA any obligation to ensure that GvH1 obtained liquidity. Moreover, the THA was not obliged to compensate for administrative delays that were not its responsibility. The Commission notes the lack of a contractual basis for the award of this guarantee and hence cannot verify its purpose or extent. It is moreover noted that the guarantee was made available only when the real estate became available, but no later than 1994. The Commission hence considers that this is an extra advantage in favour of GvH1, not based on any legal obligation, not in line with the aim for which it was purportedly awarded and not reflecting the behaviour of a market economy investor.
(80) Measures 5, 7, 12, 17, 18, and 20 to 23 from State-owned banks: Germany insists that these do not constitute aid. However, as explained in both the initiation and extension of the formal investigation procedure, GvH1 was a company in difficulty and seriously over-indebted. Thus, the Commission cannot conclude that a market economy investor would have provided such financial support even on market conditions. Moreover, the information available indicates that these credits were not granted on market conditions.
(81) The credits under measures 17, 18, 20 and 21 had a redemption-free period of two years. As shown in the table below, several credits were granted below the reference rate of interest, which, under the Commission notice of 9 September 1997 on the method for setting the reference and discount rates, should be increased by at least 4 % for companies in difficulty(8). Hence none of these credits were granted at market rates.
TABLE
(82) Credits under measures 5, 7, 8, 18, 20 and 22 were assured within a security pool described in recital 38. Regarding the securities provided, the Commission notes that the same real estate was subsequently mortgaged for different values, none of which confirmed by an external evaluation. In addition these mortgages were only provided for the HeLaBa. The verified value of machinery and installation is insufficient to constitute an adequate security. Moreover, it is noted that these assets were directly or indirectly financed by aid granted since privatisation. The personal guarantees from Mr Jamalian for an unspecified amount would only enter into force if all other securities could not be enforced. According to Germany, after the sale of the assets of GvH1 to GvH2, the financial entities concerned obtained some DEM 7 million (17 % of the credits). This amount corresponded to part of the TAB loan under measure 33. The Commission considers that the low amount recovered solely evidences the reduced value of the securities provided by a company in difficulty and does not alter the fact that GvH1 obtained an advantage which it would not have obtained from a market economy investor.
(83) The credits under measures 12, 17 and 21 were assured by a 90 % State guarantee. Therefore 90 % of the risk of default on those credits to a company in difficulty was assumed by the State. The Commission considers that the existence of these guarantees is a decisive element which would lead any bank to award those credits. The remaining risk of default of a seriously over-indebted company was assumed by public banks without provision of any further security. Thus the Commission cannot conclude that public banks acted as market investors.
(84) No information has been provided on the conditions on which the loan under measure 23 was granted. The Commission cannot therefore conclude that it was granted at market rates. This loan was first granted without the provision of any securities, which does not correspond to the behaviour of a market economy investor, particularly in view of the financial situation of the company at that time. At the request of the Sparkasse, on 17 August 1994, the company provided mortgages of DEM 1,6 million. No further information on such mortgages has been provided, and the Commission cannot therefore rule out the possibility that they relate to the same assets already provided within the security pool. The Commission considers that the provision of the mortgage does not alter the fact that the loan was made available to a company in difficulty, on unknown terms and for one year without providing securities. After the bankruptcy proceedings, the Sparkasse recovered DEM 0,75 million. However, as stated above, the mortgage related to assets directly or indirectly financed by State aid for GvH1. A partial recovery within the bankruptcy proceedings does not alter ex post the assessment of the credit.
(85) Taking into account the serious difficulties of the company, the rate of interest and the lack of acceptable private securities, the Commission can only conclude that these credits constituted aid, potentially to their full amount. The amount of State guarantees will not be calculated as new aid to avoid double counting.
(86) Measure 24: the advance payment by the TAB for real estate intended to be acquired by a public entity is claimed not to constitute aid. The Commission however considers, by analogy with the Commission communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities, that the price for the real estate was not determined by an independent expert(9). Moreover, the Commission cannot conclude that a market economy investor would have advanced such a large amount to a company on the verge of insolvency, with all its assets already mortgaged, without signing any contract or demanding any collateral. Consequently, the Commission cannot exclude the possibility that this advance payment constitutes aid.
(87) Measure 28: as stated in the initiation of the formal investigation procedure, this loan from a State-owned bank to the bankrupt GvHiA is regarded in full as aid. The Commission considers that no private investor would have awarded a loan to a company in bankruptcy without any securities other than a State guarantee. The fact that this loan was fully repaid including interest does not change this assessment because the company obtained an advantage which it would not have obtained from a market economy investor.
(88) Measure 30: according to Germany, the debt was contested as a non-priority claim by the administrator in bankruptcy. Germany did not appeal against this decision because the administrator in bankruptcy announced that no dividend would be obtained for non-priority claims. The Commission notes, however, that a dividend was in fact obtained for priority claims. Germany has not demonstrated that the presumed costs of appealing would have been higher than the dividend that Germany could have obtained if this claim had been recognised as priority. Neither did Germany consider the possibility of a successful appeal. The Commission cannot therefore conclude that this waiver took place in accordance with the private creditor principle. This amount is thus deemed to be aid.
(89) Germany argues that GvH2/3 was never a company in difficulty and that several financial measures in support of it do not constitute aid. However, as stated in both the initiation and extension of the formal investigation procedure, GvH2 is regarded as having been a company in difficulties as from the moment of its creation. The Commission refers on this point to its exhaustive analysis in both the initiation and the extension of the formal investigation procedure and would point out that the financial reports available clearly show that GvH2/3 is financially over-indebted and has operated at a loss since its creation despite a discharge of debt and subsequent capital injections from the State. Financial measures in support of it deriving from State resources are therefore still regarded as aid. The Commission would refer here to its assessment of the individual contested measures.
(90) Measures 31 and 32: Germany submitted reports drawn up by PME, intended to show that GvH2 was not in difficulties at the time of its creation and that the TIB thus behaved as a private investor with the aim of obtaining profits. As already explained, only the report dated 15 December 1995 forecasts the company's results for 1996 and 1997 in the light of the 49 % holding by the TIB. The report's forecasts have been described in previous sections.
(91) The Commission considers that the forecast turnover figures were not realistic because they were not supported by an appropriate market analysis. Taking into account the previous performance of the company and the fact that the porcelain industry has suffered from overcapacity since 1992, even the turnover figures forecast for the worst-case scenario were not likely to be achieved. In addition, since GvH1 did not undergo successful restructuring, it should have been clear that the ongoing concern would have to undergo a substantial restructuring to operate efficiently. It is unrealistic that such a process would take only two years, and it would necessarily involve a considerable financial commitment from the shareholders. Finally, even the most optimistic results forecast would represent no profit for the State. The Commission cannot therefore conclude that the TIB acted as a market investor.
(92) Measures 33-35, 37 and 38 by state-owned banks: despite Germany's claims, the Commission notes that the financial results of GvH2 show that it was a company in difficulty at the time of the award of these measures. It is highly doubtful that a private investor would provide the company with such financial support, even on market terms. Moreover, as shown in the table below, none of these credits were granted at market rates.
TABLE
(93) These credits from the TAB were secured against several mortgages on the company's assets. The Commission would point out once again that GvH1's assets were not acquired within an open, transparent and unconditional call for tender. These assets were financed directly by aid and cannot be regarded as private securities. In addition, an evaluation by an expert for 1998 valued the real estate, buildings and installations at DEM 3,560 million, which, in view of the amount of the credits, cannot be regarded as sufficient security. Moreover, the behaviour of the TAB in waiving its position in the list of creditors (measure 41) shows that the provision of such securities was only a formality without any intention of being enforced.
(94) Taking into account the serious difficulties of the company, the rate of interest and the lack of acceptable private securities, the Commission can only conclude that these credits constituted aid, potentially in their full amount.
(95) Measure 41: a waiver by the TAB of its position in the list of creditors to avoid insolvency. This measure granted an advantage to the company which was not forced to pay these credits back until a later stage and should therefore be regarded as aid. Its amount is not taken into account to avoid double counting.
B. Aid purportedly covered by approved aid schemes
(96) Part of the aid for GvH1, GvHiA and GvH2/3 was allegedly granted under approved aid schemes. Since the Commission had serious doubts about the compliance of these aid measures with the terms of the schemes under which they had allegedly been granted, it issued an information injunction pursuant to Article 10(3) 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(10) to supply all documentation, information and data necessary for their assessment.
(97) In its extension of the formal investigation procedure, the Commission concluded that according to the information available, measures 2, 3 and 4 complied with the terms of the approved aid schemes under which they had been granted. These measures were consequently regarded as existing aid, which does not need to be reassessed by the Commission. The Commission also stated that, on the basis of the information at its disposal, it could not be concluded that measures 6, 8, 13, 15, 16, 19, 25, 26, 36, 40 and 43 complied with the terms of the schemes under which they had been allegedly granted. This view is partially revised in the light of the information supplied after the extension of the formal investigation procedure.
(98) Measure 6: a guarantee of DEM 7,68 million from the DtA allegedly granted under an approved scheme(11). Despite Germany's claims, the Commission maintains its view that this guarantee exceeds the limit of DEM 1 million provided for in the scheme and does not comply with the rules on the cumulation of aid. The Commission therefore still considers that the guarantee was manifestly not covered by the scheme and falls to be assessed as ad hoc aid.
(99) Measure 8: a loan of DEM 1 million granted under an approved aid scheme(12). The Commission considers that, according to the information available, this loan complied with the conditions of the scheme under which it was granted and thus constitutes existing aid.
(100) Measure 13: the Commission would point out once again that this grant was awarded under an aid scheme against which the Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure on the grounds of misuse(13). The Commission would also point out that the scheme was only meant for SMEs that were not in difficulty(14). According to the data submitted, GvH1 never qualified as an SME and was a company in difficulty at the time of the award of this grant. The Commission thus maintains that the aid was manifestly not covered by the scheme under which it was allegedly granted and falls to be assessed as ad hoc aid.
(101) Measures 15, 16 and 19: Germany claims that the scheme under which these guarantees were awarded was known to the Commission and that the guarantees should be regarded as existing aid(15). The Commission notes, however, that a registration as non-notified aid does not imply that the scheme is approved, and consequently these guarantees are regarded as ad hoc aid.
(102) Measure 25: investment tax refunds allegedly granted under approved regional aid schemes(16). After an assessment of the information provided by Germany, the Commission concludes that these measures complied with the ceilings provided for in the schemes under which they were granted. These grants thus constitute existing aid.
(103) Measure 26: the Commission has verified that, according to the information available, these grants for R& D respected the conditions laid out in the scheme under which they were granted(17), particularly those concerning maximum aid allowable per year and intensity. They thus constitute existing aid.
(104) Measure 27: as stated in the extension of the formal investigation procedure, these grants for the promotion of employment manifestly do not comply with the terms of the scheme under which they were granted(18). The Commission would point out that the scheme provides that such measures do not rank as aid because they did not grant any advantage to a particular company. Privatised enterprises were not therefore eligible to benefit from such measures since after privatisation the projects developed would take place in their own interest and not in the general interest. The information available indicates that effectively the project consisted in cleaning up part of the installations of GvH1 by removing old machinery and installations. The project therefore took place in its interest. Consequently, the Commission cannot conclude that the project did not represent an economic advantage for GvH1. Moreover, the Commission notes that privatised companies were not eligible to participate in such projects and that part of these grants were awarded by the Land of Thuringia, whereas only the Federal Labour Office was regarded as authorised to award such grants. Consequently, the Commission maintains its view that these grants constitute aid which falls to be assessed as ad hoc.
(105) Measure 36: direct investment grants allegedly awarded on the basis of a regional aid scheme(19) up to the ceilings allowed for SMEs under Commission Recommendation 96/280/EC of 3 April 1996 concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises(20). As the Commission already stated in its extension of the formal investigation procedure, GvH2 did not qualify as an SME at the time of the award of these grants. Consequently, despite Germany's claims that the relevant time should be the time of application for this aid, the Commission maintains that the aid manifestly does not comply with the scheme and falls to be assessed as ad hoc aid(21).
(106) Measure 39: the Commission partially reviews its assessment in respect of the grants awarded after 1997. The grants awarded during 1996 amounting to some DEM 0,686 million were allegedly based on the same scheme as measure 27 and do not comply with its terms for the same reasons. On the other hand, the grants awarded as from 1997 totalling some DEM 1,358 million were based on a different approved aid scheme(22). According to the information available, the terms of this scheme have been complied with. Consequently, this latter amount constitutes existing aid.
(107) Measure 40: after an assessment of the information provided by Germany, the Commission concludes that, according to the information available, these investment tax refunds complied with the ceilings laid down in the schemes under which they were granted(23). These grants thus constitute existing aid.
(108) Measure 43: grants for R& D awarded from 1997 to 2000, which in the extension of the investigation procedure were considered to manifestly not comply with the aid scheme for SMEs(24) under which they were granted. According to the accounting reports, GvH2 fell below the SME thresholds in 2000. However, these reports do not seem to take the employees of Glashütte Schmiedefeld into account. Moreover, since SME status is only acquired when this phenomenon is repeated over two consecutive years, all these grants still fall to be considered as new aid.
(109) In view of the foregoing, measures 2, 3, 4, 8, 25, 26 and part of measures 39 and 40 constitute, according to the information available, existing aid. Their amount has to be taken into account in assessing proportionality.
C. De minimis aid
(110) Germany claims that measures 15, 16, 21 and 42 fall under the de minimis rule. Under this rule, the ceiling for aid to be considered de minimis is EUR 100000 over a three-year period beginning when the first de minimis aid was granted. This ceiling applies to the total of public assistance considered to be de minimis aid and does not affect the possibility of the recipient obtaining aid under schemes approved by the Commission.
(111) In respect of the guarantees under measures 15, 16 and 21, the Commission considers that the fact that their amount is not taken into account to avoid double counting does not mean that they do not constitute aid. According to the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees, "where, at the time the loan is granted, there is a strong probability that the borrower will default, e.g. because he is in financial difficulty, the value of the guarantee may be as high as the amount effectively covered by that guarantee"(25). This means that the aid element in these guarantees is 90 % of the credits to which they relate, which is well beyond the de minimis rules.
(112) As regards measure 42, the de minimis ceilings have been complied with both for the period 1996 to 1999 and for the period 1999 to 2000. Germany has stated that the conditions for application of this rule have been complied with. The Commission therefore considers these amounts covered by the de minimis rule.
D. Derogation under Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty
(113) In view of the previous sections, aid of some DEM 139,399 million falls to be assessed as ad hoc aid by the Commission. Article 87(2) and (3) of the EC Treaty provides for derogations from the general ban on aid laid down in Article 87(1).
(114) The exemptions in Article 87(2) of the EC Treaty do not apply in the present case because the aid measures do not have a social character and are not granted to individual consumers, do not make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences, and are not granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by its division.
(115) Further exemptions are provided for in Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the EC Treaty. As the primary objective of the aid is not regional, but concerns the restoration of long-term viability of an undertaking in difficulty, only the exemptions provided for in Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty apply. Article 87(3)(c) provides for the authorisation of State aid granted to promote the development of certain economic sectors, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. For its assessment of rescue and restructuring aid, the Commission has issued special guidelines. In the light of the examination it has carried out, the Commission considers that none of the other Community guidelines, such as those for research and development, the environment, small and medium-sized enterprises or for employment and training, could apply here.
(116) Since, according to the information available, the aid was granted before 30 April 2000, the Community guidelines of 23 December 1994 on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty(26) (guidelines) apply(27). The Commission would point out that the guidelines codify its practice for the assessment of the compatibility of rescue and restructuring aid with the common market. The guidelines are therefore also applicable to aid granted before 1994, since they reflect a long-standing Commission practice.
(a) Restoration of viability
(117) Award of restructuring aid requires a feasible, coherent and far-reaching restructuring plan capable of restoring the long-term viability of the firm within a reasonable timescale and on the basis of realistic assumptions. Restructuring aid should normally only need to be granted once.
(118) In the present case GvH1, GvHiA and GvH2/3 have benefited from continuous awards of aid, presumably granted for the purpose of restructuring on the basis of a series of plans submitted to the Commission. All but the last plan failed and it is difficult to determine which steps were actually implemented. The Commission identifies two main restructuring periods: 1990 to 1995 and from 1995 onwards. The bankruptcy of GvH1 and change of investor meant a substantial break in the process. Nonetheless important changes in the plans took place within each period.
The first restructuring period
(119) The first plan acknowledged market saturation and foresaw the closure of 50 % to 70 % of capacities in Thuringia and Saxony. However, GvH1 expected to double its sales within two years relying on the positive effects of the common market. In the Commission's view, these figures were over-optimistic, and this first plan, fully financed by State resources and accounting measures, was not based on internal measures, but on external factors outside the company's control.
(120) The plan revised for the period 1993 to 1996 included new awards of aid. In the Commission's view, the loss of orders from Russia and Iran is not attributable to external reasons which the company could not foresee, but to wrong market forecasts. The replacement of a defective oven was not external, and since the investor claimed warrant liability from the THA, this implies that it should not have been unforeseeable at the time of the privatisation. Moreover, an exception to the principle that restructuring aid should be granted only once can be accepted only if a restructuring plan ensures restoration to long-term viability. In view of the results obtained by GvH1 up to that date, its level of over-indebtedness, the market saturation and the collapse of GvH1's traditional markets, the Commission doubted that the revised plan was realistic. The sales forecasts seem again over-optimistic(28), are not supported by a market analysis and although the urgent need to renegotiate debts was pointed out, no specific steps were described. These doubts were confirmed by the fact that GvH1 filed for bankruptcy in 1995.
(121) Regarding GvHiA, the estate in bankruptcy did not have any restructuring or liquidation plan at the time the aid was granted. As stated in the extension of the formal investigation procedure, measures 28 and 29 do not comply with the criteria set out for rescue aid. The generally accepted period of six months is well exceeded here without any justification. Germany submitted no evidence that the credits were granted on market terms. The waiver of debt under measure 30 does not consist of liquidity. There is no evidence that their amount was the strict needed to keep the firm in business. Finally, it is unlikely that these measures had no undue adverse effects on the industrial situation in other Member States, given the overall over-capacity of the porcelain industry. In the absence of a restructuring plan for GvHiA, these measures do not comply with the compatibility criteria as restructuring aid either.
The second restructuring period
(122) In view of the development of GvH1 it is doubtful that bankruptcy could be considered unforeseeable. The setting-up of GvH2 was linked to subsequent awards of restructuring aid, which were not justified. Moreover the restoration of long-term viability on the basis of the reports submitted seems doubtful. The report dated 15 December 1995 analysing the situation in the light of the TIB participation lacked an appropriate market analysis and an account of restructuring costs (apart from investments) and provides no explanation as to how the restructuring should be financed. The planned return to viability was established on the basis of three possible scenarios depending on sales' volumes, none of which seemed based on realistic assumptions. Taking into account that the porcelain industry has been suffering from over-capacity since 1992, even the turnover figures forecast for the worst-case scenario were not likely to be achieved. Such high turnover figures had never been achieved before, and it was unlikely that a company coming out of bankruptcy proceedings could achieve them. In addition, since GvH1 underwent no successful restructuring, it should have been clear that the on-going concern would have to undergo substantial restructuring in order to operate efficiently. It is doubtful that such a process would only take two years.
(123) These doubts were confirmed by an external evaluation for the year 1997 which stated, in a report dated 3 July 1998, that it was impossible to determine whether GvH2 could be successfully restructured. The main critical points leading to such an assessment lie in the over-optimistic estimation of turnover growth, given the limited orders entered in the books.
(124) The plan was revised in 1998 upon takeover by Mr Frowein, who counted on obtaining a positive operating result of DEM 0,195 million in 1999 and of DEM 0,655 million in 2000. These results had been forecast in the light of cumulated losses of DEM 0,8 million in June 1998. However, two months later losses had quadrupled. The plan was again revised. The expected results were calculated on the basis of a waiver of debt, which seems to have been promised to Mr Frowein upon takeover(29), but which does not seem to have taken place yet. In addition, the company expected to obtain fresh credits from banks, but this has not taken place either. Banks seem to have withdrawn their support, apart from the TAB, which still agreed in 1999 to waive its position in the list of creditors in order to avoid insolvency. This is regarded as a further restructuring aid measure which is hardly justifiable after the previous series of restructuring aid awards. No justification for the "one time last time" principle has been provided.
(125) The second revision of this plan was evaluated by a consultancy in 1999. Their report concluded that as at 31 December 1998 the company had losses of DEM 8,166 million not covered by capital and that a waiver of debt and new capital injections as well as the implementation of investments were vital for the continuation of the company. The report expressly did not analyse the company's solvency. The Commission notes that in the year 2000 the company has achieved a balance-sheet trading profit of DEM 24000. However, the management report for this year indicates over-indebtedness of DEM 9,298 million. This confirms the doubts expressed by the Commission in both its initiation and its extension of the formal investigation procedure that the restoration of GvH2/3's viability is very doubtful.
(126) In view of the above, the Commission cannot conclude that the repeated aid awards were justified by external and unforeseeable reasons. The Commission cannot conclude either that aid was granted on the basis of any restructuring plan based on realistic assumptions leading to the restoration of the company's long-term viability.
(b) No undue distortions of competition
(127) The restructuring plan must contain measures taken to offset as far as possible adverse effects on competitors, otherwise the aid involved could be contrary to the common interest and not eligible for exemption pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty. This means that if the undertaking is situated in a relevant market in the EU where an assessment of demand and supply shows that there is a structural excess of production capacity, the plan must make a contribution, proportionate to the aid received, to the restructuring of the industry serving the relevant market by irreversibly reducing or closing capacity.
(128) The porcelain industry is saturated and suffers from over-capacity, thus any aid granted to an undertaking active in this sector is bound to seriously distort competition and adversely affect trade among Member States. In view of the large amounts of aid involved in this case, the contribution by the beneficiary in terms of capacity reduction should be particularly substantial.
(129) The different restructuring plans submitted provide for capacity reductions both in terms of personnel and in terms of production. According to the first restructuring plan, as at December 1991 GvH1 had a workforce of 626, while in December 1999 its workforce was 269. As regards production, Germany states that within the first restructuring period production was reduced from 8000 to 6500 tonnes per annum to 4000 tonnes per annum. Germany further states that the replacement of several ovens by a single oven further implied a reduction to some 2300 tons per annum. Germany states that the ovens were destroyed and the production surface reduced.
(130) In view of the latest information supplied by Germany, the Commission acknowledges that a permanent reduction in capacity did in fact take place.
(c) Proportionality to restructuring costs and benefits
(131) The amount and intensity of the aid must be limited to the strict minimum needed to enable restructuring to be undertaken and must be related to the benefits anticipated from the Community's viewpoint. Therefore, the investors must make a contribution to the restructuring plan from their own resources. Moreover, the way in which the aid is granted must be such as to avoid providing the company with surplus cash which would be used for aggressive, market-distorting activities not linked to the restructuring process.
(132) As stated in the extension of the formal investigation procedure, although several plans have been provided, there is still no accurate calculation of restructuring costs. The plans have constantly been changed and the cost of restructuring steps actually implemented cannot be determined. In the absence of an overall account of restructuring costs, it cannot be determined whether the aid was the strict minimum, and it is unclear what the aid was used for.
(133) As stated in both the initiation and the extension of he formal investigation procedure, the Commission notes the lack of a private contribution to the restructuring. As regards GvH1, the investor never paid the purchase price of GvH1 nor did he bring in this amount into GvH1's capital as agreed with the THA under the revision of the privatisation contract. None of the guarantees provided within a security pool, subsidiary to other securities, could be enforced. As regards GvH2/3, only DEM 0,2 million were brought in as the purchase price by Mr Frowein. Germany now claims that, as soon as the formal investigation procedure is closed, DEM 6 million will be brought in as a private contribution. The Commission would point out, however, that it is the award of aid and not the contribution from the investor which must be made dependent upon a Commission decision. The conditionality does not demonstrate commitment from the investor to the company. In addition, there is no evidence that this amount will be effectively contributed. In view of the recent bankruptcy of GvH2/3, it is highly doubtful that any amounts will be paid in.
(134) Consequently, the Commission cannot conclude that the aid granted is proportional to the costs and benefits of the restructuring. Moreover, the fact that a substantial amount of the aid received has a liquidity effect suggests the possibility that the aid may have provided the company with surplus cash which could be used for aggressive, market-distorting activities, such as predatory pricing or buying controlling stakes in rival companies. The Commission particularly notes that the complainants have specifically invoked these two possibilities.
(135) The information available does not allow the Commission to take a view on whether predatory pricing has taken place. However, regarding the acquisition of the shares in Glashütte Schmiedefeld GmbH, the Commission cannot exclude the possibility that aid to GvH2/3 was used for this purpose.
(d) Full implementation of the restructuring plan
(136) In view of the series of plans, most of which have failed, and their constant amendments, the Commission cannot conclude that this requirement of the guidelines has been fulfilled.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
(137) The Commission finds that Germany has unlawfully implemented the aid in question in breach of Article 83(3) of the Treaty. Moreover, the aid is incompatible with the common market and has been recovered from the recipient. In accordance with the Commission's standard practice and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, aid must be recovered from the undertaking which actually benefited from the aid. In view of the changes which have taken place as regards the aid recipient, the Commission deems it appropriate to define the extent of the obligation to recover the aid.
(138) In its decision to initiate and extend the formal investigation procedure, the Commission found that GvH2 was continuing the business activity of GvH1. Both companies owned the same assets, were active on the same product markets and under the same corporate name, and produced the same products with the same plant and employees (even if the workforce was reduced). There was, moreover, no indication that third parties were looking after the new set-up.
(139) The Commission recognises that GvH1 and GvH2 are distinct legal persons. However, the business activity of GvH1 was continued during the bankruptcy proceedings and assets were sold to GvH2 within the framework of the ongoing business activity. The Commission also notes that the sale of the assets of GvHiA to GvH2 did not take place in an open and unconditional bidding procedure. The alleged search for an investor lasted only four months. According to information presented prior to the initiation of the formal investigation procedure, the Land of Thuringia even sought via LEG, before the bankruptcy proceedings were initiated, a solution for GvHiA involving a State holding; this is what subsequently actually occurred. The Commission does not therefore recognise that the new investors in GvH2 (GvHiA and TIB) were selected as the highest bidders in an open and unconditional call to tender. Although Germany stated that negotiations were initiated with several potential investors, the Commission received a reply from a competitor stating that it was prevented from submitting a bid.
(140) The Commission found that there was congruity between GvH1 and GvH2 particularly in terms of control: 51 % of the bankrupt GvH1's assets were formally in the possession of GvHiA. Furthermore, the start-up capital of GvH2 was financed with money from the bankrupt GvH1's assets. The remaining DEM 0,49 million and the price of DEM 8,5 million paid for the assets were contributed by the State, GvH1's principal creditor. After the sale or assignment of the assets, the cash, assets and control of the new legal entity remained in the same hands as before.
(141) In accordance with the Commission's established practice, when a company receiving aid is sold at its market value, the benefit of the aid remains with the seller. Since no unconditional call for tender was made in the present case, the Commission cannot conclude that the purchase price paid for the assets of GvH1 corresponded to the normal market price. The buyer, GvH2, therefore likewise benefited from the aid granted to GvH1.
(142) Furthermore, as the principal creditor of the company being wound up, the State should have behaved as a private creditor would have done, in order to rule out the possibility that State aid was involved in its action. A private creditor would presumably have wound up the company so as to fulfil its claims, unless a new company was to be formed and assets subsequently transferred for the purpose of selling the assets to the highest bidder at the highest price, thereby fulfilling its claims. The Commission cannot conclude that this was the case, since the State itself had obviously taken over 49 % of the company, financed the purchase of the assets and, only two years later, sold the shares at a much lower price than it itself had paid.
(143) Finally, in its decision on the extension of the formal investigation procedure, the Commission pointed out with regard to GvH3 that changes in shareholding ownership relationships did not result in the creation of a new legal entity exempt from claims. Buyers are able to protect themselves by exercising normal due diligence in transactions. This applies in particular to Mr Frowein, who was aware of the company's situation from the outset of the bankruptcy proceedings. Consequently, GvH3 is to be regarded as one and the same company as GvH2(30). It should also be noted that Mr Frowein was not selected in an open, unconditional and transparent tendering procedure.
(144) The Commission concludes that, in order to implement this Decision correctly, Germany must behave in the same way as a private creditor acting with due diligence. National law may not be applied in a disadvantageous way so as to impede collection or make it extremely difficult. In principle, this means that Germany must seek to collect the debts immediately, using all means at its disposal. No principle of national law may stand in the way of the complete application of European law(31).
(145) In order to prevent the effectiveness of this Decision from being frustrated and the market from continuing to be distorted, the Commission may be compelled to require that the recovery is not restricted to the original undertaking, but is extended to the undertaking which continues the activities of the original undertaking using the transferred means of production, in cases where certain elements of the transfer point to economic continuity between the two undertakings(32).
(146) The Commission considers that, in addition to the aid directly granted to it, GvH2/3 also benefits from the aid to its predecessors. Consequently, in order to duly comply with this Decision, Germany must take action not only against the direct aid recipient, but also against its successors. Accordingly, GvH2/3 is not only obliged to repay the aid unlawfully received in its own name, but also jointly obliged to repay the unlawful aid granted to GvH1, including the aid granted during the bankruptcy proceedings. Germany must also take action against any other firm which could benefit from a transfer of the assets in question, thereby helping to frustrate the effectiveness of this Decision(33),
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. The State aid which Germany has granted to Graf von Henneberg Perzellan GmbH is incompatible with the common market.
2. The incompatible aid referred to in paragraph 1 includes the following measures in support of Graf von Henneberg Porzellan GmbH, established in 1990, which later became Graf von Henneberg in Abwicklung:
(a) loans from Hessische Landesbank (HeLaBa) under measures 5, 20 and 21, originally totalling DEM 28,530 million;
(b) loans from Bayerische Landesbank under measures 7, 12, 17 and 18, originally totalling DEM 43,023 million;
(c) a guarantee from the Treuhandanstalt (THA) of DEM 8,629 million under measure 10;
(d) grants of DEM 13,871 million from the THA under measure 11;
(e) a grant of DEM 5 million under measure 13;
(f) a loan from the Sparkasse Ilmenau under measure 22, originally amounting to DEM 3,2 million;
(g) a loan from the Sparkasse Efurt under measure 23, originally amounting to DEM 1,5 million;
(h) an advance payment of DEM 2 million from the Thüringer Aufbaubank (TAB) under measure 24;
(i) grants of DEM 2,077 million for the promotion of employment under measure 27.
The incompatible aid also includes the following measures in support of Graf von Henneberg Porzellan GmbH, established in 1995 and still active on the market:
(a) a loan of DEM 2 million from the HeLaBa under measure 28;
(b) a waiver of debt of DEM 0,940 million from the Federal Office for Special Tasks related to Unification (BvS) under measure 30;
(c) a participation of DEM 0,490 million from the Thüringer Industriebeteiligungs GmbH & Co. KG (TIB) in GvH2's initial capital under measure 31;
(d) a shareholder loan of DEM 0,490 million from the TIB under measure 32;
(e) loans from the TAB under measures 33, 34, 35, 37 and 38, originally totalling DEM 20,521 million;
(f) direct investment grants of DEM 5,981 million under measure 36;
(g) the amount of DEM 0,686 million paid up to 1996 out of the grants for the promotion of employment under measure 39;
(h) grants of DEM 0,451 million for research and development under measure 43.
Article 2
1. Germany shall take all necessary measures to recover from the beneficiary the aid referred to in Article 1 and unlawfully made available to the beneficiary, with the exception of those aid measures which have already been paid back with interest since the date on which they were granted.
2. Recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law, provided they allow the immediate and effective execution of the Decision. The aid to be recovered shall include interest from the date on which it was at the disposal of the beneficiary until the date of its recovery. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the reference rate used for calculating the grant-equivalent of regional aid.
3. For the purpose of paragraph 2, the term "beneficiary" includes Graf von Henneberg Porzellan GmbH, established in 1990 and currently in bankruptcy, Graf von Henneberg Porzellan GmhH, established in 1995, which is also liable for the aid granted to its predecessor, and any other undertaking to which the assets of the abovementioned legal persons have been transferred or will be transferred in such a way as to frustrate the effectiveness of this Decision.
Article 3
Germany shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.
Done at Brussels, 30 October 2001.
|
[
0,
1,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1165/2002
of 28 June 2002
amending Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas
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 Commission Regulation (EC) No 509/2002(2), and in particular Article 29(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 4(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 886/2002(4), stipulates that certain CN codes are to apply only to imported products originating in and coming from Switzerland. Classification in CN codes 0406 90 02 to 0406 90 06 requires compliance with a minimum free-at-frontier value if imports into the Community are to qualify for a preferential duty rate. Since from 1 June 2002, the date of entry into force of the bilateral agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning trade in agricultural products, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999 and approved by Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council and of the Commission(5), eligibility for the preferential duty rate is no longer subject to compliance with a minimum free-at-frontier value, and since the cheeses covered by those codes are now imported under CN codes 0406 90 13 to 0406 90 17, as listed in Annex II(D) to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001, CN codes 0406 90 02 to 0406 90 06 are no longer required. In order to avoid confusing importers and customs authorities, and pending the deletion of those codes from the Combined Nomenclature, the said Article should be adjusted and transitional rules adopted for licences issued before the date of entry into force of the agreement with Switzerland.
(2) Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 stipulates that importers may lodge only one licence application each for the same quota in the integrated tariff of the European Communities (TARIC). The quota numbers listed in Annexes I(B)(2) and I(B)(3) to that Regulation for products originating in the Czech Republic and Slovakia are identical, since those two countries were previously one country. It should therefore be specified that the quotas concerned must be considered as separate quotas.
(3) Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 should therefore be amended.
(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
Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 is amended as follows:
1. Article 4(2) is replaced by the following: "2. CN codes 0406 20 10 and 0406 90 19 shall apply only to imported products originating in and coming from Switzerland in accordance with Article 20."
2. The following paragraph is added to Article 4: "3. CN codes 0406 90 02 to 0406 90 06 shall not apply under this Regulation. For imports carried out after 1 June 2002 under licences issued before that date, products falling within those codes shall be classified under CN codes 0406 90 13 to 0406 90 17 and the rates set out in Annex II(D) shall apply."
3. The following sentence is added to the first subparagraph of Article 12: "However, the quotas in Annexes I(B)(2) and I(B)(3) bearing the same quota number shall be considered as separate quotas."
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 1 July 2002.
However, point 2 of Article 1 shall apply from 1 June 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 June 2002.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1628/91 of 13 June 1991 amending Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal
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 Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal (4), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3577/90 (5), established a system of buying-in into intervention in order to stabilize the beef market and to support its prices; whereas, in particular, in addition to the normal optional buying-in regime limited to a maximum quantity of 235 000 tonnes a year, paragraph 5 of the abovementioned Article introduced a compulsory buying-in regime, the so-called 'safety net', without any quantitative limits, opened under certain exceptional market conditions;
Whereas this system has proved not to have attained its objective, in particular owing to the fact that the maximum quantity to be bought in governed by the normal regime has prompted recourse to massive buying-in under the safety net; whereas, furthermore, the fixed buying-in price under this safety net has strengthened the attraction of this buying-in to the detriment of commercial outlets, without the system providing sufficient guarantees that the buying-in price, paid under intervention, is passed back to the producer; whereas the system of buying-in into intervention should, therefore, be adjusted in general, and that of the safety net should be adjusted in particular;
Whereas, taking into account the buying-in prices to be fixed under the existing intervention system, and in particular under the safety net, there is a risk that buying-in into intervention will, at least partially, replace the marketing of meat produced on the market place; whereas, in order to remedy this situation, excessive differences recorded between intervention buying-in prices and market prices should be avoided; whereas, to this end, it is appropriate to exclude offers made by way of tender procedure which exceed the market price, increased by a supplementary amount to be determined;
Whereas furthermore an adaptation of the thresholds seems appropriate in the light of the recent decrease of market
prices and several monetary realignments which increased
substantially the difference expressed in ecus between market price and intervention price;
Whereas, for the period from 6 April 1987 to 2 April 1989, Article 6a of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 derogated from certain rules laid down by Article 6 of the said Regulation; whereas Article 6a is thus no longer applicable; whereas that Article should therefore be repealed,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Article 6
of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 shall be replaced by the following:
'Article 6
1. Where the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 are met, buying-in by intervention agencies in one or more Member States or in a region of a Member State of one or more categories, qualities or quality groups, to be determined, of fresh or chilled meat falling within CN codes 0201 10 and 0201 20 11 to 0201 20 59 and originating in the Community may be organized under tender procedures arranged with a view to ensuring reasonable support of the market, having regard to seasonal developments as regards slaughterings.
2. For each quality or quality group that may be bought in, the tender procedures may be opened as provided in paragraph 8 whenever, in a Member State or in a region of a Member State, the following two conditions are both met for a period of two consecutive weeks:
- the average Community grading market price recorded on the basis of the Community scale for the carcases of adult bovine animals is less than 84 % of the intervention price,
- the average market price recorded on the basis of the said scale in the Member State or States or regions of a Member State is less than 80 % of the intervention price.
The intervention price shall be set before the start of each marketing year in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 43 (2) of the EEC Treaty.
3. Tender arrangements for one or more qualities or quality groups shall be suspended in any one of the following two situations:
- where, for two consecutive weeks, the two conditions referred to in paragraph 2 are no longer both met,
- where buying-in is no longer appropriate in view of the criteria set out in paragraph 1.
4. Intervention shall also be opened if, for a period of two consecutive weeks, the average Community market price of young uncastrated male animals less than two years old or castrated male animals, recorded on the basis of the Community grading scale for carcases of adult bovine animals, falls short of 78 % of the intervention price, and if:
- in at least three Member States or regions of a Member State representing overall 60 % or more of Community production of young uncastrated male animals less than two years old or castrated male animals, the price recorded for these categories on the basis of the said scale falls short of 75 % of the intervention price; in this case, buying-in shall take place for the categories concerned in the Member States or regions of a Member State where the price level is below this limit,
- in a Member State or regions of a Member State, the average market price of young uncastrated male animals less than two years old or castrated male animals, recorded on the basis of the Community grading scale for carcases of adult bovine animals falls short of 72 % of the intervention price; in this case, buying-in shall take place for the categories concerned in the Member States or regions of a Member State where the price level is below that limit.
For this buying-in, and without prejudice to paragraph 6, all offers shall be accepted.
5. In exceptional cases and/or when there is a serious market crisis, the Council, acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may, notwithstanding the rules set out in paragraph 4, decide on urgent intervention measures. These measures shall not apply beyond the marketing year in which they are decided.
6. Only offers equal to or less than the average market price recorded in a Member State or a region of a Member State and increased by an amount to be determined on the basis of objective criteria may be accepted under the buying-in systems referred to in paragraphs 1 and 4.
7. For each quality or quality group eligible for intervention, the buying-in prices and the quantities accepted for intervention shall be determined under tender procedures and may, in special circumstances, be fixed by a Member State or a region of a Member State on the basis of recorded average market prices. The tender procedures must ensure equality of access for all persons concerned. They shall be opened on the basis of specifications to be determined taking commercial structures into account, where necessary.
8. Under the procedure provided for in Article 27:
- the categories, qualities or quality groups of products eligible for intervention shall be determined,
- the opening or reopening of tender procedures and their suspension in the case referred to in the last indent of paragraph 3 shall be decided,
- the buying-in prices and the quantities accepted for intervention shall be fixed,
- the amount of the increase referred to in paragraph 6 shall be determined,
- the procedures implementing this Article, and in particular those designed to prevent market prices spiralling downward, shall be adopted,
- any transitional provisions necessary for the implemention of these arrangements shall be adopted.
The Commission shall decide on:
- opening intervention as referred to in paragraph 4 and suspending it where one or more conditions laid down in that paragraph no longer apply,
- suspending buying-in as referred to in the first indent of paragraph 3.'
Article 2
Article 6a of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 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 as from 17 June 1991.
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
] |
*****
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC, EURATOM, ECSC) No 4068/86
of 22 December 1986
adapting the representation and special-duty allowance for the President and members of the Commission and the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to Council Regulation No 422/67/EEC - No 5/67/Euratom of 25 July 1967 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 (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 3678/85 (2), and in particular Article 4 (4) thereof,
Whereas the representation and special-duty allowances provided for under Article 4 (2) and (3) of Regulation No 422/67/EEC - No 5/67/Euratom should be increased,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
With effect from 1 July 1986:
(a) the amounts listed in Article 4 (2) of Regulation No 422/67/EEC - No 5/67/Euratom shall be as follows:
- President: 47 190 Bfrs,
- Vice-President: 30 325 Bfrs,
- Other members: 20 220 Bfrs,
(b) the amounts listed in the first subparagraph of Article 4 (3) of Regulation No 422/67/EEC - No 5/67/Euratom shall be as follows:
- President: 47 190 Bfrs,
- Judge or Advocate-General: 20 220 Bfrs,
- Registrar: 18 440 Bfrs.
(c) the amount listed in the second subparagraph of Article 4 (3) of Regulation No 422/67/EEC - No 5/67/Euratom shall be replaced by the sum of 26 975 Bfrs.
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 December 1986.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 10 July 2002
amending Decision 2002/199/EC concerning animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of live bovine and porcine animals from certain third countries
(notified under document number C(2002) 2553)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2002/578/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products from third countries(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1452/2001(2), and in particular Article 8(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Under Article 8(3) of Directive 72/462/EEC the requirements for testing for brucellosis, enzootic bovine leukosis and tuberculosis laid down in certain third countries may be regarded as equivalent to those laid down for intra-Community trade.
(2) Canada has submitted information relating to its scheme for recognising herds as officially free of enzootic bovine leukosis.
(3) The Czech Republic has submitted information relating to its scheme for recognition as officially free of enzootic bovine leukosis.
(4) These guarantees provided by Canada and the Czech Republic as regards Enzootic bovine leukosis may be considered as equivalent to those required for intra-Community trade.
(5) The competent veterinary authorities of Canada and the Czech Republic have undertaken to notify the Commission without delay of any proposed changes in their rules concerning these schemes.
(6) Commission Decision 2002/199/EC(3) should be amended accordingly.
(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
Annex VI to Decision 2002/199/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
This Decision shall apply from the 60th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 July 2002.
|
[
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) N° 2461/87
of 4 August 1987
on the application of Decision N° 1/87 of the EEC-Iceland Joint Committee modifying the limits expressed in ECU in Article 8 of Protocol 3 concerning the definition of the concept of originating products and methods of administrative cooperation
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 between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland (1), signed on
22 July 1972, entered into force on 1 April 1973;
Whereas, by virtue of Article 28 of Protocol 3 concerning the definition of the concept of originating products and methods of administrative cooperation, which forms an integral part of the said Agreement, the Joint Committee adopted Decision N° 1/87 further amending Article 8 of that Protocol;
Whereas it is necessary to apply that Decision in the Community,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Decision N° 1/87 of the EEC-Iceland Joint Committee shall apply in the Community.
The text of the Decision is attached to this Regulation.
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, 4 August 1987.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1
] |
Council Decision
of 22 December 2003
amending the third subparagraph (Basic criteria for examining applications) of Part V of the Common Consular Instructions
(2004/14/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 789/2001 of 24 April 2001 reserving to the Council implementing powers with regard to certain detailed provisions and practical procedures for examining visa applications(1),
Having regard to the initiative of the Italian Republic,
Whereas:
(1) The European Councils of Tampere, Laeken, Seville and Thessaloniki have called on the Member States to develop their common visa policy further and to step up local consular cooperation between their representations in third countries.
(2) An analysis of the data concerning illegal immigration has shown that short-term visas (tourism, business, study, work or family visits) are the ones most often used for the purpose of regularly entering the territory of the Contracting Parties to the Schengen Convention and then going underground when the visa expires.
(3) In order to assess an immigration risk, it appears necessary further to step up local consular cooperation in determining what supplementary and/or additional documents should be required for issuing visas and as regards the adoption of common mechanisms for detecting false or falsified documents more effectively.
(4) Among the various factors on which the assessment of an immigration risk must be based, the outcome of the interview to which the visa applicant is subjected by the diplomatic mission or consular post is also of fundamental importance.
(5) Diplomatic missions and consular posts should therefore be in a position to exercise more effectively the powers they possess to assess an immigration risk.
(6) 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 taking part in the adoption of this Decision, and is not bound by it or subject to its application. As this Decision builds upon the Schengen acquis under the provisions of Title IV of Part Three of the Treaty establishing the European Community, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 5 of the said Protocol, decide within a period of six months after the Council has adopted this Decision whether or not it will transpose it in into its national law.
(7) As regards Iceland and Norway, this Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the association of those two States with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis(2), which falls within the area referred to in Article 1, point A of Council Decision 1999/437/EC(3) on certain arrangements for the application of that Agreement.
(8) This Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 19 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis(4); the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.
(9) This Decision constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland's request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis(5); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.
(10) This Decision constitutes an act building upon the Schengen acquis or otherwise related to it within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the 2003 Act of Accession,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The third subparagraph (Basic criteria for examining applications) of Part V of the Common Consular Instructions shall be replaced by the following:
"The diplomatic mission or consular post shall assume full responsibility in assessing whether there is an immigration risk. The purpose of examining applications is to detect those applicants who are seeking to immigrate to the Member States and set themselves up there, using grounds such as tourism, business, study, work or family visits as a pretext. Therefore, it is necessary to be particularly vigilant when dealing with 'risk categories', unemployed persons, those with no regular income, etc. To the same end, fundamental importance attaches to the interview held with the applicant to determine the purpose of the journey. Additional supporting documentation, agreed through local consular cooperation if possible, may also be required. The diplomatic mission or consular post must also draw on local consular cooperation to enhance its capacity to detect false or falsified documents submitted in support of some visa applications. If there is any doubt as to the authenticity of the papers and supporting documents submitted, including doubt as to the veracity of their contents, or over the reliability of statements collected during interview, the diplomatic mission or consular post shall refrain from issuing the visa."
Article 2
This Decision shall apply as from the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community.
Done at Brussels, 22 December 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 13 November 1974 amending the Decision of 13 January 1971 with regard to the place of work of the Director-General of the Joint Nuclear Research Centre (JRC) and its departments (74/578/Euratom)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 8 thereof;
Whereas the Commission adopted a Decision on the reorganization of the Joint Nuclear Research Centre (JRC) on 13 January 1971 (1);
Whereas the abovementioned Decision should be amended as regards the place of work of the Director General of the JRC,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
Article 3 (2) of the Commission Decision of 13 January 1971 shall be amended as follows:
"Brussels is the place of work of the Director-General and the departments directly attached to him."
Done at Brussels, 13 November 1974.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1041/95 of 10 May 1995 fixing the amounts to be paid to recognized olive oil producer organizations and associations thereof 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 No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organization of the market in oils and fats (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden and Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 (2), and in particular Article 20d (4) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92 of 28 December 1992 on the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 150/95 (4), and in particular Article 6 (2) thereof,
Whereas Article 20d of Regulation No 136/66/EEC provides that a percentage of the production aid is to be withheld to help finance the work of the producer organizations and associations thereof;
Whereas Article 8 (1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3061/84 of 31 October 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of production aid for olive oil (5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 637/95 (6) provides that the unit amounts to be paid to producer organizations and associations thereof are to be fixed on the basis of forecasts of the overall sum to be distributed; whereas the amount withheld was fixed for the 1994/95 marketing year by Council Regulation (EC) No 1875/94 (7); whereas the funds which will be available in each Member State as a result of the abovementioned amount withheld must be redistributed to those eligible in a suitable manner; whereas in Spain and Portugal the amount withheld is less than that collected in the other Member States as a result of the lower level of production aid;
Whereas to ensure that the distribution of funds among the producer organizations and associations is uniformly implemented, and with a view to clarity, a specific operative event should be established for the agricultural conversion rate for the amounts fixed; whereas, given the nature of the measure and to facilitate the management thereof, 1 February 1995 should be fixed as the operative event;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Oils and Fats,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For the 1994/95 marketing year, the amounts provided for in Article 8 (1) (a) and (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 3061/84 shall be as follows:
- for Spain: ECU 4,5 and ECU 11,4 respectively,
- for Portugal: ECU 0 and ECU 3,6 respectively,
- for Greece: ECU 2,2 and ECU 2,2 respectively,
- for France: ECU 1,5 and ECU 2 respectively,
- for Italy: ECU 2,4 and ECU 2,2 respectively.
Article 2
The amounts referred to in Article 1 shall be converted into national currency using the agricultural conversion rate in force on 1 February 1995.
Article 3
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, 10 May 1995.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 22 June 1993 terminating the proceeding to review anti-dumping measures applicable to certain imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People's Republic of China
(93/377/EEC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (1), and in particular Articles 9 and 14 thereof,
After consultation within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the above Regulation,
Whereas:
A . PREVIOUS PROCEDURE (1) By Regulation (EEC) No 3433/91 (2), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of gas-fuelled of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters falling within CD code ex 9613 10 00 and originating, inter alia, in the People's Republic of China. The rate applicable to products originating from that country was set at 16,9 %.
B. REVIEW (2) In January, the Commission received submissions from Policity Industrial Ltd, Capital Industries Ltd and Gladstrong Investments Ltd (companies incorporated in Hong Kong and participants in joint-venture manufacturing operations in the People's Republic of China) and from Sanshui Huafa Industry & Chemcials Co., Ltd (a company introducing itself as being located in the People's Republic of China), manufacturers of the product in question, stating their intention to export the product concerned from China to the Community in the near future and requesting the establishing of individual anti-dumping duty rates for their exports.
Those companies provided, on request, evidence that they did not export the product concerned to the Community during the period covered by the previous investigation into dumping (calendar year 1989), and that they were not related to or associated with the Chinese export branches or other Chinese manufacturers of this product for which dumping was found during the original investigation period. One of the companies started exporting to the Community after the end of the investigation period.
(3) By a notice published on 11 March 1992 (3) the Community, after consultation within the Advisory Committee and in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88, initiated a review of Regulation (EEC) No 3433/91 in so far as it concerned imports of pocket flint lighters originating in the People's Republic of China.
(4) Accordingly, the Commission officially advised the exporters and importers known to be concerend, as well as the representatives of the exporting country. It sent questionnaires to the parties directly concerend and gave them the opportunity to make known their views in writing and to request a hearing.
(5) Neither Policity Industrial Ltd, one of the exporters having requested the review, nor four producers in China, alleged to be potential exporters to the Community, replied to the questionnaire sent to them by the Commission. The other three companies having requested the review, as well as three Chinese producers related to them, replied to the questionnaire.
(6) One of the companies having solicited the review requested and was granted a hearing. The Commission informed all the companies having cooperated in the review proceeding of the results of the investigation and the Commission's considerations in this respect. The Commission also granted these companies a period within which to submit further comments and their comments were taken into consideration where appropriate.
(7) The investigation period for the review was calendar year 1991.
C. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION (8) The Commission considered it necessary to examine whether the exporters having requested the review are companies which are independent of the Chinese State in reaching their business decisions. This would distinguish the exporters from those exporters subject of the original investigation and would entitle them to individual treatment.
According to the consistent practice of the Community with regard to exports from a non-market economy country, that individual treatment is appropriate only in exceptional cases where the producer concerned has shown that its business decisions are taken independently of the State authorities. In this connection, the sole fact that a company has the status of a joint venture, with a shareholding by a foreign investor, has not as such been considered sufficient by the Community to justify individual treatment.
Indeed, individual dumping margins or anti-dumping duties are inappropriate when the State, through any form of control on the exporters concerned, can take advantage of differentiation of the anti-dumping duty and thus undermine the effectiveness of the measures taken.
In examining whether this requirement is met, the Commission found the following:
1. Policity Industrial Ltd, Hong Kong
(9) Neither Policity Industrial Ltd, Hong Kong, nor its allegedly relate company in China, Dongguan Poly Action Plastics & Metal Mfg Co Ltd, submitted any information concerning their business activities to the Commission. It could not therefore be established whether the Chinese company operated outside the influence of the State authorities. No evidence of changed circumstances could therefore be found.
2. Capital Line Industries Ltd, Hong Kong
(10) From the information made available to the Commission by the company, it appeared that Capital Line Industries Ltd, Hong Kong, holds 30 % of the capital of the Chinese producer Dong Guan Lighter Factory, the remaining 70 % of shares being owned by Chinese State-owned companies.
(11) The fact that State-owned companies have the majority shareholding in the Chinese manufacturer of lighters led the Commission to conclude that the Dong Guan Lighter Factory could not be considered an independent company operating outside the influence of the State authorities.
3. Gladstrong Investments Ltd, Hong Kong
(12) From the data submitted by the company, it appeared that Gladstrong Investments Ltd, Hong Kong, is a participent in four joint-venture manufacturing operations in the People's Republic of China. While Gladstrong holds directly or indirectly a maximum of 40 % of the capital of those companies, it appeared that the remaining capital (at least 60 %), was controlled by companies in which State authorities held the majority of shares.
(13) The Commission therefore considered that none of the four Chinese producers with which Gladstrong Investments Ltd, Hong Kong, was associated could be considered an independent company free of State control.
4. Sanshui Huafa Industry & Chemicals Co., Ltd, Hong Kong
(14) From the information made available to the Commission by the company, it appeared that Sanshui Huafa Industry & Chemicals Co., Ltd is in fact located in Hong Kong and is 50 % and is 50 % owned by a Hong Kong company and 50 % by a company which itself is 100 % owned by the State of the People's Republic of China.
The supplier of Sanshui Huafa Industry & Chemicals Co., Ltd, Hong Kong, is a producer in China called 'Guang Dong Sanshui Huafa Industry & Chemicals Co., Ltd' whose stock is shared equally (50-50) between the same companies which own Sanshui Huafa Industry & Chemicals Co., Ltd, Hong Kong.
(15) The fact that Guang Dong Sanshui Huafa Industry & Chemicals Co., Ltd is 50 % owned by a State controlled company in China means that the State authorities are able to block the business decisions of the company and thus exercise a significant degree of control.
5. Conclusion
(16) For the reasons given above, no individual treatment can be granted to any of the Chinese companies involved in the review.
(17) One company submitted an offer of undertaking. However, since individual treatment is not appropriate for that company, the offer could not be considered.
D. TERMINATION OF REVIEW PROCEEDING (18) In those circumstances, the proceeding to review the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to certain imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in the People's Republic of China should be terminated without any change to the measures in force.
(19) No objections to this course of action were raised in the Advisory Committee,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The proceeding to review anti-dumping measures under Regulation (EEC) No 3433/91 in respect of certain imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters falling within CN code ex 9613 10 00 and originating in the People's Republic of China, is hereby terminated.
Done at Brussels, 22 June 1993.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 95/9/EC of 7 April 1995 amending Directive 94/39/EC establishing a list of intended uses of animal feedingstuffs for particular nutritional purposes (Text with EEA relevance)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 93/74/EEC of 13 September 1993 on feedingstuffs intended for particular nutritional purposes (1), and in particular Article 6 (c) thereof,
Whereas Article 6 (c) of Directive 93/74/EEC provides that the measures adopted according to Article 6 (a) may be adjusted to developments in scientific and technical knowledge; whereas those measures have been adopted by Commission Directive 94/39/EC (2);
Whereas certain nutritional purposes could not at first be included in the list of intended uses of animal feedingstuffs for particular nutritional purposes owing to the absence at the time of Community methods for calculating the energy value of pet foods;
Whereas a method for calculating that energy value has now been adopted at Community level and the said nutritional purposes can therefore be included in the list;
Whereas, furthermore, the list of particular nutritional purposes adopted for equines should be adapted and supplemented on the basis of available data;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee for Feedingstuffs,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
The Annex to Directive 94/39/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Directive.
Article 2
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for them to comply with this Directive no later than 30 June 1995. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.
When Member States adopt these provisions, these shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference at the time of their official publication. The procedure for such reference shall be adopted by Member States.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the essential provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
Article 3
This Directive shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 4
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 April 1995.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 18 January 1999 amending Article 3 of Decision 98/198/EC (1999/79/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - common system of value-added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1), and in particular Article 27 thereof,
Having regard to Decisions 95/252/EC (2) and 98/198/EC (3),
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas, pursuant to Article 27(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, may authorise any Member State to introduce or extend special measures for derogation from that directive in order to simplify the procedure for charging the tax or to prevent certain types of tax evasion or avoidance;
Whereas, by letter registered with the Commission's Secretariat-General on 20 July 1998, the United Kingdom Government requested authorisation to extend application of the derogation previously granted to it by Decision 95/252/EC and Decision 98/198/EC;
Whereas the other Member States were informed on 22 September 1998 of the United Kingdom's request;
Whereas the derogation in question is designed, firstly, to restrict to 50 % the right of the hirer or leasee of a passenger car to deduct the VAT on the hire or leasing transaction where the car is used for private purposes and, secondly, to waive the VAT payable on the private use of the car in question;
Whereas the legal and factual circumstances which justified granting authorisation to apply a derogation have not changed and still obtain;
Whereas on 17 June 1998 the Commission presented a proposal for a Council Directive amending the Sixth Directive as regards the rules governing the right to deduct VAT (4);
Whereas the objective of that proposal is to bring about an approximation of the limitations of the right to deduct VAT in order to reduce the disparities between the rules applicable in the Community, particularly where expenditure on passenger cars is concerned;
Whereas it is appropriate, therefore, to extend the period of the authorisation granted until the entry into force of the abovementioned Directive; whereas, however, the authorisation will expire on 31 December 2000 at the latest if the Directive has not entered into force by that date, enabling an assessment to be made at that time of the expediency of the derogation in the light of the discussions held within the Council on the proposal for a Directive;
Whereas the derogation has no adverse impact on the European Communities' own resources accruing from VAT,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Article 3 of Decision 98/198/EC shall be replaced by the following:
'Article 3
This authorisation shall expire on the date of the entry into force of the Community rules determining what expenditure is not to be eligible for the deduction of value-added tax, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 17(6) of Directive 77/388/EEC, but on 31 December 2000 at the latest.`
Article 2
This Decision shall apply from 1 January 1999.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom.
Done at Brussels, 18 January 1999.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 642/92 of 13 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2814/90 laying down detailed rules for the definition of lambs fattened as heavy carcases
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3901/89 of 12 December 1989 defining lambs as heavy carcases (1), and in particular Article 1 (2) thereof,
Whereas detailed rules for the definition of lambs fattened as heavy carcases were adopted by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2814/90 (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3561/91 (3);
Whereas Greece has decided to apply the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 3901/89 with effect from the 1992 marketing year; whereas, however, certain administrative difficulties have delayed the implementation of national implementing provisions; whereas, therefore, by way of derogation for the 1992 marketing year in Greece, provision should be made for a longer period for the submission of premium applications and a shorter period for the submission of specific declarations;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sheep and Goats,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 2814/90 is amended as follows:
1. The following subparagraph is added as the fourth subparagraph to Article 1 (1):
'In the case of Greece, by way of derogation for the 1992 marketing year, the specific declaration shall relate to lambs whose fattening begins between 1 April and 14 November of that marketing year.'
2. The second paragraph of Article 3 is replaced by the following:
'By way of derogation for the 1992 marketing year, the period stipulated in Articles 1 (1) and 2 (1) for submission of premium applications shall be:
- in Greece: 1 November 1991 to 30 April 1992,
- in Portugal: 1 November 1991 to 31 January 1992.'
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, 13 March 1992.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1719/93 of 30 June 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1445/76 specifying the different varieties of Lolium perenne L.
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71 of 26 October 1971 on the common organization of the market in seeds (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3695/92 (2), and in particular Article 3 (5) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1445/76 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1680/92 (4), listed the varieties of Lolium perenne L. of high persistence, late or medium late, and of Lolium perenne L. of low persistence, medium late, medium early or early, within the meaning of the provisions adopted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71;
Whereas, since the last amendment of Regulation (EEC) No 1445/76, certified seed of certain varieties of Lolium perenne L. is no longer marketed, while certified seed of other varieties has appeared on the market and will be marketed for the first time during the 1993/94 marketing year; whereas, furthermore, the application of the classification criteria to certain varieties of Lolium perenne L. results in their inclusion in one of the abovementioned lists; whereas the Annexes to Regulation (EEC) No 1445/76 should therefore be amended accordingly;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Seeds,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annexes I and II to Regulation (EEC) No 1445/76 are hereby replaced by the Annexes to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 1993.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 June 1993.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1466/2007
of 12 December 2007
establishing a prohibition of fishing for hake in ICES zones VIII c, IX and X; EC waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Portugal
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1), and in particular Article 26(4) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to common fisheries policy (2), and in particular Article 21(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Council Regulation (EC) No 41/2007 of 21 December 2006 fixing for 2007 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 catch limitations are required (3), lays down quotas for 2007.
(2)
According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2007.
(3)
It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing for that stock and its retention on board, transhipment and landing,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Quota exhaustion
The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2007 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.
Article 2
Prohibitions
Fishing for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. It shall be prohibited to retain on board, tranship or land such stock caught by those vessels after that date.
Article 3
Entry into force
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, 12 December 2007.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 593/2005
of 15 April 2005
fixing the minimum selling price for butter for the 17th 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 17th 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 12 April 2005, the minimum selling price for butter is fixed at 275 EUR/100 kg.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 16 April 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 April 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1270/94 of 1 June 1994 concerning the issue of import licences for garlic originating in China
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3669/93 (2), and in particular Article 29 (2) thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 2707/72 (3) lays down the conditions for applying protective measures to fruit and vegetables;
Whereas pursuant to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1859/93 (4), the release into free circulation into the Community of garlic imported from third countries is subject to the presentation of an import licence;
Whereas Article 1 (1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1213/94 (5) restricts the issue of import licences until 31 August 1994 to 5 000 tonnes of the total quantity of 10 000 tonnes fixed for the period from 31 May 1994 to 31 May 1995;
Whereas, given the import licences already issued, the quantities applied for on 31 May 1994 exceed the balance of the maximum quantities thus fixed; whereas the extent to which import licences may be issued for those applications should therefore be determined; whereas the issue of licences for applications submitted from 1 June 1994 should therefore be suspended until 31 August 1994,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Import licences for garlic falling within CN code 0703 20 00 originating in China applied for under Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1859/93 on 31 May 1994 shall be issued for 40,3 % of the quantity applied for in accordance with the information received by the Commission on 1 June 1994.
The issue of licences for the abovementioned products for applications submitted from 1 June 1994 shall be suspended until 31 August 1994.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 2 June 1994.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 June 1994.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 770/2007
of 29 June 2007
on the allocation of import rights for applications lodged for the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 529/2007 for frozen meat of bovine animals
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),
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,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 529/2007 of 11 May 2007 opening and providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for frozen meat of bovine animals covered by CN code 0202 and products covered by CN code 0206 29 91 (1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008) (3) opens an import tariff quota for beef and veal products.
(2)
The applications for import rights lodged for the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 relate to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import rights may be allocated 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 right applications covered by the quota with the serial number 09.4003 have been lodged for the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 under Regulation (EC) No 529/2007 shall be multiplied by an allocation coefficient of 14,840062 %.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 June 2007.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 June 2007.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 22 April 1996 amending Decision 92/452/EEC establishing lists of embryo collection teams and embryo production teams approved in third countries for export of bovine embryos to the Community (Text with EEA relevance) (96/312/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 89/556/EEC of 25 September 1989 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species (1), as last amended by Directive 94/113/EC (2), and in particular Article 8 (1) thereof,
Whereas Commission Decision 92/452/EEC (3), as last amended by Decision 96/97/EC (4), establishes lists of embryo collection teams and embryo production teams approved in third countries for export of bovine embryos to the Community;
Whereas the competent authorities of the United States of America have forwarded amendments to their list of embryo collection teams;
Whereas it is now necessary to amend the list of approved teams as regards the United States of America;
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
In part 3 of the Annex to Decision 92/452/EEC, in respect of the United States of America:
(a) the following team is added:
TABLE
(b) the following teams are deleted:
TABLE
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 April 1996.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION 2005/447/CFSP
of 14 March 2005
concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Argentine Republic on the participation of the Argentine Republic in the European Union military crisis management operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Operation Althea)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 24 thereof,
Having regard to the recommendation from the Presidency,
Whereas:
(1)
On 12 July 2004, the Council adopted Joint Action 2004/570/CFSP on the European Union military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1).
(2)
Article 11(3) of that Joint Action provides that detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third States are to be the subject of an agreement, in accordance with Article 24 of the Treaty on European Union.
(3)
Following authorisation by the Council on 13 September 2004, the Presidency, assisted by the Secretary-General/High Representative, negotiated an Agreement between the European Union and the Argentine Republic on the participation of the Argentine Republic in the European Union military crisis management operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Operation Althea).
(4)
The Agreement should be approved,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The Agreement between the European Union and the Argentine Republic on the participation of the Argentine Republic in the European Union military crisis management operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Operation Althea) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.
The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.
Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the European Union.
Article 3
This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.
Article 4
This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Done at Brussels, 14 March 2005.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 206/2003
of 3 February 2003
on the supply of cereals as food aid
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/96 of 27 June 1996 on food-aid policy and food-aid management and special operations in support of food security(1), as modified by Regulation (EC) No 1726/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council(2), and in particular Article 24(1)(b) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The abovementioned Regulation lays down the list of countries and organisations eligible for Community aid and specifies the general criteria on the transport of food aid beyond the fob stage.
(2) Following the taking of a number of decisions on the allocation of food aid, the Commission has allocated cereals to certain beneficiaries.
(3) It is necessary to make these supplies in accordance with the rules laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2519/97 of 16 December 1997 laying down general rules for the mobilisation of products to be supplied under Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/96 as Community food aid(3). It is necessary to specify the time limits and conditions of supply to determine the resultant costs,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Cereals shall be mobilised in the Community, as Community food aid for supply to the recipient listed in the Annex, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2519/97 and under the conditions set out in the Annex.
The 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 Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 February 2003.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 30 April 1986
on the Guidelines for the Management of the European Social Fund in the financial years 1987 to 1989
(86/221/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Decision 85/516/EEC of 17 October 1983 on the tasks of the Euroepan Social Fund (1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,
Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the European Social Fund,
Whereas the Commission adopts, before 1 May of each year and for the three following financial years, the Fund Management Guidelines for determining those operations which reflect Community priorities as defined by the Council and in particular the action programmes in the area of employment and vocational training;
Whereas the Member States have been consulted and the Parliament has expressed its views in the resolution of 11 March 1986,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The Guidelines of the Management of the European Social Fund for 1987 to 1989 as annexed to the present decision.
Done at Brussels, 30 April 1986.
|
[
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2662/85
of 20 September 1985
making the importation of certain textile products originating in Turkey subject to quantitative limitation
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Reglation (EEC) No 1842/71 (1), and in particular Article 1 thereof,
After consultation within the Advisory Committee established by Article 3 of that Regulation,
Whereas imports of textile products on the Community market have during recent years given rise to market disturbance and are causing serious damage to Community producers resulting in the closure of factories and considerable loss of employment;
Whereas, in consequence of this situation , imports of certain textile products originating in the majority of low-cost supplier countries are at present subject to a Community system of authorization and quantitative limitation;
Whereas the extremely rapid increase in recent years of imports into the Community of T-shirts (category 4), jerseys (category 5), trousers (category 6), shirts (category 8), underpants (category 13), bed linen (category 20), dresses (category 26) and outer garments (category 83) originating in Turkey have helped to exacerbate the cumulative disturbance of the Community market; whereas the Community has already made imports of such products subject to Community or regional quantitative limits;
Whereas the quantities of products covered by import documents already issued between 1 July and 10 September 1985 under the surveillance system introduced in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2819/79 (2), as last amended and extended by Regulation (EEC) No 3551/84 (3) showed the following percentage increases by comparison to the quantitative limits laid down by the Community in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3639/84 (4) for the same categories in the period 1 January to 30 June 1985: T-shirts category 4) 92 %, trousers (category 6) 115 %, outer garments (category 83) 130 %;
Whereas in the first six months of 1985 imports into the Community of jerseys (category 5), shirts (category 8) and bed linen (category 20) originating in Turkey amounted to 78 %, 71 % and 59 % respectively of 1984 imports;
Whereas this situation makes it necessary to take immediate action in order to avoid irreparable injury to producers in the Community as currently composed;
Whereas it is therefore necessary to adopt, pursuant to Article 60 of the Additional Protocol to the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey, the protective measures needed to overcome these difficulties;
Whereas in the first six months of 1985 imports into Germany of socks (category 12) originating in Turkey amounted to 600 % of 1984 imports;
Whereas in the first six months of 1985 imports into Germany of underpants (category 13) originating in Turkey amounted to 318 % of 1984 imports; whereas in the first seven months of 1985 imports into the United Kingdom of the same products amounted to 127 % of 1984 imports;
Whereas in the first seven months of 1985 imports into France and the United Kingdom of dresses (category 26) amounted respectively to 130 % and 107 % of 1984 imports;
Whereas the volume of this increase makes it necessary to take immediate action aimed at avoiding irreparable damage to producers in France, Germany and the United Kingdom; whereas it therefore justifies the adoption, pursuant to Article 60 of the Additional Protocol to the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey, of the safeguard measures needed to overcome these difficulties;
Whereas the cumulative disturbance of the Community market should not be exacerbated by a concentration of imports in the initial period of application of quantitative restrictions; whereas imports to the Community should be as regularly phased as possible,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. The importation into the Community of the textile products of categories 4, 5, 6, 8, 20 and 83 listed in Annex I, originating in Turkey, shall be subject to the quantitative limits fixed therein.
2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply to products which have been placed on board and are in the course of shipment to the Community before the entry into force of this Regulation.
Article 2
1. The importation into Germany of the textile products of category 12 listed in Annex II, originating in Turkey, shall be subject to the quantitative limits fixed therein.
2. The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not apply to products which have been placed on board and are in the course of shipment to Germany before the entry into force of this Regulation.
Article 3
1. The importation into Germany and the United Kingdom of the textile products of category 13 listed in Annex II, originating in Turkey, shall be subject to the quantitative limits fixed therein.
2. The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not apply to products which have been placed on board and are in the course of shipment to Germany and the United Kingdom before the entry into force of this Regulation.
Article 4
1. The importation into France and the United Kingdom of the textile products of category 26 listed in Annex II, originating in Turkey, shall be subject to the quantitative limits fixed therein.
2. The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not apply to products which have been placed on board and are in the course of shipment to France and the United Kingdom before the entry into force of this Regulation.
Article 5
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply until 31 July 1986.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 September 1985.
|
[
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.