utterance
stringlengths 594
850k
| label
sequencelengths 11
11
|
|---|---|
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1313/97 of 8 July 1997 altering, for the 1997/98 marketing year, the adjustment aid and additional aid to the sugar refining industry
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1599/96 (2), and in particular Article 36 (6) thereof,
Whereas Article 36 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 provides that during the 1995/96 to 2000/01 marketing years adjustment aid of ECU 0,10 per 100 kilograms of sugar expressed as white sugar is to be granted as an intervention measure to the Community's imported preferential raw cane sugar refining industry; whereas, as provided for in those provisions, additional aid equal to that amount is to be granted during the same period for the refining of raw cane sugar produced in the French overseas departments;
Whereas Aricle 36 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 provides that the adjustment aid and the additional aid referred to above shall be altered in respect of a given marketing year in the light of the storage levy fixed for that year and previous adjustments; whereas the storage levy for the 1997/98 marketing year was fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1208/97 (3) at ECU 2,00 per 100 kilograms of white sugar; whereas that amount is less than that applicable for the 1996/97 marketing year; whereas, after taking into account previous adjustments, the amount of these aids should consequently be fixed for the 1997/98 marketing year at ECU 2,92 per 100 kilograms of sugar exported as white sugar;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The amounts of the adjustment aid and of the additional aid provided for respectively in paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 36 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 shall be fixed at ECU 2,92 per 100 kilograms of sugar expressed as white sugar for the 1997/98 marketing year.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 1 July 1997.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 8 July 1997. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 936/2008
of 24 September 2008
correcting Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultrymeat
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), and in particular Article 121(e) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 (2) as published contains an error. For pre-packaged poultry cuts, the tolerable negative error for nominal weights in excess of 2 400 g should be the same as for nominal weights of between 1 100 g and 2 400 g.
(2)
Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 should therefore be corrected accordingly.
(3)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
In Article 9(9) of Regulation (EC) No 543/2008, the table is hereby replaced by the following table:
(grams)
‘Nominal weight
Tolerable negative error
carcases
cuts
less than 1 100
25
25
1 100 to 2 400
50
50
2 400 and more
100
50’
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 July 2008.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 September 2008. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
DIRECTIVE 94/11/EC OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL of 23 March 1994 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to labelling of the materials used in the main components of footwear for sale to the consumer
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and in particular Article 100a thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (2),
Acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189b of the Treaty,
Whereas in certain Member States there exist Regulations on footwear labelling which are designed to protect and inform the public as well as to secure the legitimate interests of industry;
Whereas the disparity of such Regulations risks creating barriers to trade within the Community, thereby prejudicing the functioning of the internal market;
Whereas, in order to avoid problems due to different systems, the items of a common labelling system for footwear should be precisely defined;
Whereas the Council resolution of 9 November 1989 on future priorities for relaunching consumer protection policy (3) calls for efforts to improve consumer information on products;
Whereas it is in the interests of both consumers and the footwear industry to introduce a system reducing the risk of fraud by indicating the exact nature of the materials used in the main components of footwear;
Whereas, in Council resolution of 5 April 1993 on future action on the labelling of products in the interest of the consumer (4), labelling is deemed to be one important means of achieving better information and transparency for the consumer and of ensuring that the internal market functions harmoniously;
Whereas the harmonization of national legislation is the appropriate way of removing these barriers to free trade; whereas that objective cannot be satisfactorily achieved by the individual Member States; whereas this Directive establishes only those requirements which are indispensable for the free movement of the products to which it applies,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
1. This Directive shall apply to the labelling of the materials used in the main components of footwear for sale to the consumer.
For the purposes of this Directive, 'footwear' shall mean all articles with applied soles designed to protect or cover the foot, including parts marketed separately as referred to in Annex I.
A non-exhaustive list of the products covered by the Directive appears in Annex II.
The following shall be excluded from the Directive:
- second-hand, worn footwear,
- protective footwear covered by Directive 89/686/EEC (5),
- footwear covered by Directive 76/769/EEC (6),
- toy footwear.
2. Information on the composition of footwear shall be conveyed by means of labelling as specified in Article 4.
(i) The labelling shall convey information relating to the three parts of the footwear as defined in Annex I, namely:
(a) the upper;
(b) the lining and sock; and (c) the outersole.
(ii) The composition of the footwear shall be indicated as specified in Article 4 on the basis either of pictograms or of written indications for specific materials, as stipulated in Annex I.
(iii) In the case of the upper, classification of the materials shall be determined on the basis of the provisions contained in Article 4 (1) and in Annex I, no account being taken of accessories or reinforcements such as ankle patches, edging, ornamentation, buckles, tabs, eyelet stays or similar attachments.
(iv) In the case of the outersole, classification shall be based on the volume of the materials contained therein, in accordance with Article 4.
Article 2
1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that all footwear placed on the market meets the labelling requirements of this Directive without prejudice to other relevant Community provisions.
2. Where footwear not in conformity with the provisions regarding labelling requirements is placed on the market, the competent Member State shall take appropriate action as specified in its national legislation.
Article 3
Without prejudice to other relevant Community provisions, Member States shall not prohibit or impede the placing on the market of footwear which complies with the labelling requirements of this Directive, by the application of unharmonized national provisions governing the labelling of certain types of footwear or of footwear in general.
Article 4
1. The labelling shall provide information on the material, determined in accordance with Annex I, which constitutes at least 80 % of the surface area of the upper, and the lining and sock, of the footwear, and at least 80 % of the volume of the outersole. If no one material accounts for at least 80 %, information should be given on the two main materials used in the composition of the footwear.
2. The information shall be conveyed on the footwear. The manufacturer or his authorized agent established in the Community may choose either pictograms or written indications in at least the language or languages which may be determined by the Member State of consumption in accordance with the Treaty, as defined and illustrated in Annex I. Member States, in their national provisions shall ensure that consumers are adequately informed of the meaning of these pictograms, while ensuring that such provisions do not create trade barriers.
3. For the purpose of this Directive, labelling shall involve affixing the required information to at least one article of footwear in each pair. This may be done by printing, sticking, embossing or using an attached label.
4. The labelling must be visible, securely attached and accessible and the dimensions of the pictograms must be sufficiently large to make it easy to understand the information contained therein. It must not be possible for the labelling to mislead the consumer.
5. The manufacturer or his authorized agent established in the Community shall be responsible for supplying the label and for the accuracy of the information contained therein. If neither the manufacturer nor his authorized agent is established in the Community, this obligation shall fall on the person responsible for first placing the footwear on the Community market. The retailer shall remain responsible for ensuring that the footwear sold by him bears the appropriate labelling prescribed by this Directive.
Article 5
Additional textual information, affixed, should the need arise, to the labelling may accompany the information required under this Directive. However, Member States may not prohibit or impede the placing on the market of footwear conforming to the requirements of this Directive, in accordance with Article 3.
Article 6
1. Member States shall adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 23 September 1995 at the latest. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
2. Member States shall apply the measures referred to in paragraph 1 from 23 March 1995. Stock invoiced or delivered to the retailer before that date shall not be subject to the said measures until 23 September 1997.
3. When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such a reference shall be laid down by the Member States.
4. The Commission shall submit to the Council, three years after this Directive has been brought into application, an assessment report taking into consideration any difficulties which may have been encountered by operators where implementing the provisions of this Directive and shall present, should the need arise, appropriate proposals for review.
Article 7
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 March 1994. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2330/2002
of 23 December 2002
amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2002 opening an invitation to tender for the refund for the export of rye to all third countries except Hungary, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia
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),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1163/2002(4), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Negotiations for the adoption of trade agreements between the Community and Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia establishing certain concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas for a number of agricultural products and the total liberalisation of trade in other agricultural products have been concluded. One of the concessions is the abolition of refunds in the cereals sector. This relates in particular to rye.
(2) In order that these agreements may be adopted and in the interests of clarifying the export conditions for all operators in the cereals sector at the start of 2003, in particular given the duration of export licences, the refunds for rye should be abolished from 1 January 2003.
(3) The destinations provided for in Regulation (EC) No 900/2002(5), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1632/2002(6), should therefore be amended.
(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
Regulation (EC) No 900/2002 is hereby amended as follows:
1. The title is replaced by the following:
"Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2002 of 30 May 2002 opening an invitation to tender for the refund for the export of rye to all third countries except Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia."
2. Article 1(2) is replaced by the following:
"2. The tendering procedure shall concern rye for export to all third countries except Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia."
3. The title of Annex I is replaced by the following:
"Weekly tender for the refund for the export of rye to all third countries except Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia."
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 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 December 2002. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2459/94 of 11 October 1994 establishing administration procedures for the first tranche of the 1995 quantitative quotas for certain products originating in the People's Republic of China
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 520/94 of 7 March 1994 establishing a Community procedure for administering quantitative quotas (1), and in particular Article 2 (3) and (4), and Articles 13 and 24 thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94 of 7 March 1994 on common rules for imports from certain third countries and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 1765/82, (EEC) No 1766/82 and (EEC) No 3420/83 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1921/94 (3), introduced annual quantitative quotas for certain products originating in the People's Republic of China listed in Annex II to that Regulation; whereas the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 520/94 establishing a Community procedure for administering quantitative quotas are applicable to those quotas;
Whereas the Commission accordingly adopted Regulation (EC) No 738/94 laying down general rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 520/94 (4), whereas these provisions apply to the administration of the above quotas subject to the provisions of this Regulation;
Whereas certain characteristics of China's economy, the seasonal nature of some of the products and the time needed for transport mean that orders for products subject to quota are generally placed before the beginning of the quota year; whereas it is therefore important to ensure that administrative constraints do not impede the realization of the planned imports; whereas in order not to affect the continuity of trade flows, the arrangements for allocating and administering the 1995 quotas should accordingly be adopted before the start of the quota year;
Whereas it is also necessary, in laying down such measures, to look ahead to the accession to the European Union of new Member States under the Treaty concerning the accession of Norway, Austria, Finland and Sweden to the European Union (5); whereas the need for continuity of trade applies equally to importers in the acceding States, who will be subject to the quotas from 1 January 1995;
Whereas proper means should be provided for, to allow the importers in the acceding States to have access to the 1995 quotas on the terms set for Community importers under Regulations (EC) No 520/94, (EC) No 738/94 and this Regulation, subject to such adjustments as are necessary to take account of the specific position of importers in the acceding States prior to 1 January 1995;
Whereas the Governments of Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden have undertaken to adopt suitable measures to ensure compliance with the terms of the above Regulations, with particular reference to the rules for submission of import applications and supporting evidence, and to inform the Commission within the deadlines laid down by this Regulation of the relevant particulars of import applications received, with a view to the establishment of quantitative criteria for the allocation of quotas to importers;
Whereas compliance with the said rules will enable the Commission to determine the quantitative criteria for the allocation of the 1995 quotas, taking account of the participation of the importers in the acceding States, without prejudice to and on the date of entry into force of the Accession Treaty;
Whereas it is desirable to restrict the advance allocation of quotas, in accordance with Article 2 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 520/94, to an initial tranche representing 75 % by volume/value of the annual quotas set by Regulation (EC) No 519/94;
Whereas the second tranche of the quotas will be allocated without delay in the light of adjustments made by the Council to reflect the trade patterns of the new Member States;
Whereas after examination of the different administrative methods provided for by Regulation (EC) No 520/94, the method based on traditional trade flows should be adopted; whereas under this method quotas tranches are divided into two portions, one of which is reserved for traditional importers and the other for other applicants;
Whereas this method ensures a smooth transition between the previous system, which was marked by disparities between the Member States' import arrangements for the products concerned, and the uniform system resulting from the introduction of the Community quotas in question;
Whereas this method takes account of the traditional import trade flows formed under the previous system; whereas, however, the introduction of a Community system must ensure progressive access by non-traditional importers; whereas the portion set aside for other applicants must make due allowance for the disparities in the above import arrangements in accordance with Article 6 (4) of Regulation (EC) No 520/94; whereas in the light of all these factors a balance must therefore be sought in determining the portion to be allocated to the two categories of importers;
Whereas the 1991/92 reference period used for the apportionment of the 1994 quota should again be applied to the allocation of the share set aside for traditional importers, since it continues to reflect the normal trend of traditional trade flows established under the previous arrangements;
Whereas, however, it is necessary to simplify the formalities to be fulfilled by traditional importers who already hold import licences issued when the 1994 quotas were allocated under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1012/94 of 29 April 1994 establishing the allocations to traditional importers from the Community quantitative quotas on certain products originating in the People's Republic of China (6); whereas the competent administrative authorities already possess the requisite evidence for all traditional importers; whereas the latter need only enclose a copy of their previous licences with their new licence applications;
Whereas it has been found in the past that the method provided for in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 520/94, which is based on the order in which applications are submitted, may not be an appropriate way of allocating that portion of the quota reserved for non-traditional importers; whereas, consequently, in accordance with Article 2 (4) of Regulation (EC) No 520/94, an alternative method of apportioning the quota should be determined; whereas, to this end, it is appropriate to provide for allocation in proportion to the quantities requested, on the basis of a simultaneous examination of import licence applications actually lodged, in accordance with Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 520/94;
Whereas in order to ensure that the quotas can be allocated and efficiently used any speculative applications should be excluded and it is furthermore necessary to allocate economically significant quantities; whereas, to this end, the amount that any non-traditional importer may request should be restricted to a set volume/value;
Whereas for the purpose of quota allocation, a time limit must be set for the submission of licence applications by traditional and other importers;
Whereas with a view to optimum use of quotas, licence applications for imports of footwear under quotas which refer to several CN headings must specify the quantities required for each CN heading;
Whereas the Member States must inform the Commission of the import licence applications received, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 520/94; whereas the information about traditional importers' previous imports must be broken down by reference year and expressed in the same units as the quota in question; whereas if the quota is is set in ecus, the counter-value of the currency in which previous imports are expressed must be calculated in accordance with
Article 18
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community customs code (7);
Whereas in view of the special nature of transactions concerning the products subject to quota the period of validity of import licences should be set at nine months starting from 1 January 1995;
Whereas these measures are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up under Regulation (EC) No 520/94 including, for these purposes, representatives of the acceding Sates participating with observer status,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Pursuant to Article 2 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 520/94 the quantitative quotas listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 519/94 shall be allocated for 1995 by tranches, the first of which shall be allocated to importers in accordance with this Regulation.
2. The volume/value of the first tranche of each quota is shown in Annex I.
3. Regulation (EC) No 738/94 laying down certain rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 520/94 shall be applicable subject to the provisions of this Regulation.
Article 2
1. The first tranche of each quota shall be allocated using the method based on traditional trade flows referred to in Article 2 (2) (a) of Regulation (EC) No 520/94.
2. The portions reserved respectively for traditional importers and other importers are shown in Annex II.
3. The portion set aside for non-traditional importers shall be allocated using the method based on allocation in proportion to quantities requested; the volume/value requested by a single importer may not exceed that shown in Annex III.
Article 3
Applications for import licences shall be lodged from the day following the day of publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Communities to 28 October 1994 at 3 p.m., Brussels time, with the competent authorities listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 738/94.
Article 4
1. For the purposes of allocating the portion of each quota tranche set aside for traditional importers, 'traditional' importers shall mean importers who can show that they have imported goods in the calendar year 1991 and 1992.
2. The evidence referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 520/94 shall relate to the release for free circulation during calendar years 1991 and 1992 of products originating in the People's Republic of China which are covered by the quota tranche for which the application is made.
3. Instead of the evidence referred to in the first indent of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 520/94:
- applicants may enclose with their licence applications documents drawn up and certified by the competent national authorities on the basis of available customs information as evidence of the imports of the product in question during calendar years 1991 and 1992 carried out by themselves or, where applicable, by the operator whose activities they have taken over,
- applicants already holding import licences issued under Regulation (EC) No 1012/94 for the same products as those covered by the quota instalment may enclose a copy of their previous licences with their licence applications. In that case they shall indicate in their licence application the aggregate value of imports of the product in question in each of the years in the reference period.
4. Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 shall apply where evidence is expressed in foreign currency.
Article 5
Member States shall inform the Commission no later than 7 November 1994 at 10 a.m., Brussels time, of the number and aggregate volume of the import licence applications and, in the case of applications from traditional importers, of the volume of previous imports carried out by traditional importers during each year of the reference period referred to in Article 4 (1) of this Regulation.
Article 6
1. On 11 November 1994 at the latest, the Commission shall adopt the quantitative criteria according to which importers' applications are to be met by the competent national authorities.
2. The Commission shall notify the acceding States of its decision.
Article 7
Import licences shall be valid for nine months, starting on 1 January 1995.
Article 8
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, 11 October 1994. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 868/2008
of 3 September 2008
on the farm return to be used for determining the incomes of agricultural holdings and analysing the business operation of such holdings
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Regulation No 79/65/EEC of the Council of 15 June 1965 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Economic Community (1), and in particular Articles 6(2), 7(3) and 12(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
The type, definition and presentation of the accountancy data referred to in Article 7 of Regulation No 79/65/EEC and collected by means of the farm return drawn up for the purpose of reliably determining the incomes of agricultural holdings must be identical, irrespective of the returning holdings surveyed. For reasons of simplification and data readability, provision should also be made for that individual return to include additional particulars and details meeting the specific requirements of an analysis of the business operation of the agricultural holdings selected under Article 11 of that Regulation. In that case, the farm return should also be considered as a special farm return, as referred to in Article 12(1).
(2)
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2237/77 of 23 September 1977 on the form of farm return to be used for the purpose of determining incomes of agricultural holdings (2) lays down rules on the collection of accountancy data.
(3)
The data collected by means of the farm return should take account of the experience acquired since the network was set up and of developments in the common agricultural policy and should comply with the definitions laid down in the relevant regulations, and in particular Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (3), Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (4), Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (5), Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (6) as regards areas eligible for aid under the Structural Funds, and 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 as regards certain products in this sector (Single CMO Regulation) (7).
(4)
Regulation (EEC) No 2237/77 should therefore be adapted to take account of developments in the common agricultural policy, in the type of information required for analysing data and in information communication techniques since that Regulation was adopted. For reasons of clarity and rationality, that Regulation should be replaced.
(5)
Duly completed farm returns should be sent to the Commission by the liaison agency appointed by each Member State, in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation No 79/65/EEC. To that end, provision should be made for the liaison agency to send the information concerned direct to the Commission via the computerised system set up by the Commission and for that system to allow the requisite information to be exchanged electronically on the basis of the models made available to the liaison agency via that system. Provision should also be made for the Commission to inform Member States of the general conditions for implementing the computerised system via the Community Committee on the farm accountancy data network.
(6)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Community Committee for the farm accountancy data network,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Farm returns and accountancy data
1. The nature and form of presentation of the accountancy data required for the annual determination of the incomes of holdings and analysis of their business operation in accordance with Chapters II and III of Regulation No 79/65/EEC are laid down in Annex I to this Regulation.
2. Definitions and instructions relating to the data referred to in paragraph 1 are laid down in Annex II.
Article 2
Transmission to the Commission
1. The farm returns and data referred to in Article 1 shall be transmitted to the Commission by the liaison agency referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 79/65/EEC via the computerised system set up by the Commission and made available to the Member States for the electronic exchange of information.
2. Member States shall be informed of the general conditions for implementing the computerised system referred to in paragraph 1 via the Community Committee for the farm accountancy data network.
The form and content of the farm return shall be defined on the basis of a model and the instructions required for drawing it up. That model shall be adapted and updated by the Commission via the computerised system after the Committee referred to in the first subparagraph has been informed.
Article 3
Repeal
Regulation (EEC) No 2237/77 is hereby repealed.
References made to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex III.
Article 4
Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from the 2009 accounting year.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 September 2008. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 24 October 2005
concerning certain protection measures in relation to a suspicion of highly pathogenic avian influenza in Croatia
(notified under document number C(2005) 4229)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2005/749/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (1), and in particular Article 18(1) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (2), and in particular Article 22(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Avian influenza is an infectious viral disease in poultry and birds, causing mortality and disturbances which can quickly take epizootic proportions liable to present a serious threat to animal and public health and to reduce sharply the profitability of poultry farming. There is a risk that the disease agent might be introduced via international trade in live poultry and poultry products.
(2)
Croatia has notified to the Commission the isolation of an H5 avian influenza virus collected from a clinical case in a wild species. The clinical picture allows the suspicion of highly pathogenic avian influenza pending the determination of the neuraminidase (N) type and of the pathogenicity index.
(3)
In view of the animal health risk of disease introduction into the Community, it is therefore appropriate as an immediate measure to suspend imports of live poultry, ratites, farmed and wild feathered game birds, live birds other than poultry and hatching eggs of these species from Croatia.
(4)
As Croatia is authorised for imports of game trophies, eggs for human consumption and untreated feathers, imports into the Community of these products should be suspended as well because of the animal health risk involved.
(5)
Furthermore the importation into the Community from Croatia should be suspended for fresh meat of wild feathered game and importation of meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing meat of those species.
(6)
Certain products derived from poultry slaughtered before 1 August 2005 should also continue to be authorised, taking into account the incubation period of the disease.
(7)
Commission Decision 2005/432/EC of 3 June 2005 laying down the animal and public health conditions and model certificates for imports of meat products for human consumption from third countries and repealing Decisions 97/41/EC, 97/221/EC and 97/222/EC (3) lays down the list of third countries from which Member States may authorise the importation of meat products and establishes treatment regimes considered effective in inactivating the respective pathogens. In order to prevent the risk of disease transmission via such products, appropiate treatment must be applied depending on the health status of the country of origin and the species the product is obtained from. It appears therefore appropriate, that imports of wild feathered game meat products originating in Croatia and treated to a temperature of at least 70 °C throughout the product should continue to be authorised.
(8)
The measures provided for in this Decision shall be reviewed at the next meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. Member States shall suspend the importation from the territory of Croatia of:
-
live poultry, ratites, farmed and wild feathered game, live birds other than poultry as defined in Article 1, third indent, of Decision 2000/666/EC, including birds accompanying their owners (pet birds), and hatching eggs of these species,
-
fresh meat of wild feathered game,
-
meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing meat of wild feathered game,
-
raw pet food and unprocessed feed material containing any parts of wild feathered game,
-
eggs for human consumption,
-
non-treated game trophies from any birds, and
-
unprocessed feathers and parts of feathers.
2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States shall authorise the importation of the products covered by paragraph 1 second to fourth indent, which have been obtained from birds slaughtered before 1 August 2005.
3. In the veterinary certificates/commercial documents accompanying consignments of the products referred to in paragraph 2 the following words as appropriate to the species shall be included:
‘Fresh poultry meat/fresh ratite meat/fresh meat of wild feathered game/fresh meat of farmed feathered game/meat product consisting of, or containing meat of poultry, ratites, farmed or wild feathered game meat/meat preparation consisting of, or containing meat of poultry, ratites, farmed or wild feathered game meat/raw pet food and unprocessed feed material containing any parts of poultry, ratites, farmed or wild feathered game (4) obtained from birds slaughtered before 1 August 2005 and in accordance with Article 1(2) of Commission Decision 2005/749/EC.
4. By derogation from paragraph 1, Member States shall authorise the importation of meat products consisting of or containing meat of wild feathered game under the condition that the meat of these species has undergone at least one of the specific treatments referred to under points B, C or D in Part IV of Annex II to Decision 2005/432/EC.
Article 2
Member States shall ensure that for the importation of processed feathers or parts of feathers, a commercial document stating that the processed feathers or parts thereof have been treated with a steam current or by some other method ensuring that no pathogens are transmitted accompany the consignment.
However, that commercial document shall not be required for processed decorative feathers, processed feathers carried by travellers for their private use or consignments of processed feathers sent to private individuals for non-industrial purpose.
Article 3
Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to comply with this Decision and publish those measures. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 24 October 2005. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3103/90 of 26 October 1990 laying down detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements provided for by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2935/90 in the beef and veal sector
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2935/90 of 9 October 1990 opening for 1990, as an autonomous measure, a special import tariff quota for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal falling within CN codes 0201 and 0202 and for products falling within CN codes 0206 10 95 and 0206 29 91 (1), and in particular Article 2 thereof,
Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 2935/90 opened a tariff quota for high-quality beef and veal; whereas the rules for the application of these arrangements must be established;
Whereas the exporting non-member countries have undertaken to issue certificates of authenticity guaranteeing the origin of these products; whereas the form and layout of these certificates and the procedures for using them must be specified;
Whereas the certificate of authenticity must be issued by an appropriate authority in a non-member country, the standing of which is such as to ensure that the special arrangements are properly applied;
Whereas provision must be made for the Member States to transmit relevant information in connection with these special imports;
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
The special tariff quota for fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal provided for in Article 1 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2935/90 shall be allocated as follows:
(a) 1 000 tonnes of chilled boned meat, falling within CN codes 0201 30 and 0206 19 05 and answering the following definition:
'Special or good-quality beef cuts obtained from exclusively pasture-grazed animals, aged between 22 and 24 months, having two permanent incisors and presenting a slaughter liveweight not exceeding 460 kilograms, referred to as "special boxed beef", cuts of which may bear the letters "sc" (special cuts)';
(b) 1 000 tonnes of boned meat, falling within CN codes 0201 30, 0202 30 90, 0206 10 95 and 0206 29 91 and answering the following definition:
'Special or good-quality beef cuts obtained from exclusively pasture-grazed animals presenting a slaughter liveweight not exceeding 460 kilograms, referred to as "special boxed beef". These cuts may bear the letters "sc" (special cuts)';
(c) 1 000 tonnes product weight of boned meat falling within CN codes 0201 30, 0202 30 90, 0206 10 95 and 0206 29 91 and and answering the following definition:
'Beef cuts obtained from steers (novilhos) or heifers (novilhas) aged between 20 and 24 months, which have been exclusively pasture grazed, have lost their central temporary incisors but do not have more than four permanent incisor teeth, which are of good maturity and which meet the following beef-carcase classification requirements:
meat from B or R class carcases with rounded to straight conformation and a fat-cover class of 2 or 3; the cuts, bearing the letters "sc" (special cuts) or an "sc" (special cuts) label as a sign of their high quality, will be boxed in cartons bearing the words "high-quality beef"'.
Article 2
1. The total suspension of the import levy for the meat referred to in Article 1 shall be subject to the presentation, at the time it is put into free circulation, of a certificate of authenticity.
2. The certificate of authenticity shall be made out in one original and not less than one copy on a form corresponding to the model in Annex I.
The form shall measure approximately 210 × 297 mm. The paper shall weigh not less than 40 g/m2 and shall be white.
3. The forms shall be printed and completed in one of the official languages of the Community and also, if desired, in the official language or one of the official languages of the exporting country.
The appropriate definition under Article 1 relative to the meat originating from the exporting country shall be shown on the back of the form.
4. The particulars on the original and the copies shall be either typewritten or handwritten. In the latter case they must be printed in block capitals.
5. Each certificate of authenticity shall bear an individual serial number assigned by the issuing authority referred to in Article 4. The copies shall bear the same serial number as the original.
Article 3
1. The certificate of authenticity shall be valid for three months from the date it was issued.
The original certificate of authenticity and one copy shall be presented to the customs authority when the product covered by the certificate is put into free circulation.
However, the certificate may not be presented after 31 December of its year of issue.
2. The copy of the certificate of authenticity referred to in paragraph 1 shall be sent by the customs authorities of the Member State in which the product is placed in free circulation to the designated authorities of that Member State responsible for the communication under Article 6 (1).
Article 4
1. A certificate of authenticity shall be valid only if it is duly completed and endorsed, in accordance with the instruction in Annexes I and II, by one of the issuing authorities listed in Annex II.
2. The certificate of authenticity shall be deemed to have been duly endorsed if it specifies the date and place of issue and if it bears the stamp of the issuing authority and the signature of the person or persons empowered to sign it.
The stamp may be replaced on the original certificate of authenticity and its copies by a printed seal.
Article 5
1. The issuing authorities listed in Annex II shall:
(a) be recognized as competent by the exporting country;
(b) undertake to check the particulars set out in the certificates of authenticity;
(c) undertake to communicate to the Commission and to the Member States, on request, any useful information enabling the particulars set out in the certificates of authenticity to be evaluated.
2. The list shall be amended if the requirement in paragraph 1 (a) is no longer met or if an issuing authority fails to fulfil one of the obligations incumbent on it.
Article 6
1. The Member States shall communicate to the Commission, in respect of each period of 10 days, not later than 15 days after that period, the quantities of products referred to in Article 1 that have been put into free circulation, broken down by their country of origin and tariff subheading.
2. Under this Regulation the period of 10 days means:
- from the first to the 10th of the month inclusive,
- from the 11th to the 20th of the month inclusive,
- from the 21st to the last day of the month inclusive.
Article 7
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, 26 October 1990. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 20 March 2001
laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Decision 2000/596/EC as regards the eligibility of expenditure and reports on implementation in the context of actions co-financed by the European Refugee Fund
(notified under document number C(2001) 736)
(2001/275/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Decision 2000/596/EC of 28 September 2000 establishing a European Refugee Fund(1), and in particular Article 14(2), Article 20(3) and Article 24(2) thereof,
Having consulted the Advisory Committee referred to in Article 21(1) of Decision 2000/596/EC,
Whereas:
(1) In order to ensure the efficient implementation of the Fund in the Community, in accordance with the principles of sound management, a series of common rules should be adopted on the eligibility of expenditure from the Fund.
(2) In order to ensure that the reports required under Article 20(2) of Decision 2000/596/EC serve the purpose of securing proper monitoring of the implementation of the Fund, standard models should be produced,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
CHAPTER 1
Scope
Article 1
This Decision shall apply to the co-financing of implementation programmes provided for in Article 8 of Decision 2000/596/EC, which are managed by the Member States.
Article 2
For the purposes of this Decision:
(a) "measure" shall mean one of the areas referred to in Article 4 of Decision 2000/596/EC;
(b) "action" shall mean the means whereby a Member State implements the measures referred to in point (a) to achieve the objective of the European Refugee Fund. An action may consist of several different projects;
(c) "project" shall mean the specific, practical means deployed to implement all or part of an action by the beneficiaries of subsidies. Each project will have a well-defined description, duration, budget, goals, staff assigned to it, and will be implemented by a named organisation, or a group of organisations;
(d) "beneficiaries of subsidies" shall mean the organisations (NGOs, federal, national, regional or local authorities, other non-profit organisations) responsible for implementing projects.
CHAPTER 2
Rules on eligibility
Article 3
The rules set out in Annex I to this Decision shall be used to determine the eligibility of expenditure under the implementing programmes referred to in Article 8 of Decision 2000/596/EC.
The provisions of this Decision shall not prevent Member States from applying stricter national eligibility rules than those contained in this Decision.
CHAPTER 3
Reports on implementation
Article 4
1. The summary report on implementation of the action in progress, referred to in Article 20(2) of Decision 2000/596/EC shall be presented using the model provided in Annex II.
2. The financial accounts and report on implementation of the action referred to in Article 20(3) of Decision 2000/596/EC shall be presented using the model provided in Annex III.
Article 5
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 March 2001. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 10 February 1998 amending Decision 97/569/EC on drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of meat products (Text with EEA relevance) (98/163/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third-country establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live bivalve molluscs (1), as amended by Decision 97/34/EC (2), and in particular Article 2(4) thereof,
Whereas provisional lists of establishments in third countries producing meat products have been drawn up by Commission Decision 97/569/EC (3), as last amended by Decision 98/9/EC (4);
Whereas Singapore, Slovenia and Switzerland have sent a list of establishments producing poultry meat products and for which the responsible authorities certify that the establishment is in accordance with the Community rules;
Whereas a provisional list of establishments producing poultry meat products can thus be drawn up for Singapore, Slovenia and Switzerland; whereas Decision 97/569/EC 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
The Annex to this Decision is added to the Annex to Decision 97/569/EC.
Article 2
This Decision shall apply from 1 February 1998.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 February 1998. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 20 April 2006
conferring management of aid implementing agencies for pre-accession measures in agriculture and rural development in Romania in the pre-accession period
(2006/298/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Council Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999 of 21 June 1999 on co-ordinating aid to the applicant countries in the framework of the pre-accession strategy and amending Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89 (1), and in particular Article 12(2) thereof,
Having regard to the 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 (2), and in particular Article 4(5) and (6) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
The Special Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development for Romania (hereinafter Sapard) was approved by Commission Decision C(2000) 3742 final of 12 December 2000, as last amended by Commission Decision C(2006) 1194 of 11 April 2006, in accordance with Article 4(5) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999.
(2)
The government of Romania and the Commission, acting on behalf of the European Community, signed on 2 February 2001 the Multi-Annual Financing Agreement laying down the technical, legal and administrative framework for the execution of Sapard, as last amended by the Annual Financing Agreement for 2004, signed on 12 May 2005, which finally entered into force on 3 November 2005.
(3)
The SAPARD Agency, public institution with legal status, in the subordination of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development has been appointed by the competent authority of Romania for the implementation of some of the measures defined in Sapard. The National Fund Department within the Ministry of Public Finance has been appointed for the financial functions it is due to perform in the framework of the implementation of Sapard.
(4)
On the basis of a case-by-case analysis of the national and sectorial programme/project management capacity, financial control procedures and structures regarding public finance, as provided for in Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999, the Commission adopted Decision 2002/638/EC of 31 July 2002 (3) and Decision 2003/846/EC of 5 December 2003 (4) conferring management of aid on implementing agencies for pre-accession measures in agriculture and rural development in Romania in the pre-accession period with regard to certain measures provided for in Sapard.
(5)
The Commission has undertaken a further analysis under Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999 in respect of measure 1.2 ‘Improving the structures for quality, veterinary and plant-health controls, for the quality of foodstuffs and consumer protection’; measure 3.2 ‘Setting-up producers’ groups’; measure 3.3 ‘Agricultural production methods designed to protect the environment and maintain the countryside’ and measure 3.5 ‘Forestry’ as provided for in Sapard. The Commission considers that, also with regard to those measures, Romania complies with the provisions of Articles 4 to 6 and of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000 of 7 June 2000 laying down financial 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 (5), and with the minimum conditions set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999.
(6)
It is therefore appropriate to waive the ex-ante approval requirement referred to in Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999 and to confer with regard to measure 1.2, measure 3.2, measure 3.3 and measure 3.5, on the SAPARD Agency and on the Ministry of Public Finance, National Fund, in Romania the management of aid on a decentralised basis.
(7)
However, since the verifications carried out by the Commission for measure 1.2, measure 3.2, measure 3.3 and measure 3.5 are based on a system that is not yet fully operating with regard to all relevant elements, it is therefore appropriate to confer the management of the SAPARD Programme on the SAPARD Agency and on the Ministry of Public Finance, National Fund, according to Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2222/2000, on a provisional basis.
(8)
Full conferral of management of the Sapard is only envisaged after further verifications, in order to ensure that the system operates satisfactorily, have been carried out and after any recommendations the Commission may issue, with regard to the conferral of management of aid on the SAPARD Agency, in the subordination of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, Waters and Environment and on the Ministry of Public Finance, National Fund, have been implemented.
(9)
On 6 October 2005 the Romanian Authorities proposed the rules for eligibility of expenditure for measure 1.2, measure 3.2 and measure 3.5, in accordance with Article 4(1) of Section B of the Multi-Annual Financing Agreement. The Commission is called upon to take a decision in this respect. Concerning measure 3.3, the rules for eligibility of expenditure are provided in the Sapard,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The requirement of ex-ante approval by the Commission of project selection and contracting for measure 1.2, measure 3.2, measure 3.3 and measure 3.5 by Romania provided for in Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1266/1999 is hereby waived.
Article 2
Management of the SAPARD Programme is conferred on a provisional basis to:
1.
The SAPARD Agency under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development, 43 Ştirbei Vodă, Sector 1, Bucharest, for the implementation of measure 1.2 ‘Improving the structures for quality, veterinary and plant-health controls, for the quality of foodstuffs and consumer protection’; measure 3.2 ‘Setting-up producers’ groups’; measure 3.3 ‘Agricultural production methods designed to protect the environment and maintain the countryside’ and measure 3.5 ‘Forestry’ as defined in the Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development that was approved by Commission Decision C(2000) 3742 final on 12 December 2000, as last amended by Commission Decision C(2006) 1194, adopted on 11 April 2006.
2.
The National Fund within the Ministry of Public Finance, 44 Mircea Vodă Bulevard, Bucharest, for the financial functions it is due to perform in the framework of the implementation of the SAPARD programme for measure 1.2, measure 3.2, measure 3.3 and measure 3.5 for Romania.
Article 3
Expenditure pursuant to this Decision shall be eligible for Community co-finance only if incurred by beneficiaries from the date of this Decision, or if later, the date of the instrument making them a beneficiary for the project in question, except for feasibility and related studies, where this date shall be 12 December 2000, provided in all cases it has not been paid by the SAPARD Agency prior to the date of this Decision.
Article 4
Without prejudice to any decisions granting aid under the Sapard to individual beneficiaries, the rules for eligibility of expenditure proposed by Romania by letter No 70832 of 22 September 2005 and registered in the Commission under No 29071, shall apply.
Done at Brussels, 20 April 2006. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1123/2009
of 23 November 2009
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,
Whereas:
Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 24 November 2009.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 November 2009. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 867/2007
of 23 July 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 24 July 2007.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 July 2007. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 13 October 2000
concerning the non-inclusion of chlozolinate in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing this active substance
(notified under document number C(2000) 3007)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2000/626/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(1), as last amended by Commission Directive 97/73/EC(2),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1199/97(4), and in particular Article 7(3a)(b) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 933/94(5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2230/95(6) has laid down the active substances of plant protection products, designated by the rapporteur Member States for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 and identified the notifiers for each active substance.
(2) Chlozolinate is one of the 90 active substances covered by the first stage of the work programme provided for in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC.
(3) In accordance with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92, Greece, being the designated rapporteur Member State, submitted to the Commission, on 3 November 1997 the report of its assessment of the information submitted by the sole notifier in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(1) of this Regulation.
(4) The submitted report has been reviewed by the Member States and the Commission within the Standing Committee on Plant Health. This review was finalised on 30 November 1999 in the format of the Commission review report for chlozolinate, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7(6) of Regulation (EC) No 3600/92.
(5) It has appeared from the assessments made that the submitted information is not sufficient to demonstrate that plant protection products containing the active substance concerned satisfy the requirements laid down in Articles 5(1)(a) and (b) and 5(2)(b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.
(6) The sole notifier informed the Commission and the rapporteur Member State that it no longer wished to participate in the programme of work for this active substance. Therefore, further information required to fully comply with the requirements of Directive 91/414/EEC will not be submitted.
(7) Therefore, it is not possible to include this active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.
(8) A period of grace for disposal, storage, placing on the market and use of existing stocks in accordance with the provisions of Article 4(6) of Directive 91/414/EEC has to be provided.
(9) This Decision does not prejudice any action the Commission may undertake at a later stage for this active substance within the framework of Council Directive 79/117/EEC(7).
(10) 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
Chlozolinate is not included as active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC.
Article 2
The Member States shall ensure:
1. that authorisations for plant protection products containing chlozolinate are withdrawn within a period of six months from the date of adoption of the present Decision;
2. that from the date of adoption of the present Decision no authorisations for plant protection products containing chlozolinate will be granted or renewed under the derogation provided for in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414/EEC.
Article 3
Member States shall grant a period of grace for disposal, storage, placing on the market and use of existing stocks in accordance with the provisions of Article 4(6) of Directive 91/414/EEC, which is as short as possible and not longer than 18 monhts from the date of the adoption of the present Decision.
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 13 October 2000. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 10 December 1993 concerning the grant of assistance from the cohesion financial instrument to a project concerning Palma airport (extension of apron and access to industrial zone) in Spain No CF: 93/11/65/033-034 (Only the Spanish text is authentic) (94/402/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 11 August 1993 Spain submitted an application for assistance from the cohesion financial instrument for a project concerning Palma airport (extension of apron and access to industrial zone);
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 (3) and (5) of the Regulation;
Whereas the project is a transport infrastructure project of common interest;
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 (EEC) No 792/93 and the provisions contained in Annex VI;
Whereas all the other conditions laid down, have been complied with,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The project concerning Palma airport (extension of apron and access to industrial zone) situated in Spain as described in Annex I hereto is hereby approved for the period from 1 January 1993 to 30 December 1993.
Article 2
1. The maximum eligible expenditure to be taken as the basis for this Decision shall be ECU 5 375 612.
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 4 300 489.
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 2 866 992.
Article 4
1. Community assistance shall cover expenditure on the project for which legally binding arrangements have been made in Spain and for which the requisite finance has been specifically allocated to works to be completed not later than 30 December 1993.
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 the Kingdom of Spain.
Done at Brussels, 10 December 1993. | [
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 2 May 2002
amending Decision 93/402/EEC concerning animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of fresh meat from South American countries, in particular as regards to Argentina
(notified under document number C(2002) 1582)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2002/338/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 14(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports into the Community of fresh meat from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and Uruguay are laid down by Commission Decision 93/402/EEC of 10 June 1993 concerning animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of fresh meat from South American countries(3), as last amended by Decision 2002/198/EC(4).
(2) Since the adoption of Decision 2002/198/EC, the epidemiological situation of foot-and-mouth disease in Argentina has been clarified in respect of the provinces of Chubut, Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego.
(3) The Argentinian authorities have provided the documentation concerning the serology testing plan and interim results. The Office International des Epizoties has proposed that those provinces should be granted the status of foot-and-mouth disease "free without vaccination".
(4) It is therefore appropriate to allow the importation into the Community of bone-in ovine, caprine and bovine fresh meat from animals originating from those provinces which were slaughtered after 1 March 2002.
(5) It is also opportune to update some footnotes in Annex II while not affecting the conditions.
(6) Decision 93/402/EEC should therefore 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
Decision 93/402/EEC is amended as follows:
1. Annex I is replaced by the corresponding text in Annex I to this Decision;
2. Annex II is replaced by the corresponding text in Annex II to this Decision.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 May 2002. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2061/2001
of 19 October 2001
determining the world market price for unginned cotton
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Protocol 4 on cotton, annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1050/2001(1),
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 of 22 May 2001 on production aid for cotton(2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) In accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001, a world market price for unginned cotton is to be determined periodically from the price for ginned cotton recorded on the world market and by reference to the historical relationship between the price recorded for ginned cotton and that calculated for unginned cotton. That historical relationship has been established in Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001 of 2 August 2001(3). Where the world market price cannot be determined in this way, it is to be based on the most recent price determined.
(2) In accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001, the world market price for unginned cotton is to be determined in respect of a product of specific characteristics and by reference to the most favourable offers and quotations on the world market among those considered representative of the real market trend. To that end, an average is to be calculated of offers and quotations recorded on one or more European exchanges for a product delivered cif to a port in the Community and coming from the various supplier countries considered the most representative in terms of international trade. However, there is provision for adjusting the criteria for determining the world market price for ginned cotton to reflect differences justified by the quality of the product delivered and the offers and quotations concerned. Those adjustments are specified in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001.
(3) The application of the above criteria gives the world market price for unginned cotton determined hereinafter,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The world price for unginned cotton as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 is hereby determined as equalling EUR 18,441/100 kg.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 October 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 October 2001. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3391/81
of 27 November 1981
amending for the fifth time Regulation (EEC) No 2547/79 fixing the export refunds on wine
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 of 5 February 1979 on the common organization of the market in wine (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3456/80 (2), and in particular Article 20 (4) thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 345/79 of 5 February 1979 laying down general rules for granting export refunds on wine and criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (3) has been amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2009/81 (4) in order to extend the scope for fixing export refunds to include concentrated grape musts; whereas such products can at present be exported on an economically significant scale;
Whereas application of the rules laid down for fixing refunds by Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 345/79, in the existing market situation for concentrated musts in the Community and in world trade, results in fixing refunds in respect of such products by percentage vol potential alcoholic strength by hectolitre of an amount equal to the refunds laid down for table wines of types A I, R I and R II by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2547/79 (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3096/81 (6);
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
The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2547/79 is replaced by the Annex hereto.
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, 27 November 1981. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 518/2004
of 19 March 2004
suspending the buying-in of butter in certain Member States
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),
Having regard to 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), and in particular Article 2 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999 lays down that buying-in by invitation to tender is to be opened or suspended by the Commission in a Member State, as appropriate, once it is observed that, for two weeks in succession, the market price in that Member State is below or equal to or above 92 % of the intervention price.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 357/2004(3) establishes the most recent list of Member States in which intervention is suspended. This list must be adjusted as a result of the market prices communicated by Belgium and Luxembourg pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999. In the interests of clarity, the list in question should be replaced and Regulation (EC) No 357/2004 should be repealed,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Buying-in of butter by invitation to tender as provided for in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 is hereby suspended in Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and the United Kingdom.
Article 2
Regulation (EC) No 357/2004 is hereby repealed.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 March 2004.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 March 2004. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 365/92 of 14 February 1992 fixing the number of young male bovine animals which may be imported on special terms in the first quarter of 1992 derogating from Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80 in respect of that quarter and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 3702/91
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 1628/91 (2), and in particular Articles 13 (4), 15 (2) and 25 thereof,
Whereas the Council has drawn up an estimated supply balance of 198 000 head under the new import arrangements applicable to young male bovine animals for fattening for the period 1 January to 31 December 1992; whereas, pursuant to Article 13 (4) (a) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68, the number which may be imported each quarter and the rate of reduction in the import levy on such animals must be determined;
Whereas detailed rules for the application of these special arrangements were laid down in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 612/77 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1121/87 (4), and in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80 (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 815/91 (6);
Whereas the supply requirements of certain regions of the Community which have a serious shortfall in bovine animals for fattening must be taken into account; whereas those requirements are apparent in Italy and Greece and may be estimated for the first quarter of 1992 at 42 120 head and 6 435 head respectively in those Member States;
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 3300/91 (7) suspended the trade concessions provided for by the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; whereas, therefore, that country should be excluded from the present arrangements, without prejudice to new legislation adopted in the light of the decisions taken by the Council on 2 December 1991 and 3 February 1992 in favour of the Republics contributing to progress towards peace in Yugoslavia;
Whereas, in the light of the results of negotiations between the Community and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic on an association agreement, that country should be allowed to benefit forthwith from the arrangements provided for herein;
Whereas the supply requirements in young bovine animals for fattening justify, for the first quarter of 1992, a higher rate of reduction in the levy on animals weighing from 220 to 300 kilograms per head, originating in and coming from Hungary, Poland or the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic;
Whereas the quantities available must be shared between the traditional trade and other potential applicants;
Whereas, in order to simplify the procedure for allocating the quantities available it is necessary to derogate from Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80; whereas in the case of the traditional trade the quantities available should be allocated directly in proportion to the number of head imported during the last three years; whereas in the case of other applicants the quantities available should be allocated in proportion to the number of head for which application is made;
Whereas, in the case of other applicants, the maximum quantity which each application for an import licence may cover must be limited in order to permit a more equitable distribution of the quantities available; whereas for financial reasons a minimum number of head should be set for these applications;
Whereas this estimated supply alance was only decided at the end of January 1992 in respect of 1992 and a derogation must therefore be provided for from Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80 as regards the time limits for the submission of applications and the issue of import licences under these special arrangements;
Whereas, in order to permit regular imports, the term of validity of licences as referred to in Article 4 (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80 should be extended;
Whereas, owing to the implementation of these special import arrangements, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3702/91 (8) must be repealed;
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
1. For the period 1 January to 31 March 1992, the maximum number referred to in Article 13 (4) (a) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 shall be 52 335 head of young male bovine animals for fattening comprising:
(a) 6 805 of a live weight of not more than 300 kilograms per head and subject to a 65 % reduction in the levy, and
(b) 45 530 of a live weight of 220 to 300 kilograms per head, originating in and coming from Hungary, Poland or the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and subject to a 75 % reduction in the levy.
2. The reductions referred to in 1 shall be in respect of the levy applicable on the day of acceptance of the declaration of release for free circulation.
3. The quantities referred to in 1 shall be distributed as follows:
Italy Greece Other Member States (a) 6 805 head 5 480 835 490 (b) 45 530 head 36 640 5 600 3 290
4. Applications for licences and licences shall, in accordance with Article 9 (1) (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80, relate to:
- either young bovine animals weighing not more than 300 kilograms per head,
- or young bovine animals weighing from 220 to 300 kilograms per head, originating in and coming from Hungary, Poland or the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.
In the latter case, Sections 7 and 8 of applications for licences and licences shall include one of the following entries:
- 'Hungría y/o Polonia y/o República Federativa Checa y Eslovaca',
- 'Ungarn og/eller Polen og/eller Den Tjekkiske og Slovakiske Foederative Republik',
- 'Ungarn und/oder Polen und/oder Tschechische und Slowakische Foederative Republik',
- Oyngaria i/kai Polonia, i/kai Tsechiki kai Slovakiki Omospondiaki Dimokratia
- 'Hungary and/or Poland and/or Czech and Slovak Federal Republic',
- 'Hongrie et/ou Pologne et/ou République fédérative tchèque et slovaque',
- 'Ungheria e/o Polonia e/o Repubblica federativa ceca e slovacca',
- 'Hongarije en/of Polen en/of Tsjechische en Slowaakse Federatieve Republiek',
- 'Hungria e/ou Polónia e/ou República Federativa Checa e Eslovaca'.
Licences shall carry with them an obligation to import from one or more of the countries indicated.
5. In the information referred to in Article 15 (4) (a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80, Member States shall specify the category of live weight and the origin of the products in the case referred to in the second indent of the first subparagraph of 4.
6. Of the number of head reserved for Italy and Greece for each category notwithstanding Article 15 (6) (a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80:
(a) 90 % may be allocated directly to applicants who provide proof of having imported animals qualifying under this scheme during the last three calendar years. Numbers covered by licences shall be allocated in proportion to the number of head imported in the three years concerned;
(b) 10 % may be allocated to other applicants.
7. The proof referred to in 6 shall be provided by the customs document of release for free circulation.
8. Import licences shall only be issued for a number equal to or more than 10 head.
Article 2
1. As regards the quantities referred to in Article 1 (6) (b) and the quantities for Member States other than Italy and Greece applications for import licences shall:
(a) relate to a number equal to or more than 50 head, and
(b) relate to a quantity not exceeding 10 % of the quantities available except where the said 10 % results in a figure less than 50 head; in the latter case the maximum figure shall also be 50 head.
2. In case whee applications for import licences state quantities in excess of those provided for by the Regulation, those applications shall only be considered within the limits of the said quantities.
3. Numbers shall be allocated in proportion to the number of head for which application is made. If, because of the numbers for which application is made, the percentage reduction results in fewer than 10 head per import licence, the Member States shall, by drawing lots, allocate licences covering 10 head.
Article 3
In the case of quantities imported under the terms of Article 8 (4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 (9), the levy shall be collected in full in respect of quantities in excess of those stated on the import licence.
Article 4
For the purposes of Article 15 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80, all applications from one applicant which relate to the same category of wieght and the same rate of reduction in the levy shall be treated as one application.
Article 5
For the first quarter of 1992, notwithstanding Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80, as regards the arrangements referred to in Article 9 of that Regulation:
(a) application may only be lodged from 17 to 21 February 1992;
(b) applications information referred to in Article 15 (4) (a) of that Regulation shall be communicated on 2 March 1992 at the latest;
(c) licences as provided for in Article 15 (5) (a) of that Regulation shall be issued on 12 March 1992.
Article 6
By way of derogation from Article 4 (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80, the term of validity of licences issued under this Regulation shall extend for four months from their actual date of issue.
Article 7
Three weeks at the latest after import of the livestock referred to in this Regulation, imports shall inform the competent authorities which issued the import licences, of the number and origin of the animals imported. Those authorities shall for ward that information to the Commission at the beginning of each month.
Article 8
Regulation (EEC) No 3702/91 is hereby repealed.
Article 9
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, 14 February 1992. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1224/90
of 10 May 1990
amending Regulation (EEC) No 1799/76 laying down detailed rules for the application of special measures in respect of linseed
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 569/76 of 15 March 1976 laying down special measures for linseed (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 4003/87 (2), and in particular Article 2 (4) thereof,
Whereas Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1799/76 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3163/89 (4), provides that an average world market price is to be determined each week on the basis of the most favourable offers and quotations; whereas, as such offers and quotations are not always available each week, provision should be made for the possibility of determining the average price twice a month only;
Whereas Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1774/76 of 20 July 1976 on special measures for linseed (5) provides that the producer Member States are to introduce a checking sytem to ensure, in the case of each linseed grower, that the crop area in respect of which a subsidy has been applied for corresponds to the area on which the linseed has actually been sown and harvested; whereas, in order to facilitate such checks, in the case of seed flax, certain provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1799/76 adopted pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1774/76 should be made more precise;
Whereas, to avoid the risk of fraudulent operations, certain conditions under which the subsidy is granted should be specified; whereas, to the same end, uniform provisions should be laid down on the grant of the subsidy where the areas ascertained during a check differ from those indicated in declarations of areas sown and harvested;
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
Regulation (EEC) No 1799/76 is hereby amended as follows:
1. The words 'for which normal cultivation work has been carried out and' are added to Article 3 (1) (a).
2. In Article 4 (1), 'each week' is replaced by 'at least twice a month'.
3. In Article 4 (2), 'weekly' is deleted.
4. Article 8 (1) is replaced by the following:
'1. Except in cases of force majeure, all growers of linseed shall submit a declaration of areas sown not later than 15 June each year for the following marketing year.
If the area on which seeds emerge proves to be smaller than that indicated in the declaration, the declarant must forward the relevant figures to the competent authorities within the same time limit.'
5. The following paragraph is inserted in Article 8:
'3. A declaration relating to an area of at least three hectares shall be admissible only if:
- it is endorsed by a body designated by the Member State concerned,
or
- it is accompanied by a document certifying to the satisfaction of the Member State concerned that the declaration is accurate.
Member States may provide that declarations relating to an area of less than three hectares shall be admissible only if they are endorsed by a body designated by them.'
6. The following Article 8a is inserted:
'Article 8a
1. The checks provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1774/76 shall be carried out on at least 5 % of the declarations of areas sown referred to in Article 8 and on a representative percentage of the crop declarations referred to in Article 9, having regard to the geographical distribution of the areas concerned.
2. The checks shall comprise inspection and measurement of the areas in question.
Each visit for checking purposes shall be recorded in a report indicating in particular the area measured, the measuring instruments used and, where applicable, that the check could not be made for reasons attributable to the declarant.
3. Where significant irregularities arise relating to 6 % or more of the checks carried out, Member States shall notify the Commission thereof forthwith and shall state what measures have been taken.'
7. The following Article 8b is inserted:
'Article 8b
If a check as provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1774/76 shows that the area declared is:
(a) less than that ascertained by the check, the area ascertained shall be used;
(b) greater than that ascertained by the check, the area used shall be the ascertained area minus the difference between the area originally declared and that ascertained, without prejudice to any penalties laid down under national law.
However, if the difference is considered justified by the Member States concerned the ascertained area shall be used.
Member States shall notify the Commission of action taken pursuant to this Article including decisions under the second subparagraph of point (b).'
8. The following paragraph is added to Article 9:
'3. Without prejudice to paragraph 4, if the area indicated in the crop declaration is greater than that indicated in the declaration of areas sown, the latter area shall be used.'
9. The following paragraph is added to Article 9:
'4. If a check as provided for in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1774/76 shows that the area indicated in the crop declaration is:
(a) less than that ascertained by the check, the area ascertained shall be used;
(b) greater than that ascertained by the check, the area used shall be the ascertained area minus the difference between the area indicated in the crop declaration and that ascertained, without prejudice to any penalties provided for under national law and the provisions of (c).
However if the difference is considered justified by the Member State the ascertained area shall be used;
(c) greater than that ascertained by the check and if, for the declarant in question, areas indicated in the declaration of areas sown or harvested have been reduced during the same marketing year or the preceding one in accordance with Article 8b or point (b) of this paragraph, the aid application shall be rejected.
However, if the difference is considered justified by the Member State the ascertained area shall be used.
Member States shall notify the Commission of action taken pursuant to this paragraph, including decisions under the second subparagraph of points (b) or (c).'
10. The following Article 12a is inserted in Chapter V:
'Article 12a
Except in cases of force majeure, if a check cannot be carried out for reasons attributable to the declarant the application for the subsidy for linseed shall be rejected.'
11. Article 14 is deleted.
12. In Article 17 (1), 'Article 11 (2) (d)' is replaced by 'the second indent of Article 11 (2)'.
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 the 1990/91 marketing year.
However, Article 1 (5) shall apply from the 1991/92 marketing year.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 May 1990. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
1
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 22 May 2007
declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement
(Case COMP/M.4404 - UNIVERSAL/BMG Music Publishing)
(notified under document number C(2007) 2160)
(Only the English version is authentic)
(2007/595/EC)
On 22 May 2007 the Commission adopted a Decision in a merger case under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1), and in particular Article 8(2) of that Regulation. A non-confidential version of the full Decision can be found in the authentic language of the case and in the working languages of the Commission on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition, at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/index_en.html
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
(1)
This case concerns a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the Merger Regulation), by which the undertaking Universal Music Group Inc. (Universal, USA), belonging to the group Vivendi SA (Vivendi, France), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking BMG Music Publishing Group (BMG, Germany et al.) which currently forms part of the Bertelsmann group, by way of purchase of shares and assets.
(2)
Universal is a subsidiary of Vivendi which is an international media company. Its worldwide activities include music recording and publishing. Universal is active in music publishing through Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG).
(3)
BMG is part of the Bertelsmann group (Bertelsmann) which is an international media company. BMG comprises the worldwide music publishing activities of Bertelsmann.
(4)
The market investigation has revealed that in the market for online rights in Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom as well as on EEA-wide level the concentration would, in terms of serious doubts, significantly impede effective competition through unilateral effects. The commitments proposed by the parties are, however, suitable to remove the competition concerns.
1. The relevant product markets
(5)
Music publishing is the exploitation of intellectual property rights of authors (in the following, the term ‘authors’ will be used to cover both lyricists (text) and composers (music)). Generally, authors transfer copyrights of their works (publishing rights) to music publishers and receive from the latter payments of advances and a share of the royalties generated by the commercial exploitation of their works.
(6)
Music publishers exploit the rights received from authors by granting licences to right users. The users pay royalties for the use of these musical works. Depending on the specific types of rights, the licences are granted to right users either by the publishers directly or via collecting societies.
(7)
The market investigation to define the relevant product markets confirmed that as to the exploitation of music publishing rights, different categories of rights need to be distinguished, i.e. mechanical rights, performance rights, synchronisation rights, print rights and online rights. These categories of rights apply to different forms of use of music, e.g. mechanical rights are needed for the recording of CDs; performance rights need to be acquired if music is played on the radio and in bars; synchronisation rights are needed if music is used in films; print rights allow the user to produce sheet music; and online rights are necessary in order to sell music via the Internet and mobile telephony. These categories of rights therefore constitute separate markets.
(8)
With respect to the provision of music publishing services to authors, the market investigation confirmed that no further distinction has to be made since the authors normally do not use different publishers for the categories of rights.
2. The relevant geographic markets
(9)
The market investigation showed that the geographic scope with respect to the market for the provision of music publishing services to authors, and the markets for the exploitation of performance, mechanical, synchronisation, print and online rights appear to be national. For online rights it is likely that an EEA-wide market will develop in the future. The exact geographic scope of all relevant product markets can be left open since the conclusions of the analysis are the same, irrespective of the geographic dimension of the markets.
3. Affected markets and competition analysis
(10)
The notified concentration affects the market for the provision of music publishing services to authors, and the markets for the exploitation of performance, mechanical, synchronisation, print and online rights in several countries in the EEA as well as on EEA-wide level. The market investigation has shown that the concentration does not lead to competition concerns in any of the affected markets except for those for online rights.
(11)
In the markets for the provision of music publishing services to authors the market investigation has shown that authors will continue to have a sufficient number of alternatives to the merged entity. The merger, therefore, does not create competition concerns in any of the affected markets for music publishing services to authors.
(12)
With respect to the exploitation of music publishing rights the market investigation has shown that the merger is unlikely to create competition concerns in the markets for mechanical, performance, synchronisation and print rights. In those markets, where collecting societies play a predominant role (mechanical and performance rights), the merger will not have a significant effect since the collecting societies take the pricing decisions and grant licences on a non-discriminatory basis to users. In the markets where the publishers administer the rights without the involvement of collecting societies (synchronisation and print rights), the market investigation confirmed that the customers will after the merger continue to have sufficient alternatives to the merged entity. It is therefore unlikely that Universal will after the merger be able to increase prices for performance, mechanical, synchronisation and print rights.
(13)
In the market for online rights, the publishers have recently started to withdraw their respective rights for Anglo-American repertoires from the traditional collecting societies system. They have started to transfer their rights to selected collecting societies acting as agents for the individual publisher - a possibility which has been reaffirmed by a Commission Recommendation issued in 2005.
(14)
The market investigation has shown that, following the withdrawal, the pricing power shifts from the collecting societies to the publishers. In this new environment, Universal will after the merger be able to exert control over a large percentage of titles either via its (fully or partly-owned) copyrights in the authors’ works or via its rights in the individual recordings. In Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom as well as on EEA-wide level, Universal would even control 50 % or more of the chart hits and thereby become a ‘must-have’ product for all online and mobile music services whose possibilities to circumvent Universal will be significantly reduced by the merger.
(15)
The Commission had therefore concerns that the merger would give Universal the possibility and the incentive to increase prices for online rights in Anglo-American repertoire.
Conclusion
(16)
It therefore can be concluded that the proposed concentration in its notified form would likely to lead to a significant impediment of effective competition in the market for online rights in Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom as well as on EEA-wide level.
4. Commitments offered by the Parties
(17)
In order to remove the Commission’s concerns, Universal committed to divest a number of important catalogues covering Anglo-American-copyrights and contracts with authors. These catalogues include the EEA-activities of Zomba UK, 19 Music, 19 Songs, BBC music publishing, Rondor UK as well as an EEA-licence for the catalogue of Zomba U.S. These catalogues contain many bestselling titles and several successful authors such as The Kaiser Chiefs, Justin Timberlake and R. Kelly. Even though the concerns only relate to online rights, for reasons of viability the commitments have to cover the complete copyrights (i.e. also mechanical, performance, synchronisation and print rights).
5. Assessment of the commitments submitted
(18)
The parties significantly improved the package of remedies twice responding to the results of two market tests. In the light of the quality of the finally proposed catalogues, the Commission concludes that the commitments remove the competition concerns.
(19)
It can therefore be concluded that, on the basis of the commitments submitted by the Parties, the notified concentration will not lead to a significant impediment of effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it on the market for online rights. Hence, the proposed concentration was to be declared compatible with the common market pursuant to Articles 8(2), 10(2) of the Merger Regulation and to Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. | [
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2004
of 6 February 2004
laying down the marketing standard for cherries
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), and in particular Article 2(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Cherries are among the products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 for which standards must be adopted. In the interest of clarity, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 899/87 of 30 March 1987 laying down quality standards for cherries(2), which has been amended several times, should be repealed and replaced by a new regulation. To that end, and in the interest of preserving transparency on the world market, account should be taken of the UN/ECE standard FFV-13 concerning marketing and quality control of cherries recommended by the Working Party on Standardisation of Perishable Produce and Quality Development of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE).
(2) Application of these new standards should remove products of unsatisfactory quality from the market, bring production into line with consumer requirements and facilitate trade based on fair competition, thereby helping to improve profitability.
(3) The standards are applicable at all marketing stages. Long-distance transport, storage over a certain period and the various processes the products undergo may cause some degree of deterioration owing to the biological development of the products or their perishable nature. Account should be taken of such deterioration when applying the standard at the marketing stages following dispatch.
(4) As products in the "Extra" class have to be particularly carefully sorted and packaged, only lack of freshness and turgidity is to be taken into account in their case.
(5) 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
The marketing standard for cherries falling within CN code 0809 20 shall be as set out in the Annex.
The standards shall apply at all marketing stages under the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 2200/96.
However, at stages following dispatch, products may show, in relation to the requirements of the standard, a slight lack of freshness and turgidity; products graded in classes other than the "Extra" class may show in addition slight deteriorations due to their development and their tendency to perish.
Article 2
Regulation (EEC) No 899/87 is repealed
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th 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 February 2004. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1702/95 of 11 July 1995 concerning the stopping of fishing for Atlantic redfish by vessels flying the flag of France
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 21 (3) thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EC) No 748/95 of 31 March 1995 allocating, for 1995, certain catch quotas between Member States for vessels fishing in the Norwegian exclusive economic zone and the fishing zone around Jan Mayen (2), provides for Atlantic redfish quotas for 1995;
Whereas, in order to ensure compliance with the provisions relating to the quantitative limitations on catches of stocks subject to quotas, it is necessary for the Commission to fix the date by which catches made by vessels flying the flag of a Member State are deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated;
Whereas, according to the information communicated to the Commission, catches of Atlantic redfish in the waters of ICES division I, II a and b (Norwegian waters north of 62 °N) by vessels flying the flag of France or registered in France have reached the quota allocated for 1995; whereas France has prohibited fishing for this stock as from 7 June 1995; whereas it is therefore necessary to abide by that date,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Catches of Atlantic redfish in the waters of ICES division I, II a and b (Norwegian waters north of 62 °N) by vessels flying the flag of France or registered in France are deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated to France for 1995.
Fishing for Atlantic redfish in the waters of ICES division I, II a and b (Norwegian waters north of 62 °N) by vessels flying the flag of France or registered in France is prohibited, as well as the retention on board, the transhipment and the landing of such stock captured by the abovementioned vessels after the date of application of this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 7 June 1995.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 11 July 1995. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1846/2005
of 11 November 2005
fixing the minimum selling prices for butter for the 174th individual invitation to tender under the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2571/97
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
The intervention agencies are, pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2571/97 of 15 December 1997 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs (2), to sell by invitation to tender certain quantities of butter from intervention stocks that they hold and to grant aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter. Article 18 of that Regulation stipulates that in the light of the tenders received in response to each individual invitation to tender a minimum selling price shall be fixed for butter and maximum aid shall be fixed for cream, butter and concentrated butter. It is further stipulated that the price or aid may vary according to the intended use of the butter, its fat content and the incorporation procedure, and that a decision may also be taken to make no award in response to the tenders submitted. The amount(s) of the processing securities must be fixed accordingly.
(2)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The minimum selling prices of butter from intervention stocks and processing securities applying for the 174th individual invitation to tender, under the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2571/97, shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 November 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 11 November 2005. | [
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 10 July 1997 amending Decision 97/28/EC authorizing a method for grading pig carcases in France (Only the French text is authentic) (97/473/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84 of 13 November 1984 determining the Community scale for grading pig carcases (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3513/93 (2), and in particular Article 5 (2) thereof,
Whereas Commission Decision 97/28/EC (3) authorizes a method for grading pig carcases in France;
Whereas Decision 97/28/EC contains a derogation as regards the standard quality of pig carcase; whereas the French authorities have informed the Commission that this derogation is no longer necessary, although the possibility of presenting carcases with or without tongue should be maintained; whereas, as a result, that Decision should be amended;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Article 2 of Decision 97/28/EC is hereby replaced by the following:
'Article 2
Notwithstanding the standard presentation referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84, pig carcases may be presented with the tongue during weighing and grading. In such cases, in order to establish quotations for pig carcases on a comparable basis, the recorded warm weight shall be reduced by 0,5 %.`
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the French Republic.
Done at Brussels, 10 July 1997. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1420/2001
of 12 July 2001
limiting the term of validity of export licences for certain products processed from cereals
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Having regard to 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(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 409/2001(4), and in particular Article 7(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1162/95 fixes the term of validity of export licences, in particular for products processed from maize. That term of validity extends to the end of the fourth month following that of issue of the licence. The term of validity is fixed in accordance with market requirements and the need for sound management.
(2) The current situation on the maize market makes it desirable to limit the issuing of licences in order to avoid committing quantities from the new marketing year. Licences to be issued in forthcoming months must be reserved for exports before the middle of September 2001. To that end, the term of validity of export licences to be issued for execution up to 15 September 2001 must be limited. A temporary derogation should accordingly be introduced to Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1162/95.
(3) In order to ensure sound management of the market and to prevent speculation, provision should be made for customs export formalities for export licences for products processed from maize to be completed by 15 September 2001 at the latest either as direct exports or exports under the arrangements laid down in Articles 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/80 of 4 March 1980 on the advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural products(5), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2026/83(6). Such limiting of the term of validity of export licences entails a derogation from Articles 28(6) and 29(5) 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(7), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 90/2001(8).
(4) The application of the measures provided for in this Regulation must coincide with its entry into force in order to avoid potential market disturbance.
(5) 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
1. Notwithstanding Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1162/95, export licences for products referred to in the Annex applied for from the date of entry into force of this Regulation to 14 September 2001 shall be valid until 15 September 2001 only.
2. Customs export formalities for the above licences must be completed by 15 September 2001 at the latest.
That deadline shall also apply to the formalities referred to in Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 in respect of products placed under the arrangements referred to in Regulation (EEC) No 565/80 under cover of such licences.
One of the following shall be entered in Section 22 of the licences:
Limitación establecida en el apartado 2 del artículo 1 del Reglamento (CE) n° 1420/2001
Begrænsning, jf. artikel 1, stk 2, i forordning (EF) nr. 1420/2001
Kürzung der Gültigkeitsdauer gemäß Artikel 1 Absatz 2 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1420/2001
Περιορισμός που προβλέπεται στο άρθρο 1 παράγραφος 2 του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) nr. 1420/2001
Limitation provided for in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1420/2001
Limitation prévue à l'article 1er paragraphe 2 du règlement (CE) n° 1420/2001
Limitazione prevista all'articolo 1, paragrafo 2 del regolamento (CE) n. 1420/2001
Beperking als bepaald in artikel 1, lid 2, van Verordening (EG) nr. 1420/2001
Limitação estabelecida no n.o 2 do artigo 1.o do Regulamento (CE) n.o 1420/2001
Asetuksen (EY) N:o 1420/2001 1 artiklan 2 kohdassa säädetty rajoitus
Begränsning enligt artikel 1.2 i förordning (EG) nr 1420/2001.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 July 2001.
It shall apply to licences applied for from the date of its entry into force.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 July 2001. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2032/94 of 27 July 1994 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3418/88 fixing the free-at-frontier reference prices applicable to imports of certain wine products with effect from 1 September 1988
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 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 1891/94 (2), and in particular Article 54 (8) thereof,
Whereas the free-at-frontier reference prices applicable to imports of certain wine products were set by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3418/88 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2254/93 (4);
Whereas the reference prices for the 1994/95 wine year were set by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2027/94 (5); whereas the free-at-frontier reference prices should be adapted accordingly with effect from 1 September 1994,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 3418/88 is hereby replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 September 1994,
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 July 1994. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2055/92 of 30 June 1992 fixing the guide price for unginned cotton for the 1992/93 marketing year
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the Act of Accession of Greece and in particular paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4 on cotton, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2052/92 (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3),
Whereas paragraph 8 of Protocol 4 states that the guide price for cotton that has not been ginned is to be fixed annually by reference to the criteria laid down in paragraph 2 of that Protocol;
Whereas reference to these criteria leads to the fixing of the guide price as indicated below,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. For the 1992/93 marketing year the guide price for unginned cotton shall be ECU 102,79 per 100 kg.
2. The price referred to in paragraph 1 shall be for cotton:
- of sound, genuine and merchantable quality,
- containing 10 % moisture and 3 % impurities,
- with the characteristics required to yield, after ginning, 54 % of seed and 32 % of fibres of grade No 5 (white middling), with a length of 28 mm (1-3/32").
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 September 1992.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 30 June 1992. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 18 May 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/33.640 - Exxon/Shell) (Only the English text is authentic) (94/322/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, and in particular Articles 6 and 8 thereof,
Having regard to the applications for negative clearance and the notification for exemption submitted pursuant to Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation No 17 on 21 November 1991 and 29 May 1992 by Exxon Chemical International Inc. (Belgium) on behalf of all Exxon Chemical affiliates in Europe and on 2 December 1991 and 10 June 1992 by the Shell International Petroleum Company Limited (London, United Kingdom) on behalf of Shell Chimie SA (Rueil-Malmaison, France) and Shell Nederland Chemie BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands), concerning a set of agreements between certain chemical companies of the Exxon Group (USA) and certain chemical companies of the Shell Group (Netherlands - United Kingdom),
Having regard to the summary of the applications and notifications published (2) pursuant to Article 19 (3) of Regulation No 17,
After consulting the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions,
Whereas:
I. THE FACTS A. Subject of the Decision (1) This Decision concerns a set of agreements between chemical companies of the Exxon and Shell Groups related to establishing, financing, constructing, managing and operating a production joint venture between a French affiliate of the Exxon Group and a French affiliate of the Shell Group.
The joint venture is named 'Compagnie Industrielle des Polyéthylènes de Normandie' (Cipen) and is situated at Notre-Dame-de-Gravenchon (NDG) in France, where an Exxon integrated petroleum/chemical complex is also situated.
(2) The principal aim of the joint plant is production of linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), but it may also produce high-density polyethylene (HDPE). Both LLDPE and HDPE are covered by the term 'linear polyethylene' - to be distinguished from high-pressure low-density polyethylene (LDPE).
B. The undertakings (3) The partners in Cipen are Exxon Chemical Polymers SNC (NDG, France) and Shell Chimie SA (Rueil-Malmaison, France), two companies incorporated under the laws of France, affiliates, respectively, of the Exxon Group and of the Shell Group. The parties to the other notified agreements all also belong to either the Exxon or the Shell Group.
(4) The Exxon Group is a multinational group, the principal business of which is energy. This involves exploration for, and production of, crude oil and natural gas, manufacturing of petroleum products and transportation and sale of crude oil, natural gas and petroleum products. Exxon is a major manufacturer and marketer of petrochemicals (ethylene, propylene, benzene and their derivatives).
(5) The Shell Group is a multinational group engaged in the oil, natural gas, chemicals, coal and metals businesses. This includes major activities in the field of petrochemical manufacturing and marketing.
C. The products and their markets (6) LLDPE, with which the Exxon/Shell joint venture agreements are principally concerned, and HDPE, are thermoplastics produced from ethylene, a monomer derived from naphtha cracking or from ethane and gas-oil cracking and co-monomers such as butene-1. The linear polyethylene produced by the Exxon/Shell joint venture is manufactured through the polymerization and processing of ethylene and butene-1 feedstocks.
(7) The consumption LDPE/LLDPE, if analysed according to processing technique and application, can be split up principally into the following sectors:
- film and sheet such as heavy-duty sacks; shrink and stretch film; other packaging applications in the industrial, retail and domestic fields; carrier bags; agricultural, building and construction applications, and refuse sacks,
- injection moulding,
- blow moulding used for a wide range of domestic products where its good surface finish has an advantage,
- pipe and profiles; mainly for irrigation systems in the agricultural and horticultural industries,
- wire and cable,
- extrusion coating which is used to make liquid packaging containers.
(8) HDPE, if analysed according to processing technique and application, can be split up principally into the following sectors:
- injection moulding which includes crates and boxes; household wares and other applications such as toys and electrical components,
- blow moulding; especially for distinctive packaging, and for large drums and other containers,
- extrusion applications in packaging film; pipes and profiles; wire and cables, geotextiles, ribbon, monofilaments and raffia,
- miscellaneous applications mainly in rotational casting and melt casting operations.
(9) In 1991 more than 70 % of LDPE/LLDPE consumption was in the film and sheet sector, while only about 2 % was in the blow moulding sector.
On the other hand more than 40 % of HDPE consumption was in the blow moulding sector. Moreover about 25 % of HDPE consumption was in the injection moulding sector, while less than 8 % of LDPE/LLDPE consumption was in the same injection moulding sector.
Therefore, as HDPE is much less interchangeable with LLDPE than LDPE, the market mainly affected by the joint venture is the combined market for LDPE and LLDPE.
(10) However, it is true that LDPE and LLDPE are not fully interchangeable. But the only use for which LDPE is almost completely unsubstitutable with LLDPE is extrusion coating, a sector consuming less than 8 % of the LDPE total sales. On the other hand, new technological developments are increasing the substitutability between certain polymers. However, as far as polyethylene polymers are concerned, the most significant change is that polypropylene has begun to compete partially with HDPE. Therefore this change has only a limited indirect impact on the LDPE/LLDPE market.
(11) As the LLDPE process utilized by Cipen is also capable of producing HDPE, the HDPE market could also be affected by the joint venture.
(12) As was stated previously, polypropylene has begun to compete partially with HDPE. In 1991 the HDPE applications more appreciably under attack from polypropylene were some areas of injection moulding (in particular housewares) and the extrusion sub-sectors, including netting, geo-textiles, ribbon, monofilaments and raffia.
(13) The relevant geographical market is the whole Community, as the products in question are safety and easily transportable and as the EC producers and suppliers are in fact active in inter-State trade to a considerable extent.
(14) The LDPE/LLDPE relevant market in economic terms is the territory of the Community, and not the whole territory of western Europe (EC plus EFTA). In fact, on the one hand, the four major exporting countries in western Europe in 1991 were EC Member States (the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany), together representing over 70 % of total tonnage moved inside Europe, and, on the other hand, the four major importing countries accounting for 60 % of internal trade in western Europe were also EC Member States (Germany, Italy, United Kingdom and France). Out of approximately 3 200 Kt (kilotonnes) of LDPE/LLDPE exported in 1991 by EC countries, only about 300 Kt were exported to the EFTA countries while more than 2 380 Kt went to other EC countries. Out of approximately 3 370 Kt of LDPE/LLDPE imported in 1991 by the EC countries, less than 390 Kt were imported from the EFTA countries while more than 2 380 Kt were imported from other EC countries. However, even if the relevant market in economic terms were the whole territory of western Europe, the respective capacity share of almost every producer would be very similar to those they hold in the Community and the Commission's assessment of the case would not change.
(15) Similar considerations apply to HDPE. The two major exporting countries in western Europe in 1991 were EC Member States (Belgium and Germany), while EC Member States (Germany, United Kingdom, France and Italy) were the four main importing countries. Out of approximately 1 600 Kt of HDPE exported in 1991 by EC countries, only about 140 Kt were exported to EFTA countries while about 1 270 Kt went to other EC countries. Out of approximately 1 900 Kt of HDPE imported in 1991 by EC countries only about 200 Kt were imported from EFTA countries while about 1 270 Kt were imported from other EC countries.
(16) The situation for polypropylene is also similar. The three major exporting countries in western Europe in 1991 were EC Member States (Belgium, France and the Netherlands), while EC Member States (Germany, Italy, United Kingdom and Belgium) were the four main importing countries. Out of 2 840 Kt of polypropylene exported in 1991 by EC countries, less than 200 Kt were exported to EFTA countries while about 2 270 Kt went to other EC countries. Out of about 2 700 Kt of polypropylene imported in 1991 by EC countries, only about 300 Kt were imported from EFTA countries while about 2 270 Kt were imported from other EC countries.
(17) Total EC LDPE/LLDPE capacity in 1991 was about 5,5 million tonnes. The largest LDPE/LLDPE producer in the EC is currently Enichem with a capacity production share of about 24 % in 1991, followed by Dow ±12,5 %; BP/Bayer ±12 %; Exxon ±11,5 %; Shell ±8,5 %; DSM ±8,5 %; Atochem ±7,5 %; BASF ±5 %; Repsol ±5 %; Leuna Werke ±3 %; Neste ±2,5 %. Exxon's plants (apart from Cipen) are located in Meerhout (375 Kt/y of LDPE) and Antwerp (260 Kt/y of LDPE) in Belgium. Exxon also has an LLDPE/HDPE plant at Al-Jubail in Saudi Arabia (50 % of the Kemya joint venture producing 430 Kt/y) supplying EC countries with significant volumes. Shell's plants (apart from Cipen) are located in Berre (105 Kt/y of LDPE) and Fos (100 Kt/y of LDPE) in France, in Carrington (105 Kt/y of LDPE) in the United Kingdom and in Wesseling (50/50 ROW joint venture with BASF: 400 Kt/y of LDPE and 15 Kt/y of LLDPE/HDPE, Shell having 12 % drawing rights) in Germany.
(18) Total EC capacity for manufacturing HDPE in 1991 was about 3,1 million tonnes. The largest HDPE producer in the EC is currently Hoechst/Wacker with a capacity production share of about 17,4 % in 1991, followed by Fina/Petrochim ±14,4 %; BP/Bayer ±11 %; Enichem ±10,5 %; Solvay ±8 %; Repsol ±7 %; Dow ±6,2 %; BASF ±6 %; DSM ±5 %; Huels ±5 %; Atochem ±3 %; Neste ±3 %; POB/Danubia ±3 % and Shell ±0,5 %. As was previously mentioned, Exxon has (apart from Cipen) an LLDPE/HDPE plant in Saudi Arabia (50 % of the Kemya joint venture producing 430 Kt/y). Shell has (apart from Cipen) an HDPE plant in Wesseling in Germany (50 % of the ROW joint venture with BASF, capable of producing 215 Kt/y).
(19) Total EC polypropylene capacity in 1991 was about 4,6 million tonnes. The largest polypropylene producer in the EC is currently Himont, with a capacity production share of about 17 % in 1991, followed by Shell ±11,6 %; Hoechst ±11,6 %; Atochem/BP ±7,2 %; Neste ±6,5 %; ICI ±6,5 %; BASF ±5,9 %; DSM ±5,8 %; Solvay ±5 %; Amoco ±4 %; Norpolefin/Statoil ±4 %; Fina ±3,5 %; Repsol ±3 %; Polychim ±3 %; Danubia/OMV ±2,9 % and Huels ±2,5 %.
(20) Total apparent LDPE/LLDPE consumption (production + import-export) in the EC was about 4,9 million tonnes in 1991.
The market shares were similar to the respective capacity shares, even allowing for the fact that in 1991 there were about 974 Kt of LDPE/LLDPE imported into the EC and about 818 Kt exported from the EC.
Like the other EC polyethylene producers Exxon and Shell (before the start-up of Cipen's plant Shell sold LLDPE bought from Exxon) sell most of the LDPE/LLDPE the produce to customers for further processing the market is very fragmented with many hundreds of processing companies of various sizes. Vertical integration and captive consumption are therefore very limited.
(21) Total apparent HDPE consumption (production + import-export) in the EC was about 2,9 million tonnes in 1991.
The market shares were similar to the respective capacity shares, even allowing for the fact that in 1991 there were about 637 Kt of HDPE imported into the EC and about 343 Kt exported from the EC.
(22) Total apparent polypropylene consumption (production + export-import) in the EC was about 3,8 million tonnes in 1991.
The market shares were similar to the respective capacity shares, even allowing for the fact that in 1991 there were about 440 Kt of polypropylene imported into the EC and 575 Kt exported from the EC.
(23) The LDPE/LLDPE and the HDPE markets have oligopolistic characteristics, as a small number of undertakings (Enichem, Dow, BP/Bayer, Exxon, Shell and DSM for LDPE/LLDPE; Hoechst/Wacker, Fina/Petrochim, BP/Bayer, Enichem and Solvay for HDPE) have the major share of capacity and, given the noticeable similarity between capacity and market shares, the major share of the market. Moreover, these markets are characterized by considerable price transparency and by a certain stability of production capacity shares in spite of the imbalance between production capacity and demand. The polypropylene market also has oligopolistic characteristics: only the first three companies have more than a 10 % capacity share each (Himont, Hoechst and Shell), while only they and the next three (Atochem/BP, Neste and ICI) go beyond a 6 % share; and prices are extremely transparent in a situation of some stability in production capacity shares with a noticeable similarity to capacity and market shares.
(24) As stated previously, the linear polyethylene produced by the Exxon/Shell joint venture is manufactured through polymerization and processing of ethylene and butene-1 feedstocks. Both Exxon and Shell are ethylene producers and Exxon has a steamcracker at NDG. Extending the capacity of this steamcracker allows Exxon to produce all the ethylene feedstock (200 Kt) required by the Exxon/Shell joint venture at NDG. The 100 Kt of ethylene required to supply Exxon's Antwerp and Meerhout (Belgium) polyethylene plants are supplied by Shell which has a steamcracker at Moerdijk (Netherlands).
(25) The current polyethylene situation is characterized by a certain imbalance between production capacity and demand. However some companies remain continuously optimistic about the LDPE/LLDPE market because of their low-cost LLDPE units and of the shifting of their LDPE efforts away from many 'general purpose' film applications and towards more specific applications for LDPE.
D. The agreements as signed in 1989/90 (26) The agreements which are the subject of the present procedure relate to the establishment of a 50/50 joint venture, (Cipen), a company located at NDG and carrying out the production of LLDPE as its main business. The plant has been built and is to be operated (for an initial term of 15 years from the date of start-up) by Exxon Chemical Polymers SNC (ECP). The products manufactured by the joint venture are to be sold independently by the two partners, together with the same or similar products of their own production.
The joint venture's production capacity is 220 000 tonnes per year of linear polyethylene (mainly LLDPE). A large part of the feedstock is supplied by the parent companies. Total Exxon and Shell production capacity of LDPE/LLDPE was therefore, by the end of 1992, about 1,3 million tonnes per year (about 20 % more than their 1991 total production capacity) without considering Exxon's production capacity in Saudi Arabia (3). After completion (15 May 1992) Exxon and Shell together have more than 20 % of the EC's total LDPE/LLDPE production capacity.
(27) The main elements of the arrangements signed in 1989/90 were as follows:
(a) 'Joint Venture Agreement' between Shell Chimie SA and ECP;
(b) 'Economic Interest Group (GIE) Constitution' Agreement between Shell Chimie SA and ECP;
(c) 'Internal and Operating Rules' approved by the General Meeting of Cipen;
(d) 'Plant Utilization Agreement' between Shell Chimie SA and ECP and Cipen;
(e) 'Ethylene Supply Contracts' (Swap) between Exxon Chemical Belgium and Shell Nederland Chemie BV on the one hand and Société Française Exxon Chemical and Shell Chimie SA on the other;
(f) 'Butene-1 Supply Contract' between ECP and Shell Nederland Chemie BV;
(g) 'Construction, Operating and Services Agreement' between ECP and Cipen;
(h) 'Linear Polyethylene Technology Agreement' between Exxon Corporation and Cipen.
The principal features of the above listed agreements were the following:
(28) (a) 'Joint Venture Agreement'
This is the main agreement and sets out the basic principles of the joint venture. Its main provisions are as follows:
- Shell Chimie SA and ECP agree to establish Cipen as an Economic Interest Grouping ('Groupement d'Intérêt Économique') between them under French law. They agree to vest the joint venture in Cipen,
- the parent companies are to have equal interests in Cipen in proportion to their equal financing of the joint venture. (The total plant cost is approximately FF 1 000 million),
- this agreement is to remain effective and enforceable for a primary term of 15 years after the 'start-up' of the joint venture plant.
(29) (b) 'GIE Constitution'
The purpose of Cipen is:
- to construct and operate, directly or indirectly (in particular authorizing ECP to design, build and operate the plant) on behalf of its members, a linear polyethylene manufacturing plant located at NDG,
- to make available to its shareholders, or their affiliates, at total cost, all polyethylene produced from ethylene and/or other raw materials supplied by them.
(30) The instruments of the GIE are the General Meeting, the sole director and the controller.
- The General Meeting is to include one representative of each shareholder, and its decisions are to be by unanimous vote. It is to have power to change the articles of Cipen's Constitution and of the Internal and Operating Rules; to increase or reduce capital; to approve the accounts and the investments and operating budgets; to appoint the director and the controller; to determine policies for amortization, depreciation and reserves; to authorize all endorsements, sureties and guarantees given by Cipen; to designate an operator for the linear polyethylene manufacturing plant at NDG; to authorize proposals for new investments, loans and applications for banking facilities; and in general, to take all decisions in Cipen's interests, in particular those that may not be taken by the director.
- The sole director is chosen from among the personnel of ECP and is appointed by the General Meeting. The director is to carry out the decisions resulting from the investment budget approved by the General Meeting. Generally, the director is not entitled to perform any act falling outside the terms of ordinary business.
- The controller is to be appointed by the General Meeting and chosen from among the personnel of Shell Chimie SA. The controller is to have the power to carry out any audit he may choose on Cipen's operations excluding, however, any right to inferfere with such operations.
The GIE shall permit duly authorized representatives of either member ('audit team') to have full access to the operations of the GIE. The auditing and controls exercised by the controller (and audit team) shall be confined to the operations of the GIE, to the exclusion of any other industrial activity on the same site at NDG. However, the controller shall have personal access to other pertinent industrial activities at the site and to certain essential technology and confidential information.
(31) (c) 'Internal and Operating Rules'
Among the matters regulated by these rules are the following: new investments; sharing of costs; off-takes and supplies, as well as the organization of day-to-day management.
- New investments: four different types of new investment can be distinguished, three within the GIE and one outside the GIE.
1. Joint investments which do not exceed the authority given to the director in the annual budget: these investments, as they are contemplated in the budget approved by the General Meeting, can be carried out by the director.
2. Joint investments which exceed the authority given to the director in the annual budget: any proposal concerning a potential joint investment opportunity for Cipen and exceeding the authority given to the director in the annual budget must be submitted for consideration by a General Meeting. If one party does not approve such a proposal, the other is to be entitled to make such investment at the plant under the following conditions:
3. separate investments within the GIE: a member is entitled to make such investment only if the other member has refused to make it jointly and only if such investment is within the manufacturing capability of the plant as determined by the General Meeting.
Such separate investment is subject to the following conditions:
- it must be at the sole cost and risk, and for the sole benefit of the investing member,
- the investing member must make arrangements to obtain all required utilities and services from the GIE and to hold the non-investing member harmless against any increase in costs resulting directly or indirectly from such investment,
- any such separate investment by a member necessitating a revised sharing of the members' respective Production Rights is to be limited by the general principle that each member's Production Rights are to be no less than 33 %.
4. Separate investments outside the GIE: each member may make an independent investment at any time outside the GIE in any facility, whether or not relating to linear polyethylene.
- Sharing of costs: Cipen's fixed costs are to be borne by each member in proportion to its shareholding; variable costs are to be allocated to the shareholders in proportion to their production through Cipen.
- Off-takes and supplies: once the production plan has been established each member is to supply the amount of ethylene and butene-1 required for the manufacture of polyethylene during the following month and to take delivery of the corresponding production, in accordance with the provisions of the Plant Utilization Agreement.
- Organization of day-to-day management: the agreement envisages the establishment of an Operating Committee consisting of two members of each party and the Director of the GIE to oversee the construction of the plant and the GIE's operations. This includes ensuring the monthly offtake schedule, the annual preparation of the production plan and budget, the development of new and experimental products, the preparation of investment proposals and quality control.
(32) (d) 'Plant Utilization Agreement'
Among the matters regulated by this agreement is the calculation of Shell's and Exxon's production rights: the plant's available hours are to be shared pro rata to the parties' interests in Cipen.
The agreement provides that if either party does not fully utilize all of its production rights in a specified period, the possible reapportionment of production rights for such period is to be discussed by the two parties.
(33) (e) 'Construction, Operating and Services Agreement'
Cipen authorizes ECP to design, build and operate, for a term of 15 years, a linear polyethylene manufacturing plant at NDG with an annual capacity of approximately 220 000 metric tonnes at a cost of approximately FF 1 000 million and to obtain all necessary construction and operating permits.
(34) (f) 'Ethylene Supply Contracts' (Swap)
The Société Française Exxon Chemical (ECSF) is to supply Shell Chimie SA (SC) with ethylene volumes corresponding to SC's requirements for manufacturing linear polyethylene at NDG under the Plant Utilization Agreement (4) and ECSF is to have one of its affiliated companies - Exxon Chemical Belgium (ECB) - buy equivalent volumes at similar terms and conditions from a Shell affiliate: SC is to arrange for the supply of such volumes for delivery at Antwerp (5) on similar terms and conditions by Shell Nederland Chemie BV (SNC). There are two purchase and supply contracts (Exxon-SC and SNC-Exxon) on identical terms.
(35) (g) 'Butene-1 Supply Contract'
Shell is to sell to Exxon a percentage (minimum 85 %, maximum 115 %) of the adapted base quantity of butene-1 (the estimated annual base quantity required to produce 110 kt of linear polyethylene at the NDG unit, adapted in proportion to the annual linear polyethylene production for Exxon at the unit).
(36) (h) 'Linear Polyethylene Technology Agreement'
The Exxon Corporation grants the GIE, as an Exxon affiliate, the rights and obligations of the Low Pressure Polyethylene Licence Agreement between Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) and Exxon Corporation, under which Exxon is licensed to manufacture, use and sell polyethylene resins with UCC technology under UCC polyethylene Patents Rights.
The GIE therefore obtains an extension of rights under the Exxon-UCC PE Licence, and continuing technology and technical support from Exxon, for the commercial manufacture of linear polyethylenes in France. For use in the construction of its plant of the information included in UCC PE technology, Exxon PE technology and Exxon PE improvements, the GIE shall pay Exxon a lump sum and a running royalty on all PE resins produced in its plant and plant extensions which are sold or used during the Royalty Term.
E. Notification and amendment of the agreements (37) Following a Statement of Objections sent by the Commission to both parties concerned they notified the abovementioned agreements. The Commission therefore considered it appropriate to send a supplementary Statement of Objections on 3 April 1992, confirming its legal assessment of the case and explaining that the conditions specified in Article 85 (3) for granting an exemption were not fulfilled because the agreements imposed on the parties restrictions on competition which were not indispensable to the attainment of the objectives listed in Article 85 (3).
(38) Specifically:
(a) new separate investment by either party in the joint facility depended on the consent of the other;
(b) an Operating Committee, including representatives of both parties, was responsible for most decisions concerning the operation and management of the joint venture, allowing a continuous flow of sensitive competitive information between the parties;
(c) if either party under-utilized its share of the plant's production capacity, the other party could not take over part, or all, of the non-utilized capacity without the first party's agreement.
(39) In view of the Commission's remarks in the supplementary Statement of Objections of 3 April 1992, the parties modified the original agreements and notified the following changes:
(a) each member of the joint venture is entitled to make any investment within the GIE. If the proposed investment involves a modification of existing production facilities, the member wishing to make such investment shall give the other member the opportunity to make such investment jointly.
If the other member wishes to participate, the joint investment proposal shall be submitted for consideration by a General Meeting if it exceeds the authority given to the director in the annual budget.
If the other member does not wish to participate, the member wishing to invest shall be entitled to make such investment provided that such investment would not impair the technical capabilities of the GIE's linear polyethylene manufacturing plant. Such investment shall however be subject to the same conditions as those listed in the original text of this clause.
(b) the Operating Committee has been replaced by an Advisory Committee to be convened at the sole director's discretion, to be consulted by the sole director on any subject of an administrative or technical nature;
(c) in the case of under-utilization of its production rights by either party, the other party is entitled to take over all or part of the non-utilized production rights without any need to consult the under-utilizing party.
F. Comments by interested parties (40) Following publication of the notice required by Article 19 (3) of Regulation No 17 the Commission did not receive any observations from interested third parties.
II. LEGAL ASSESSMENT A. Cooperative nature of the Exxon/Shell joint venture (6) (41) The agreements between chemical companies of the Exxon Group and the Shell Group which are the subject of this Decision provide for the creation of a joint venture and for feedstock supplies. The joint venture is cooperative in nature, as it does not perform all the functions of an autonomous economic entity, and gives rise to coordination of competitive behaviour by the parents both between themselves and in relation to the JV (point 10 of the Commission Notice concerning the assessment of cooperative joint ventures pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty, read in conjunction with Article 3 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89) (7).
B. Article 85 (1) (42) The agreements between Exxon and Shell fall within Article 85 (1) since they restrict competition and may affect trade between Member States. They cannot therefore be given negative clearance as the parties have requested in their applications. They may, however, be exempted under Article 85 (3).
(43) Taking into account the criteria set out in the Commission Notice on cooperative joint ventures and applying them in the light of the particular circumstances of the present case the Commission concludes that the agreements (a) lead to joint control of the venture, (b) have as their object and effect the coordination of the competitive behaviour of the parties and therefore a restriction of competition and (c) may affect trade between Member States.
(a) Joint control
(44) Cipen is not an independent and autonomous undertaking vis-à-vis its parent companies, since its activity is limited to the production and supply of linear polyethylene to the parent companies, which remain active as producers and sellers of the same or similar products. Cipen's activites are determined at the General Meeting by unanimous vote. Daily management is in the hands of a director chosen from among the personnel of Exxon and is subject to audit by a controller chosen from among the personnel of Shell. Even if the controller has no right to interfere with Cipen's operations, its structure allows each member to obtain full information about its business. The parties claim that their control is limited to organizational and technical arrangements for the use of the production facility. However, the characteristics of Cipen are, inter alia, participation of both ventures in budget decisions, joint decisions on joint future investments which do not exceed the authority given to the director in the annual budget and on joint future investments which exceed this authority, and joint decisions on plant optimization and on product development. Shell's role is not therefore limited to that of a passive investor and the relationship between the parties is not that of customer and supplier; nor is this a long-term processing arrangement.
Joint control between competitors implies, in the present case, intimate and continuous cooperation between the parents: such cooperation necessarily leads to a coordinated management structure and allows a two-way exchange of information.
(45) In the Exxon/Shell case cooperation is not confined to organizational and technical arrangements for the use of the facilities, but amounts to real joint control by the parents of the joint venture. It should be noted that Exxon's preferred option was, as stated in the Exxon internal note of 1 February 1989 (meeting with Shell, Paris, 26 January 1989), a pre-payment agreement (PPA) which in shell's view would not easily have allowed for equal control over the plant. However, Shell did not accept unilateral control by Exxon and finally succeeded in having genuine joint ownership.
(46) This is shown by the Shell internal note of 1 February 1989 ('Cape Project Form of Cooperation'). Point 2 of this note 'Why not a processing agreement like in Mosmorran?' (Great Britain) - clearly explains the essential difference between:
1. an agreement limited to technical arrangements for joint production (a 'feedstock-driven project') as at Mosmorran which is described as a 'plant dedicated to the conversion of ethane and propane stream produced by the Shell/Exxon E& P venture; by definition, 50 % of that stream is Exxon's entitlement and 50 % is Shell's' (8),
and
2. a 'product-driven project' as at Notre-Dame-de-Gravenchon.
(47) The peculiarities of such a 'product-driven project' are, inter alia:
(i) participation of both venturers in budget decisions;
(ii) joint decisions on investments;
(iii) joint decisions on plant optimization and on product development.
(48) The Note continues 'An Agreement of this kind would reflect the business consensus as exists between Shell and Exxon. This consensus extends far beyond the limits of a processing agreement . . . However, the envisaged cooperation fits naturally in a flexible and simple joint venture type of agreement because it provides the principal tools for tailor-made decisions to direct the operations in a manner which suits parties' changing requirements.'
(49) The Commission therefore concludes that the coordinated management structure of CIPEN gives Exxon and Shell joint control.
(b) Restrictions resulting from joint formation and joint control
(50) Exxon and Shell are competitors on the principal relevant market: the oligopolistic EC market for LDPE/LLDPE (as distinct from HDPE and other thermoplastics), where they were the fourth and fifth larges producers in 1991, with market shares of some 11,5 % and 8,5 % respectively. The HDPE market might also be relevant: Exxon and Shell must be considered competitors on that market.
In particular:
- Exxon produces LDPE in Belgium and LLDPE/HDPE in Saudi Arabia; Shell produces LDPE in the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Shell produces polypropylene in Germany and in the United Kingdom; Exxon produces polypropylene in France,
- Exxon is capable of setting up LLDPE/HDPE production facilities in the common market independently and Shell is capable of beginning individual production of LLDPE/HDPE. Shell and Exxon are capable of setting up polypropylene facilities in the common market independently.
(51) As regards Exxon, this ability is proven firstly by the know-how that it has and uses in its LLDPE/HDPE plants outside Europe (Exxon is licensed to manufacture, use and sell LLDPE/HDPE with UCC technology) and by its polypropylene plant at NDG. As regards Shell, it should be noted that all other polyethylene manufacturers have been able either to develop their own technology or to acquire it under licence and that Shell owns jointly with BASF (ROW) and LLDPE/HDPE plant in Germany with a capacity of 15 kg/y. Furthermore Shell, according to the Memorandum to the Board of Shell Petroleum NV of October 1989, has sold (before May 1992) a 'pre-marketing volume' of LLDPE bought from Exxon; thus Shell has already its own commercial experience in this particular sector. Shell has already its own experience in producing and marketing polypropylene.
(52) Secondly, an Exxon and/or a Shell LLDPE/HDPE facility having half the capacity of the joint venture would be of a technically and economically feasible size (110 Kt), as is shown by the existence of LLDPE/HDPE facilities of the same size and even smaller, belonging to other undertakings.
(53) Therefore the formation by Exxon and Shell of a joint production venture to be operated within the same markets as the parent companies which are and still remain competitors has to be examined and evaluated in the light of Article 85 (1).
(54) In evaluating whether the set of agreements between Exxon and Shell has as its object or effect to restrict competition, account must be taken of the legal and er economic context, in particular in the light of the situation on the relevant market and the position of the parties thereon. Although the Court of Justice has not yet taken a specific position on joint ventures, the Commission has to bear in mind the central role of the independence of business operators with respect to their business decisions which must not be subject to reciprocal influence.
(55) Cipen is a joint venture to which the parent companies have delegated only the production functions of an undertaking (partial function JV). As the joint venture processes feedstock provided by the parent companies into polyethylene (which continues also to be individually produced and marketed by Exxon and Shell) to be supplied back to them, competition between undertakings - taking into account the market proximity of their cooperation and the inherent tendency to align prices - will exist in a weaker form only (point 40 of the Commission Notice on cooperative joint ventures).
(56) The parent companies have made a significant investment in the new production facility, which represents a considerable part (approximately 17 %) of their overall activity in the LPDE/LLDPE market (where there is the risk that the existing imbalance between production capacity and demand will persist for the next few years), and sell its output without further processing. Their setting-up and running of Cipen as a joint venture implies a direct and permanent cooperation influencing their current and future competitive behaviour and affecting their independence.
(57) However, as far as the HDPE market is concerned the Commission considers that the restriction of competition is not significant because the current weight of Exxon and Shell in the HDPE market is not great. Shell has only 50 % in the ROW joint venture with BASF, capable of producing 215 Kt/y of HDPE and Exxon has no HDPE plant in the Community. It is true that Exxon can export HDPE from the Middle East and the United States of America but the outlook for the next decade is a decline in total imports from the United States of America as world prices are expected to equalize and there will be increased domestic availability. On the other hand, it has to be borne in mind that Shell is the second producer (with Hoechst and after Himont) of polypropylene, which partially competes with HDPE. Moreover, Exxon is one of the major polypropylene producers in the United States of America and since the end of 1992 has had its first plant in the EC (140 Kt/y) at NDG. For these reasons, the Commission considers Exxon and Shell to be competitors but, at the same time, since the inter-polymer competition between HPDE and polypropylene is not significant, the Commission believes that Cipen, given its present size and in the light of the present characteristics of the oligopolistic HDPE market and of the only partial substitutability of HDPE by polypropylene, leads only to an insignificant restriction of competition.
(58) This restriction of competition (significant in the LDPE/LLDPE market but not so in the HDPE market), which does not presuppose any explicit intention of the parties, is well illustrated by the aspects of investment and of production:
I. Investment
(59) In declining to create a new production facility jointly, the parents coordinated their investment plans and gave up the possibility of enlarging their polyethylene buinesses by individual action, of which they would have perfectly capable, given their overall size and experience inthe sector. As far as investments within the GIE are concerned neither the General Meeting nor the director can act contrary to the interests opf one of the shareholders: the first because its decisions must be unanimous; the second inter alia because of the controller's power of audit. The decision-making powers of the General Meeting and of the director are limited by Cipen's need to accommodate the interests of its shareholders. As far as the investments outside the GIE are concerned, even if each member may make anindependent investment, it will be influenced in its own investment decisions concerning LDPE/LLDPE by the decisions made jointly with its partner in a plant which represents a considerable and technologically sophisticated part of both parents' activities in the LDPE/LLDPE market. In particular, the decision to set up a joint facility will appreciable reduce the possibility that either of the parties, after having put substantial financial investment into the joint venture, will undertake costly investments in capacities competing with those of the joint venture (9). The very object of their cooperation will thus be a restriction of competition between Exxon and Shell in the LDPE/LLDPE market. This restriction of competition will also indirectly affect the competitive position of the partners themselves.
II. Production
(60) Exxon and Shell will inevitable be led to coordinate their production within Cipern. Even if both are entitled to use the production facilities for the same length of time and for the required grades, each must necessarily take account of the other's plans, about which they will be able to acquire significant information, and respect the limits of the production facilities when producing for the other. Each parent is committed to taking delivery of the quantity of LLDPE/HDPE corresponding to the feedstock supplied by it and to supplying the ethylene and butene-1 required for the manufacture of the linear polyethylene corresponding to the operating time (50 %) allotted to it.
(61) The coordination between Exxon and Shell of their producton programme of linear polyethylene within the joint venture is strengthened by the ethylene supply contracts. In view of the economic reality represented by the ethylene supply contracts which amount to de facto exclusivity and their legal structure, it is clear that:
(i) only ethylene produced by the parents is supplied to Cipen;
(ii) the swap arrangements for ethylene between Exxon and Shell indirectly and coordination of their polyethylene production to plants not forming part of the joint venture (Exxon's LDPE plants in Belgium).
(62) This anticompetitive effect is not eliminated by the fact that the parties continue to market LDPE/LLDPE products - including the output of the joint venture - independently (10). As sales prices are largely similar, the major competition parameter is the overall strategy on investment and production which is precisely the concern of their coordination within the joint venture.
(63) Nor is the anticompetitive effect eliminated by the amendments to the agreements subsequent to the Commission's supplementary Statement of Objections. It is true that those amendments guarantee a larger autonomy in day-to-day management and greater scope for separate investments, and for adapting the output of the joint venture to the respective needs of the parents. Nevertheless, the structure chosen for their cooperation is still different from the forms of passive investment or long-term processing arrangements. In fact, the provisions provided for go beyond what is strictly necessary for the creation and proper technical and administrative operation of the joint venture and lead to coordination of the competitive behaviour of the parties (11):
- As far as new investments within the joint venture are concerned, it remains true that joint future investments which do not exceed the authority given to the director in the annual budget are the result of a joint decision because they are contemplated in the budget approved by the General Meeting and that joint future investments which exceed the authority given to the director in the annual budget are equally the result of a joint decision because they must be submitted for consideration by a General Meeting. Moreover, the party wishing to make a separate investment within the CIE is not permitted to do so if the other party wishies such investment to be made jointly. Furthermore, the party investing separately is permitted to make such investment only if the other party's production rights do not fall below 33 %. There is still, therefore, coordination of competition behaviour in the investments field.
- As far as the day-to-day management is concerned, it remains the case that, even though the director has greater autonomy, he has still to carry out the joint decisions arising from the budget approved by the General Meeting.
- As far as production rights are concerned, it remains the case that each party must necessarily take account of the other's plans, about which they will be able to acquire significant information and respect the limits of the joint production facilities when producing for the other.
It has in particular to be pointed out that the flow of information between Exxon and Shell allowed by the joint venture structure is the basis on which each partner can plan its polyethylene production and adapt it to the choices of the other partner. This interdependence has a direct effect on the Exxon and Shell joint venture production plans (allowing, as was established by a Commission verification of the practical functioning of the joint venture, a perfect equalization of the quantities produced by the two ventures or a contemporaneous halting of the joint venture's production), but also an indirect effect (spill-over or group effect) on the polyethylene production plans of the Exxon and Shell groups as a whole. In fact any increase, reduction or halt in production decided by one partner in order to adjusts its behaviour to the other partner's choices in the joint venture entails a general reconsideration of the production plans of all polyethylene sites belonging to that partner's group.
(c) Effect upon trade between Member States
(64) The Exxon/Shell joint venture and related agreements may have an appreciable effect upon trade between Member States. The agreements concern products supplying the products throughout the Community. In particular, linear polyethylene manufactured by the plant venture is to be marketed inter alia throughout the EC.
C. Article 85 (3) (65) The agreements between Exxon and Shell meet the conditions for exemption laid down in Article 85 (3). They contribute to improving the production of goods and to promoting technical and economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit.
(66) As amended following the Commission's supplementary Statement of Objections, they do not impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives. Finally, the agreements do not afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.
(a) Improvement in production
Promotion of technical and economic progress
(67) The agreements between the parties allow for the building of the first LLDPE/HDPE plant in the European Community utilizing the Unipol technology.
This technology provides a high degree of flexibility (enabling the plant at NDG to produce several different grades of linear polyethylene) and efficiency (enabling the plant at NDG to produce polyethylene at competitive costs). In the realm of technical progress, the presence of additional LLDPE in the Community at low cost should encourage customers to convert ageing extrusion equipment (older extruders must process an LDPE-LLDPE offers over LDPE in terms of 'down-gauging' (thinner films with equivalent strength). This would result in a reduction of customers' use of raw materials, their costs and the volume of plastic wastes.
(68) Account also has to be taken of the fact that an LLDPE/HDPE production joint venture between two ethylene producers which, because of the exchange swap agreements, do not need to transport ethylene, avoids health and environmental risks connected with such transport.
(69) Moreover, the fact that Cipen benefits from Exxon's existing Unipol technology licence, saving the expenses of a new Unipol licence or of developing and implementing alternative technologies, allows significant cost savings to be achieved.
(b) Advantages for consumers
(70) Besides this favourable effect to customers, the introduction in the Community of LLDPE produced by the Unipol technology and of the availability of significant volumes of lows cost LLDPE in the market described above will benefit consumers. Indeed the Exxon/Shell joint venture and related agreements do not contain any element preventing consumers from sharing in the resulting benefit of the LLDPE's low cost at Cipen. In particular it has to be pointed out that neither parent depends on the other for the feedstock (ethylene). Because of the ethylene swap arrangements Shell's raw material costs for LLDPE/HDPE ex-NDG will be based on Shell's costs of producing ethylene at its Moerdijk plant, while Exxon's cost of raw materials will be based on the economies of its NDG cracker. As it is highly unlikely that Moerdijk and NDG ethylene costs will be identical and as the two parties have separate marketing organizations and operations, competition between Exxon and Shell even if restricted by cooperation in the joint venture, will also prevail for the LLDPE produced at Cipen, thereby allowing consumers a fair share of benefits resulting from improvements in production and in technical and economic progress.
(71) Moreover, the often superior performance of LLDPE over LDPE will result in improved products for consumer's use. It should also be noted that the reduction in the use of raw materials and of plastic waste and the avoidance of environmental risks involved in the transport of ethylene will be perceived as beneficial by many consumers at a time when the limitation of natural resources and threats to the environment are of increasing public concern.
(c) Indispensability of the restrictions
(72) The restrictions on competition arising from the agreements between Exxon and Shell as modified following the Commission's supplementary Statement of Objections are now reduced to the minimum indispensable to the attainment of the above objectives carried out by means of a reliably functioning joint production venture.
(73) The modified agreements still provide for a certain coordination of the competitive behaviour of Exxon and Shell with respect to investment and production of LDPE/LLDPE. However, this cooperation is carried out in the manner least restrictive of competition, thus maintaining as far as possible the economic autonomy of independent operators on the market.
(74) The reduced from of coordination is indispensable for attaining the abovementioned production, technical and economic improvements.
It is unlikely that either party alone would have built such an efficient and reliable LLDPE/HDPE plant for the following reasons:
(a) although both Shell and Exxon are financially strong, they did not have, given the current market situation, sufficient incentive to invest 100 % of the capital in a highly efficient and reliable LLDPE/HDPE plant like Cipen, which cost approximately FF 1 000 million;
(b) although Exxon and Shell are capable of setting up individual LLDPE/HDPE facilities in the common market, having half the capacity of the joint venture, a single reactor plant using the advanced gas phase process is, technically and economically, the most appropriate.
(75) The objectives of the present cooperation could not, in the specific circumstances of the case, have been achieved by a long-term processing arrangement or by means of a mere financial participation in the venture, because of the complex issues relating to grade slate development and investment planning, which require that both parties exercise certain powers to oversee the structure of the venture.
(76) Given the capabilities of the Unipol process, a very large number of different reactor grades can be produced covering a multitude of combinations within the wide ranges of key product characteristics such as melt index, density, comonomer content, etc. Each product-finishing phase can be tailored, by addition of a variety of packages, to produce specific properties meeting the customers' applications requirements. As a result, Cipen's plant will be able to produce several different grades of linear polyethylene. Because some grades are not efficiently produced in sequence, the parties probably will want a very limited number of grades during any particular period of production. Thus the parties need a forum to discuss and determine which specific grades will be produced, both currently (grade slate selection) and in the future (new/experimental produce development).
Hence, proper grade slate development, capacity enhancement and grade cycle planning are key ingredients of an effective guidance of Cipen's processing facility characterized by the above described flexible producing system. In these particular circumstances it is indispensable that both parents be involved in the bilateral determination of such matters through a bilateral interactive decision-making process.
Were it not for the General Meeting's taking decisions unanimously and the sharing of authority between the Exxon Director (daily management) and the Shell Controller (internal auditing), the parties could not efficiently manage a joint venture in which they have made a significant investment and which requires, because of the above described complexity of the flexibility of the grade slate production, an interactive and continuous decision-making process.
(77) This does not mean that every decision concerning the new production facility has to be taken jointly. In fact the actual structure of the joint venture guarantees:
- a greater possibility of separate investment decisions not only outside, but also within, the GIE because such separate investment is not subject, as it was in the original agreements, to the condition of being 'within the manufacturing capability of the plant as determined by the General Meeting' but to the much more objective condition that 'such investment would not impair the technical capacilities of the GIE's linear polyethylene manufacturing plant.' In fact the original provisions concerning new investments in the Cipen facilities, where such investment effectively depended on the content of the other party, constituted a restriction of competition which was not indispensable. While it is necessary and acceptable that a proposed separate investment in the plant itself is not permitted if the other party wishes such investment to be made jointly, it must be possible for the party proposing such investment to make it independently as long as the operation of the plant is not jeopardized and the other party refuses to participate in the proposed investment. Since the new arrangements in the Internal and Operating Rules concerning new instruments in the facility take this requirement into account they do not exceed what is indispensable for the attainment of Cipen's objectives,
- the possibility, in the case of under-utilization of its production rights by one party, for the other party to take over all or party to take over all or part of the non-utilized rights without any need to consult the under-utilizing party, because such extra off-taking is not made subject, as it was in the original agreements, to the holding of a meeting between Exxon and Shell to 'discuss promptly the possible reapportionment of their respective production rights', but to the much more objective condition that the interested party shall 'notify the director of its intention to take over all or part of the non-utilized production rights, which shall be invoiced by the GIE to said party at the price of the actual fixed costs relating to the part of production rights taken over. GIE will promptly reimburse the under-utilizing party the amount so paid by the other party.'
As a general rule it is appropriate that each party has at its disposal a share of Cipen's production capacity corresponding to its interest in Cipen. Nevertheless, in a situation where one party under-utilizes its share of the plant's production capacity, it must be possible for the other party to take over part or all of the unutilized capacity without the first party's express or implied consent. While the original provisions concerning off-takes required such consent of the other party and thus restricted the parents' autonomy in their production decisions beyond what is indispensable for the functioning of the joint venture, the alternations to the Plant Utilization Agreement now provide for each party to take the decision to utilize part or all of the plant operating time that the other party does not utilize, without needing that party's consent. In the area of plant utilization the agreements therefore no longer constitute a restriction which is not indispensable on competition,
- greater independence for the director in the day-to-day management of the joint venture because his powers are no longer limited, as they were in the original agreements, by the Operating Committee: the Committee has been replaced by an Advisory Committee to be convened at the director's discretion and to consulted by the director on any subject of an administrative or technical nature. While participation of both parents in budgetary decisions and decisions on joint future investments, plant optimization and product development are to be considered as related to the joint control of the venture, the day-to-day managemwent of the plant has to be organized in a manner which excludes the parents from continuously influencing Cipen operations not strictly related to the flexibility of its grade slate production.
This has been achieved by granting the Director of Cipen a large degree of autonomy with regard to the day-to-day management of the plant. A situation in which an Operating Committee, including representatives of both parties, was responsible for most decisions concerning the operation and management of the joint venture, as originally envisaged by the parties, would have allowed a continual flow of sensitive competitive information between the parties.
The new arrangement whereby the director, supported by the Advisory Committee, is responsible for the day-to-day management of the plant reduces this danger of undue cooperation between the parties and - unlike the arrangement originally envisaged - meets the condition of being indispensable for the smooth running of the plant.
(78) In this altered context the supply arrangements, and in particular the ethylene swap, can be considered as containing restrictions that are ancillary to the restriction of competition arising from the joint venture itself. The Commission Notice concerning the assessment of cooperative joint ventures pursuant to Articlew 85 of the EEC Treaty establishes that 'ancillary restrictions require no special justification under joint venture' because 'the exemption from prohibition is based for both on the same principles' (point 67 of the Notice).
(d) Elimination of competition
(79) The agreements between Exxon and Shell do not afford the parties the possibility of eliminating competition for a substantial part of the products in question.
(80) In fact the agreements do not exclude competition between the parties, although competition is restricted by cooperation in the joint venture. 'Cipen is a non-exclusive vehicle for each of the parties to produce certain volumes of LLDPE/HDPE in a jointly-owned Exxon operated plant and the parties have modified the original agreements to ensure that they remain separate and, to the greatest possible extent, independent competitors in the LDPE/LLDPE market.'
(81) After the implementation of the agrements, Exxon and Shell's total production capacity share for LDPE/LLDPE is about 22 % and their aggregate market share is of a similar magnitude. Considering that the joint venture restricts, but does not eliminate, competition between the parties, and even if one takes into account the aggregate market shares of the two groups, the size of the other competitors in the same market guarantees that workable competition is not eliminated.
This is in line with the Commission Notice concerning the assessment of cooperative joint venture pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty, which establishes (point 63 of the Notice) that 'The market share limit of 20 % in the group exemption regulation can serve as a starting point for the assessment of production JVs in individual cases.' As the total production capacity share of Exxon and Shell for LDPE/LLDPE is marginally in excess of the threshold mentioned and as the market structure will continue to guarantee a degree of competition which, although reduced by the parties' cooperation in the joint venture, will nevertheless be sufficient, an individual exemption is justified.
(82) Moreover as far as the Unipol technology is concerned, there is no provision in the 'Linear Polyethylene Technological Agreement' or the other notified Exxon/Shell agreements which would have a foreclosure effect; such effect is indeed prevent by the fact that several companies license out polyethylene technology, namely ICI, BASF, UCC, Philips, USI, BP, Dupont, Mitsui, CDF, Montedison, Amoco, Stomicarbon and Atochem.
Duration of the exemption and obligations
(83) Article 8 (1) of Regulation No 17 provides that exemptions pursuant to Article 85 (3) shall be granted only for a specific period and that conditions and obligations may be attached to them.
(84) In view of the nature of the agreements and the short- and medium-term outlook for the polyethylene industry and its markets, and particularly given the fact that the joint plant is to be operated for an initial term of 15 years from the date of start-up by Exxon, the appropriate duration of the exemption, which serves the objectives listed in Article 85 (3) is considered to be the period running for 10 years from the date of the first notification of the modified agreements (29 May 1992 to 28 May 2002). Indeed, a shorter duration for the exemption would not take due account of the importance of the partners' investment in the joint venture.
(85) To enable the Commission to monitor the exempted agreements as required by Article 8 (3) of Regulation No 17 and, in particular, to keep the Commission informed of any changes in any of the facts which are basic to the granting of this exemption decision as required by indent (a) of the said Article 8 (3), Exxon and Shell must also be required to inform the Commission in advance of any renewals of, or extensions in the scope or nature of, or amendments or additions to the agreements (including the identity of the parties) and of any halt in production in the joint venture by Exxon or Shell (specifying the duration and the reasons for the halt).
(86) To enable the Commission to check that Exxon and Shell scrupulously abide by all the obligations set out in this exemption decision, and that competition is not unduly or further restricted, the parties should be required to submit a report to the Commission every year on LDPE, LLDPE and HDPE. The reports should state the production and the sale of LDPE, of LLDPE and of HDPE by the party, or by subsidiaries, or companies it controls in the common market as a whole, in each Member State and in other countries, identifying separately the data concerning Cipen's production. The reports shall be sent to the Commission within two months of the end of the period to which they refer. The first report should cover the period from 1 January to 31 December 1993 and should be sent to the Commission within one month of the notification of this Decision.
(87) The Commission has also the particular duty of deciding whether an envisaged capacity extension of Cipen will require reconsideration of the case under Article 85 (3) because of the possibility that the envisaged extension, or extensions, might lead to a situation whereby it would not be indispensable to continue joint ownership and joint control of a facility such as Cipen.
If, (to give an extreme example) Cipen were to envisage doubling its capacity, the possibility of providing for two separate Exxon and Shell production entities would have to be considered. Exxon and Shell must therefore be required to inform the Commission in advance of any envisaged modification of capacity outside and within the GIE with reference to the products under consideration in the present Decision.
(88) In addition, the Commission reserves the right to ask the parties to supply any other information it deems necessary to check that competition is not restricted more than this Decision allows,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Pursuant to Article 85 (3), the provisions of Article 85 (1) of the EC Treaty are hereby declared inapplicable for the period 29 May 1992 to 28 May 2002 to the agreements between certain chemical companies of the Exxon Group and certain chemical companies of the Shell Group relating to the supply of feedstock and to establishing, financing, constructing, managing and operating a linear polyethylene production joint venture named 'Compagnie Industrielle des Polyéthylènes de Normandie' (hereinafter referred to as 'Cipen'), between a French affiliate of the Exxon Group and a French affiliate of the Shell Group.
Article 2
The declaration of exemption contained in Article 1 shall be subject to the following obligations:
1. Exxon and Shell shall, individually, inform the Commission in advance of any renewals of, or extensions in the scope of nature of, or amendments or additions to the agreements (including the identity of the parties) referred to in Article 1, and of any halt in production in the joint venture by Exxon or Shell (specifying the duration and the reasons for the halt).
2. Exxon shall submit, during the period of the exemption, a report every year to the Commission, arriving not later than two months after the end of the period which it covers. The first report shall refer to the period from 1 Janaury to 31 December 1993 and should be sent to the Commission within one month of the notification of this Decision.
The report shall concern the activities relating to the production and the sale of LDPE, LLDPE and HDPE and shall, for each product, indicate the amount produced and the amount sold by Exxon, its subsidiaries and companies it controls, in the common market as a whole, in each Member State and in other countries, in each case identifying Cipen's production separately.
3. Shell shall submit, during the period of the exemption, a report every year to the Commission, arriving not later than two months after the end of the period which it covers. The first report shall refer to the period from 1 January to 31 December 1993 and should be sent to the Commission within one month of the notification of this Decision.
The report shall concern the activites relating to the production and the sale of LDPE, LLDPE and HDPE and shall, for each product indicate the amount produced and the amount sold by Shell, its subsidiaries and companies it controls, in the common market as a whole, in each Member State and in other countries, in each case identifying Cipen's production separately.
4. Exxon and Shell shall individually inform the Commission in advance of any envisaged modification of capacity outside or within the Groupement d'intérêt économique with reference to the products under references in this Decision.
5. Exxon and Shell shall answer any request for any other information the Commission deems necessary to verify that competition is not restricted more that this Decision allows.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the following undertakings:
- Exxon Chemical International Inc.,
Boulevard du Souverain 280,
B-1160 Brussels,
(on behalf of the Exxon Group);
- Shell International Chemical Company Limited
Shell Centre,
GB-London SEI 7PG,
(on behalf of the Seil Group).
Done at Brussels, 18 May 1994. | [
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1436/91 of 30 May 1991 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds
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 3577/90 (2), and in particular Article 16 thereof,
Whereas a nomenclature for refunds was introduced by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1255/91 (4); whereas the nomenclature should be amended to adjust the minimum content of native starch (CN code 1108) eligible for export refunds;
Whereas experience has shown, that for the sake of simplifying control procedures, the minimum content of native starch eligible for an export refund listed in the nomenclature should be aligned with the minimum content of native starch benefiting from a production refund, established in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2169/86 of 10 July 1986 laying down detailed rules for the control and payment or the production refunds in the cereals and rice sectors (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3056/90 (6);
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1
The description of CN code 1108 of the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds, as shown in sector 3 of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87, is hereby replaced by that in the Annex to this Regulation.
The new footnote (6) is added at the end of sector 3. Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 June 1991. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 May 1991. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 626/85
of 12 March 1985
on the purchasing, selling and storage of unprocessed dried grapes and figs by storage agencies
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 516/77 of 14 March 1977 on the common organization of the market in products processed from fruit and vegetables (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 988/84 (2), and in particular Articles 4 (8) an 18 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1223/83 of 20 May 1983 on the exchange rates to be applied in agriculture (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 855/84 (4), and in particular Article 4 (3) thereof,
Whereas Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 516/77 provides that storage agencies must be approved by the Member States concerned and that in respect of dried grapes the storage agencies must purchase up to the limits of the guarantee thresholds laid down by Council Regulation (EEC) No 989/84 (5); whereas in order to be approved as a storage agency the interested party must have at its disposal facilities which allow for appropriate preservation and handling of the products;
Whereas Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 516/77 lays down that dried figs and dried grapes to be purchased shall comply with quality standards to be determined; whereas dried figs must, in order to qualify for the payment of the minimum price fixed, comply with the requirements set out in Annex II to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1709/84 (6) and dried grapes shall comply with the requirements set out in Annex II to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2347/84 (7); whereas these requirements should also be complied with when the products are sold to the storage agency; whereas in addition the products should meet the conditions necessary for storage;
Whereas in order to ensure that sellers of dried grapes and dried figs are given equal treatment and that the storage agencies are applying the measures correctly, the Member States must supervise the transaction carried out by storage agencies; whereas to that end a contract should be concluded for each purchase and a copy thereof should be sent to the competent authorities together with proof that the products qualify for sale to the storage agency;
Whereas equal access to the products and equal treatment of purchasers can be ensured if, when the selling price is fixed in advance, the storage agencies accept all applications received on any one day simultaneously until supplies are exhausted;
Whereas, where the selling price is determined by means of an invitation to tender, these principles can be respected by giving the notice of invitation to tender appropriate publicity;
Whereas, since the object of the tendering procedure is to obtain the best price, the award must go to the highest tender; whereas, however, the highest price can be accepted only if it corresponds to the actual market situation; whereas minimum selling prices should therefore be determined in accordance with a Community procedure, having due regard to the tenders received;
Whereas, to ensure efficiency in the disposal of stored products, minimum sale quantities should be laid down;
Whereas invitations to tender must include sufficient information to allow proper identification of the products concerned;
Whereas the submission of an application or a tender is facilitated if prospective purchasers are permitted to inspect the product; whereas it should consequently be provided that the parties concerned waive in advance their right to lodge any complaint in respect of the quality and characteristics of the products which may be assigned to them;
Whereas fulfilment of the obligations contracted must be guaranteed through the lodging of a security which can be partly or wholly forfeited;
Whereas, so that these operations may be carried out expeditiously, it should be laid down that the rights and obligations involved in a sale contract or a tender must be exercised or fulfilled within certain time limits;
Whereas under Article 4 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1134/68 (1) the sums defined therein are paid on the basis of the conversion rate which obtained at the time when the operation or part thereof was carried out; whereas Article 6 of the abovementioned Regulation defines the time when an operation is carried out as the date on which the event defined by Community rules occurs, or, in the absence of and pending adoption of such rules, by the rules of the Member State concerned, as a result of which the amount involved in the operation becomes due and payable; whereas, however, under Article 4 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1223/83, derogations from the abovementioned provisions may be decided upon; whereas in order to be compatible with the production aid system within which the measures on storage agencies has to function, the conversion rate to be applied should be that valid on the first day of the marketing year concerned;
Whereas products sold by storage agencies do not benefit from production aid; whereas when the products sold are in competition with other products for consumption, they should, however, comply with the same quality requirements as such products; whereas to that end a security should be required; whereas the security should be lodged and released in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1687/76 (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 371/85 (3);
Whereas the storage agencies should store and handle the products in such a way that their value depreciates as little as possible; whereas it is a characteristic of the products, however, that after a long period of storage, they cannot be used for consumption; whereas that fact must be taken into account when the storage requirements are stipulated;
Whereas stocktaking operations must be carried out by the storage agencies in order to ensure correct application of the storage aid system and the correct payment of financial compensation as provided for in Article 4 (5) and (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 516/77;
Whereas under Article 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 516/77 the Member States are required to communicate to the Commission the information necessary for implementing that Regulation; whereas some information is available only to the storage agencies; whereas such information should be communicated to the competent authorities;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Products Processed from Fruit and Vegetables,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
TITLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1
1. This Regulation lays down detailed rules for applying the system of storage agencies provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 516/77.
2. The Member States shall approve storage agencies:
(a) which have storage facilities permitting good preservation of the products purchased to be properly preserved and which have a minimum storage capacity;
(b) which undertake in writing to comply with the provisions adopted by the Community or prescribed by the national authorities relating to their activities as storage agencies.
The approval shall be withdrawn where the conditions under (a) are no longer satisfied or where a storage agency seriously neglects the undertaking referred to under (b).
3. The Member States shall determine the minimum storage capacity referred to in paragraph 2 (a) and shall prescribe the conditions for the approval of storage agencies, in particular requirements as to storage conditions, handling of products stored and technical equipment.
TITLE II
PURCHASING
Article 2
1. The storage agencies shall purchase:
- all unprocessed dried figs offered to them during the period 1 May to 30 June each year,
- a maximum of 65 000 tonnes of unprocessed dried currants and 93 000 tonnes of unprocessed dried sultanas offered to them during the period 1 July to 31 August each year.
2. The products referred to in paragraph 1 shall, when handed over to the storage agency, be free of live insects, and shall have been produced in the Community during the current marketing year and comply with the following provisions:
(a) in respect of unprocessed dried figs, those laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 1709/84;
(b) in respect of unprocessed dried grapes, those laid down in Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 2347/84.
Where products are handed over to a storage agency in packings, such packings shall be clean and designed so as to ensure protection of the products during storage.
3. The price to be paid for products taken over by the storage agency shall per 100 kilograms net be equal to the minimum price to be paid for the category in question to the producers on the first day of the current marketing year. The conversion rate to be applied to the minimum price, fixed in ECU, shall be the representative rate in force on that day.
Article 3
1. For each purchase a contract in writing shall during the relevant period referred to in Article 2 (1) be concluded specifying in particular:
(a) the name and address of the storage agency concerned with a reference identifying its approval;
(b) the name and address of the seller;
(c) the estimated quantity concerned broken down according to category;
(d) the address of the warehouse where the products shall be taken over by the storage agency;
(e) the price to be paid for the products broken down according to category.
Where the storage agency is a legal person the contract shall also specify its head office and administrative address.
2. The products under contract shall be delivered to the warehouse concerned not later than one month after the conclusion of the contract.
3. In respect of currants the contract shall be accompanied by the written undertaking provided for in Article 3a (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 516/77.
However, if the seller is not the producer of the currants, the undertaking may be replaced by a declaration from the seller in which he declares that he has bought the currants from named producers and is in possession of the undertakings issued by the producers. The correctness of the declarations shall be proved to the satisfaction of the competent authorities.
4. In cases where the storage agency is also acting as seller, the contract referred to in paragraph 1 shall be considered as concluded when a document indicating the particulars referred to in that paragraph, other than those under (e), has been drawn up. In such cases the purchase price shall be considered equal to the minimum price referred to in Article 2 (3).
Article 4
1. When products are handed over to the storage agency the quantity shall be established by weighing on balances approved by the authorities competent for verification of balances.
2. Verification of the products and their classification shall be carried out on the basis of representative samples taken by the storage agency from each lot presented for taking over.
For this purpose 'lot' means the quantity covered by a single contract.
3. The result of each verification and the actual weight of the lot shall be included in a format which shall contain at least the particulars referred to in the Annex.
4. Where agreement as to compliance with the provisions in Article 2 (2) cannot be reached between the seller and the storage agency, samples taken by both parties shall be submitted for verification to an expert committee designated by the competent authorities. The result of this verification shall be final.
5. Where the verification of the products establishes that the products do not comply with the provisions in Article 2 (2), the contract shall be cancelled in respect of the defective quantity. In that case the seller shall take back the products and refund to the storage agency the cost of storage in accordance with the provisions prescribed by the competent authorities.
Article 5
1. A copy of each contract referred to in Article 3 shall be forwarded by the storage agency to the competent authorities in the Member State which have approved the storage agency. The copy shall reach the competent authorities not later than 10 working days after the conclusion of the contract and prior to the delivery.
2. When the format referred to in Article 4 (3) has been duly completed, a copy shall be forwarded to the authorities referred to in paragraph 1. The copy shall reach the competent authorities not later than 10 working days after its completion. TITLE III
SELLING
Article 6
1. Products intended for processing within the Community for consumption shall be sold at prices fixed in advance and the selling price shall be fixed taking into consideration that the products cannot benefit from a production aid.
A security shall be required to guarantee that products purchased are processed into dried grapes or dried figs complying with the requirements laid down in Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 2347/84 or Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 1709/84.
The processing shall be finished not later than 90 days after the day of acceptance referred to in Article 8 (2).
2. Products intended for processing and subsequent export from the Community or for specific uses yet to be determined within the Community shall be sold at prices fixed in advance or determined by an invitation to tender.
A. Sales at prices fixed in advance
Article 7
1. The purchase application shall be submitted to the storage agency in writing. It shall be deemed valid for consideration on the day when the applicant has proved that the security specified in Article 21 (1) is received.
2. In order to be deemed valid for consideration, the application must:
(a) specify the name and address of the purchaser;
(b) give an accurate description of the product;
(c) specify the quantity applied for and the price fixed;
(d) include a declaration by the applicant waiving all claims in respect of the quality and characteristics of the product which may be assigned to him;
(e) specify the use and/or destination of the products as referred to in Article 6.
The application may also name, in order of preference, the store or stores where the products applied for are stored.
3. It may be indicated in a purchase application that it is to be regarded as having been submitted only if:
(a) the allocation relates to the entire quantity specified in the application;
(b) the allocation relates to a quantity specified in the application.
4. The purchase application shall be rejected if the security referred to in Article 21 (1) is not lodged for the benefit of the agency appointed by the Member State within three working days following its submission in accordance with paragraph 1. This agency shall inform the storage agency when the security has been lodged.
Article 8
1. The storage agency shall deem valid for consideration each day all complete applications submitted in accordance with Article 7.
Applications deemed valid for consideration on any particular day shall be considered as having been submitted simultaneously.
2. Save in exceptional circumstances applications shall be accepted within five working days following their submission until stocks are exhausted.
Where, taken together, the applications submitted on the same day exceed the quantity available, the storage agency shall allocate the quantity available by drawing lots.
3. The storage agency shall, within the time limit provided for in paragraph 2, notify each applicant of the decision taken on his application.
Article 9
1. The date of submission of the application shall be the day on which it is received by the storage agency, provided that this occurs not later than 2 p.m. local time.
2. Applications which reach the storage agency concerned on a day which is not a working day for that agency, or on a working day for that agency but later than the time referred to in paragraph 1, shall be deemed to have been submitted on the first working day following the day on which they were received.
Article 10
The exchange rate to be applied to sale prices fixed in advance in ECU shall be the representative rate in force on the day on which the application is deemed valid for consideration under Article 8 (1).
B. Sale at a price determined by an invitation to tender
Article 11
Where it is decided to sell products by tender the storage agency concerned shall draw up a notice of invitation to tender and immediately forward copies of it to the Commission. Publicity arrangements shall include posting at the offices of the storage agency. Article 12
Each invitation to tender shall include the following information:
(a) description of the products and their harvest year;
(b) the name(s) and address(es) of the storage agency or agencies;
(c) for each storage agency the quantities of each product offered for tender and the categories thereof;
(d) the closing date and the address for the submission of tenders;
(e) the use and/or destination of the products as referred to in Article 6 (2);
(f) a statement that tenders may be submitted by telex.
Article 13
1. Tenders shall be submitted by letter or telex to:
- in the case of products held by a Greek storage agency, the relevant storage agency, at the head office of IDAGEP, 5 Acharnon Street, Athens,
- in the case of products held by an Italian storage agency, the relevant storage agency, at the head office of AIMA, via Palestro, 81, Rome.
They may also be handed in to the relevant head office, in which case an acknowledgement shall be issued.
2. In order to be deemed valid for consideration, the tender must:
(a) specify the name and address of the tenderer;
(b) give an accurate description of the products and the quantity for which the tender is made;
(c) specify the price offered per tonne, expressed in the currency of the Member State whose storage agency has issued the invitation to tender;
(d) include a declaration by the tenderer waiving all claims in respect of the quality and characteristics of a product awarded to him;
(e) include any additional information required by the invitation to tender.
Tenders shall be valid only if before expiry of the time limit for submission of tenders the security referred to in Article 21 (1) has been lodged for the benefit of the agency designated by the Member State. This agency shall inform the storage agency when the security has been lodged.
3. It may be indicated in a tender that it is to be regarded as having been submitted only if the award relates to:
(a) the entire quantity specified in the tender, or
(b) a quantity specified in the tender.
Article 14
Tenders shall be examined in the presence of the competent authorities of the Member States concerned not more than three working days following expiry of the time limit for their being lodged. These authorities shall transmit to the Commission a list showing for each quantity put up for sale the offer price received.
Article 15
In accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 20 of Regulation (EEC) No 516/77 and in the light of the tenders received, minimum selling prices shall be fixed for the products in question, or a decision shall be taken not to make an award. Decisions fixing minimum selling prices shall be notified without delay to the Member State concerned.
Article 16
1. Tenders equal to or exceeding the minimum selling price referred to in Article 15 shall be accommodated. Tenders for less than that price shall be refused.
2. Contracts shall be awarded to the highest tenderer when quantities available are not sufficient to meet all tenders. Where more than one tender at the same price is received and where the quantities applied for exceed the quantity available, the storage agency shall allocate the quantity available by drawing lots.
Article 17
Each tenderer shall within five working days of the communication by telex to the Member States concerned of the decision fixing the minimum price be notified by the competent authorities of the result of his participation in the invitation to tender.
Article 18
The exchange rate used to convert:
- tenders into ECU, and
- minimum selling prices into national currency
shall be the representative rate in force on the closing day for the submission of tenders. C. Common provisions
Article 19
Storage agencies shall make all necessary arrangements to enable prospective buyers or tenderers to inspect the products for sale before making their purchase applications or submitting their tenders.
Article 20
The purchase application or tender shall be in of the official languages of the Community.
However, storage agencies may require that applications or tenders submitted in a language which is not an official language of the Member State concerned be accompanied by a translation.
Where a storage agency avails itself of this right, it shall inform the Commission.
Article 21
1. The security referred to in Articles 7 (1) and 13 (2) shall be 4,50 ECU per 100 kilograms.
The security shall be lodged, at the choice of the applicant or tenderer, in cash or in the form of a guarantee provided by an establishment meeting the criteria fixed by the Member State in which the storage agency concerned is situated.
2. The security shall be released only:
(a) if the purchase application or the tender is not accepted, or
(b) when the purchaser has paid the purchase price and the security required to guarantee that the products are used for the prescribed use and/or destination has been lodged in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1687/76.
3. The security may be released by instalments in proportion to the quantity of products in respect of which the provisions of paragraph 2 have been complied with.
Article 22
1. The purchase price shall be paid before the products are taken over and at least within one month of the acceptance date referred to in Article 8 (2) or of the notification referred to in Article 17. The costs and risks in respect of quantities not withdrawn within this period shall be borne by the purchaser.
The payment of the purchase price may be made in proportion to the quantities to be withdrawn.
2. If the purchaser has not paid for the products within the time limit specified in paragraph 1 the contract shall be cancelled by the agency in respect of the quantity not paid for.
3. Delivery of the products shall be taken in accordance with storage agency rules for release from storage.
Article 23
The removal order referred to in Article 6 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1687/76 shall in addition to the particulars provided for in that paragraph also indicate the intended use and/or destination to be shown in section 104 of the control copy.
Article 24
The minimum quantity of product per purchase application or tender shall be:
- in the case of dried grapes, 5 tonnes net weight per purchase application and 20 tonnes net weight per tender,
- in the case of dried figs, 2 tonnes net weight in both cases.
TITLE IV
PROVISIONS ON STORAGE
Article 25
The storage agencies shall keep records showing at least the following:
A. For products entering into storage
(a) each quantity of products entering into storage each day showing the net weight, the category and the number and the date of the receipt issued for the quantity;
(b) the name of the seller of each quantity together with a reference to the contract concerned;
(c) a reference to the verification form established;
(d) the price paid for the products;
(e) the place of storage.
B. For products leaving storage
(a) each quantity leaving storage each day showing the net weight, the category and the number of the removal order issued;
(b) the name of the buyer of each quantity together with a reference to the contract concerned;
(c) any quantity of products which has deteriorated to such a degree that it does not conform to any of the categories provided for; (d) any quantity destroyed or which has been removed from storage contrary to applicable provisions;
(e) any quantity which has disappeared.
In respect of quantities covered by (c), (d) and (e) the records shall show on which day the products left or are considered as having left storage.
Article 26
1. The products shall be stored and handled in such a way that they remain fit for processing into products ready to be offered for human consumption.
However, if the products have been stored for more than one year they shall be stored and handled as if they were intended for distillation or animal fodder. In this case, Article 25 (B) (c) shall no longer apply to products in stock.
Products which no longer meet these conditions shall be removed from storage at the storage agency's expense.
2. The storage agencies shall carry out a first physical stocktaking of products which are in stock on the last day of the month of February at 12 midnight (local time) of the year following the calendar year in which the products were purchased.
Subsequent physical stocktaking shall be carried out in respect of products which are in stock on each 31 August at 12 midnight (local time).
Article 27
The competent authorities of the Member State in which storage agencies are approved shall in particular:
(a) make checks in those agencies as to:
- the prices paid for products purchased and received for products sold,
- the category and condition of the products stored,
- the particulars communicated by the agencies to the competent authorities;
(b) verify the records of each storage agency and its storage facilities.
TITLE V
COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION
Article 28
Storage agencies shall communicate to the competent authorities:
(i) the quantity of products from the previous marketing year which has been taken over. The quantity shall be broken down according to category, with a reference to the address of the warehouse in which the products are stored;
(ii) the quantity of products from a previous marketing year which were in stock on 31 August. The quantity shall be broken down as under (i) and in addition the year of harvest shall be shown.
Communications shall reach the competent authorities not later than 1 October each year in respect of unprocessed dried grapes and not later than 1 August each year in respect of unprocessed dried figs.
In respect of products sold at prices fixed in advance the storage agency shall communicate to the competent authorities:
- not later than the eighth of each month, the quantity sold during the period from the 16th to the end of the previous month,
- not later than the 23rd of each month, the quantity sold during the period from the first to the 15th of that month.
The quantities shall be broken down according to category.
Article 29
Each Member shall notify the Commission:
(a) not later than 15 August each year of the total quantity of unprocessed dried figs from the previous marketing year which has been taken over by storage agencies;
(b) not later than 15 October each year of:
(i) the total quantity of unprocessed dried grapes from the previous marketing year which has been taken over by storage agencies,
(ii) the total quantity of products from a previous marketing year which was in stock on 31 August; (c) not later than 15 April each year of the quantity of unsold products in stock on the last day of the month of February;
(d) not later than the first of each month of the quantity of products sold at prices fixed in advance during the period from the first to the 15th of the previous month and not later than the 15th of each month of the quantity of such products sold during the remaining part of the previous month.
The quantities shall be broken down according to category and year of harvest.
TITLE VI
ENTRY INTO FORCE
Article 30
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 March 1985. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1617/2003
of 15 September 2003
prohibiting fishing for anglerfish by vessels flying the flag of Belgium
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003(2), and in particular Article 21(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 of 20 December 2002 fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are required(3), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1407/2003(4), lays down quotas for anglerfish for 2003.
(2) In order to ensure compliance with the provisions relating to the quantity limits on catches of stocks subject to quotas, the Commission must fix the date by which catches made by vessels flying the flag of a Member State are deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated.
(3) According to the information received by the Commission, catches of anglerfish in the waters of ICES zone VIIIa, b, d, e, by vessels flying the flag of Belgium or registered in Belgium have exhausted the quota allocated for 2003. Belgium has prohibited fishing for this stock from 1 September 2003. This date should be adopted in this Regulation also,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Catches of anglerfish in the waters of ICES zone VIIIa, b, d, e, by vessels flying the flag of Belgium or registered in Belgium are hereby deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated to Belgium for 2003.
Fishing for anglerfish in the waters of ICES zone VIIIa, b, d, e, by vessels flying the flag of Belgium or registered in Belgium is hereby prohibited, as are the retention on board, transhipment and landing of this stock caught by the above vessels after the date of application of this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 September 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 September 2003. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 864/2001
of 2 May 2001
opening an invitation to tender for the resale on the internal market of approximately 1022 tonnes of rice held by the Italian intervention agency
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1667/2000(2), and in particular the final indent of Article 8(b) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Approximately 1022 tonnes of paddy rice held by the Italian intervention agency should be placed on sale on the Community market. The sale should be carried out in accordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 75/91 of 11 January 1991 laying down the procedures and conditions for the disposal of paddy rice held by intervention agencies(3).
(2) As a result of the product's deterioration due to natural disasters, a minimum selling price should be determined for each lot put up for sale, taking account of its specific characteristics, in accordance with Article 2(3)(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3597/90 of 12 December 1990 on the accounting rules for intervention measures involving the buying in, storage and sale of agricultural products by intervention agencies(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1392/97(5). However, in view of the deterioration in Lot No 4, no minimum price should be fixed for that lot and it should be awarded to the highest bidder.
(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The Italian intervention agency shall open, on the conditions laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 75/91, an invitation to tender for the resale on the internal market of approximately 1022 tonnes of rice held by that agency.
Article 2
Notwithstanding Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 75/91, tenders must relate to an entire lot.
Article 3
1. The closing date for the initial submission of tenders shall be 16 May 2001; for the final submission of tenders it shall be 13 June 2001.
2. Tenders must be submitted to the Italian intervention agency: Ente nazional risi Piazza Pio XI 1 I - 20123 Milano Tel. (02) 885 51 11 Fax (02) 86 13 72.
3. The products are stored in the following warehouses:
Corso Dante, 24 - Balzola (AL)
Via Roma, 128 - Casalvolone (NO).
Article 4
The following minimum selling prices shall be respected:
TABLE
Article 5
By Tuesday of the week following the closing date for the submission of tenders, the Italian intervention agency shall notify the Commission of the quantities and prices of the lots sold.
Article 6
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 May 2001. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 986/2004
of 17 May 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 18 May 2004.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 17 May 2004. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Directive 2004/61/EC
of 26 April 2004
amending the Annexes to Council Directives 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC as regards maximum residue levels for certain pesticides prohibited for use in the European Community
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 86/362/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on cereals(1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 86/363/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on foodstuffs of animal origin(2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 90/642/EEC of 27 November 1990 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables(3), and in particular Article 7 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Under Council Directive 79/117/EEC(4), as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2003/807(5), mercuric oxide, mercurous chloride (calomel), other inorganic mercury compounds, alkyl mercury compounds, alcoxyalkyl and aryl mercury compounds, aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, HCH, hexachlorobenzene, camphechlor (toxaphene), ethylene oxide, nitrofen, 1,2-dibromoethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, dinoseb and binapacryl are pesticides, prohibited for use and placing on the market in the EC. In view of the availability of some of these pesticides on the world market it is prudent to set Maximum Residue Levels for all products at the Lower Limit of Analytical Determination. Some mercuric compounds cannot be distinguished from mercuric compounds originating from environmental contamination.
(2) Where no legal use of a pesticide is allowed and where no residues can be tolerated it is appropriate that the MRL established at the appropriate lower limit of analytical determination on fresh produce, apply also on the composite and processed products.
(3) The opinions of the Scientific Committee for Plants have been taken into account, in particular its advice and recommendations concerning the methodology to be followed for the protection of consumers of agricultural products treated with pesticides.
(4) Annexes to Directives 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC should therefore be amended.
(5) The measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
In part A of Annex II to Directive 86/362/EEC the following rows are added:
TABLE "
Article 2
In part A of Annex II to Directive 86/363/EEC the following rows are added:
TABLE "
Article 3
In part B of Annex II to Directive 86/363/EEC the following rows are added:
TABLE "
Article 4
The maximum residue levels listed in the Annex to this Directive are added to those listed in Annex II to Directive 90/642/EEC for the pesticides in question.
Article 5
1. Member States shall adopt and publish, eight months after the adoption of this Directive at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.
They shall apply those provisions from nine months after the adoption of this Directive.
When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
Article 6
This Directive shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 7
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 April 2004. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 638/1999 of 25 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the granting of private storage aid for long-keeping cheeses
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1587/96 (2), and in particular Articles 9(3) and 28 thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 508/71 (3) provides that private storage aid may be granted for certain long-keeping cheeses where there is a serious imbalance of the market which may be eliminated or reduced by seasonal storage;
Whereas the seasonal nature of Emmental and Gruyère cheese production is aggravated by the fact that the seasonal trend in consumption of such cheeses is the opposite of their production; whereas, therefore, provision should be made for recourse to such storage in respect of a quantity corresponding to the difference between summer and winter production;
Whereas the detailed rules of this measure should determine the maximum quantity to benefit from it as well as the duration of the contracts in relation to the real requirements of the market and the keeping qualities of the cheeses in question; whereas it is necessary to specify the terms of the storage contract so as to enable the identification of the cheese and to maintain checks on the stock in respect of which aid is granted; whereas the aid should be fixed taking into account storage costs and the foreseeable trend of market prices;
Whereas, in view of experience in controls, the provisions relating thereto should be specified, in particular as regards the documents to be presented and the on-the-spot checks to be conducted; whereas these new requirements on the subject make it necessary to stipulate that the Member States may provide that the costs of controls be fully or in part charged to the contractor;
Whereas Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1756/93 of 30 June 1993 fixing the operative events for the agricultural conversion rate applicable to milk and milk products (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 569/1999 (5), fixes the conversion rate to be applied in the framework of private storage aid schemes in the milk products sector;
Whereas it is appropriate to guarantee the continuation of the storage operations in question;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Aid shall be granted in respect of the private storage of 23 000 tonnes of long-keeping (Emmental and Gruyère) cheeses manufactured in the Community which satisfy the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 hereof.
Article 2
1. The intervention agency may conclude storage contracts only if the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) the batch of cheeses to which a contract relates must comprise at least 5 tonnes;
(b) the cheeses shall be indelibly marked with an indication (which may take the form of a number) of the undertaking in which they were manufactured and of the day and month of manufacture;
(c) the cheeses must have been manufactured at least 10 days before the date specified in the contract as being the date of commencement of storage;
(d) the cheeses must have undergone quality tests which establish that their classification after maturing could be expected to be:
- 'Premier choix` Emmental, Gruyère, Beaufort Comté in France,
- 'Markenkäse/Bergkäse` or 'Klasse fein` in Germany,
- 'Special grade` in Ireland,
- 'I luokka` in Finland,
- '1. Güteklasse Emmentaler/Bergkäse/Alpkäse` in Austria,
- 'Västerbotten/Prästost/Svecia/Grevé` in Sweden;
(e) the storer shall undertake:
- not, during the term of the contract, to alter the composition of the batch covered by the contract without authorisation from the intervention agency. If the condition concerning the minimum quantity fixed for each batch continues to be met, the intervention agency may authorise an alteration which is limited to the removal or replacement of cheeses which are found to have deteriorated to such an extent that they can no longer be stored.
In the event of release from store of certain quantities:
(i) if the aforesaid quantities are replaced with the authorisation of the intervention agency, the contract is deemed not to have undergone any alteration;
(ii) if the aforesaid quantities are not replaced, the contract is deemed to have been concluded ab initio for the quantity permanently retained.
Any costs of controls arising from an alteration shall be met by the storer,
- to keep stock records and to inform the intervention agency each week of the cheeses put into storage during the previous week and of scheduled withdrawals.
2. Storage contracts shall be concluded:
(a) in writing, stating the date when storage covered by the contract begins; this date may not be earlier than the day following that on which the operations connected with putting the batch of cheese covered by the contract into storage are completed;
(b) after completion of the operations connected with putting the batch of cheese covered by the contract into storage and at the latest 40 days after the date when storage by the contract begins.
Article 3
1. Aid shall be granted only for such cheeses as are put into storage during the storage period. This period shall begin on 1 April 1999 and end on or before 30 September of the same year.
2. Stored cheese may be withdrawn from storage only during the period for withdrawal. This period shall begin on 1 October 1999 and end on 31 March of the following year.
Article 4
1. The aid shall be as follows:
(a) EUR 100 per tonne for the fixed costs;
(b) EUR 0,35 per tonne per day of storage under contract for the warehousing costs;
(c) EUR 0,50 per tonne per day of storage under contract for the financial costs.
2. No aid shall be granted in respect of storage under contract for less than 90 days. The maximum aid payable shall not exceed an amount corresponding to 180 days' storage under contract.
By way of derogation from the first indent of Article 2(1) (e), when the period of 90 days specified in the first subparagraph has elapsed and the period for withdrawal referred to in Article 3(2) has begun, the storer may remove all or part of the batch under contract. The minimum quantity that may be removed shall be 500 kilograms. The Member States may, however, increase this quantity to 2 tonnes.
The date of the start of operations to remove the batch of cheese covered by the contract shall not be included in the period of storage under contract.
Article 5
1. The Member States shall ensure that the conditions granting entitlement to payment of the aid are fulfilled.
2. The contractor shall make available to the national authorities responsible for verifying execution of the measure any documentation permitting in particular the following particulars of products placed in private storage to be verified:
(a) ownership at the time of entry into storage;
(b) the origin and the date of manufacture of the cheeses;
(c) the date of entry into storage;
(d) presence in the store;
(e) the date of removal from storage.
3. The contractor or, where applicable, the operator of the store shall keep stock accounts available at the store, covering:
(a) identification, by contract number, of the products placed in private storage;
(b) the dates of entry into and removal from storage;
(c) the number of cheeses and their weight by batch;
(d) the location of the products in the store.
4. Products stored must be easily identifiable and must be identified individually by contract. A special mark shall be affixed to cheeses covered by the contract.
5. On entry into storage, the competent agencies shall conduct checks in particular to ensure that products stored are eligible for the aid and to prevent any possibility of substitution of products during storage under contract, without prejudice to the application of Article 2(1)(e).
6. The national authorities responsible for controls shall undertake:
(a) an unannounced check to see that the products are present in the store. The sample concerned must be representative and must correspond to at least 10 % of the overall quantity under contract for a private storage aid measure. Such checks must include, in addition to an examination of the accounts referred to in paragraph 3, a physical check of the weight and type of products and their identification. Such physical checks must relate to at least 5 % of the quantity subject to the unannounced check;
(b) a check to see that the products are present at the end of the storage period under contract.
7. Checks conducted pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 must be the subject of a report stating:
- the date of the check,
- its duration,
- the operations conducted.
The report on checks must be signed by the official responsible and countersigned by the contractor or, where applicable, by the store operator.
8. In the case of irregularities affecting at least 5 % of the quantities of products subject to the checks the latter shall be extended to a larger sample to be determined by the competent agency.
The Member States shall notify such cases to the Commission within four weeks.
9. The Member States may provide that the costs of controls are to be fully or in part charged to the contractor.
Article 6
The Member States shall forward to the Commission before 15 October 1999 particulars as to the following:
(a) the quantities of cheese for which storage contracts have been concluded;
(b) any quantities in respect of which the authorisation referred to in Article 2(1)(e) has been given.
Article 7
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 April 1999.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 March 1999. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 1 January 1981 authorizing the Hellenic Republic to communicate and to implement its national plans for the accelerated eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis in cattle (81/6/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the 1979 Act of Accession, and in particular Article 146 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas Articles 2 and 3 of Council Directive 77/391/EEC of 17 May 1977 introducing Community measures for the eradication of brucellosis, tuberculosis and leucosis in cattle (1) provide that Member States in which the cattle population is infected by brucellosis or tuberculosis shall draw up plans for accelerating the eradication of those diseases ; whereas, under Article 9 (1) of the abovementioned Directive, such plans should be forwarded by the Member States to the Commission prior to their implementation, and not later than 31 March 1978, and annually thereafter;
Whereas Annex II to the 1979 Act of Accession provides that one or more measures should be provided for in order to ensure the participation of Greece for the remainder of the common measures;
Whereas, under Article 29 (3) of Directive 78/52/EEC (2), Community financing is restricted to slaughterings carried out before 1 January 1982 ; whereas, however, under Article 29 (4), where the implementation of the plan on the date laid down would meet with considerable difficulties in a Member State, this period may be extended by the Council in favour of such Member State for a maximum of one year ; whereas provision is also to be made for a derogation along these lines for Greece;
Whereas the national eradication plans should be applied for a sufficient length of time to ensure that they are fully effective and achieve their aim,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
Notwithstanding Article 9 (1) of Directive 77/391/EEC, the Hellenic Republic shall forward to the Commission the plans provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 77/391/EEC prior to their implementation and not later than 31 March 1981.
Article 2
1. Notwithstanding Article 29 (2) of Directive 78/52/EEC, the Hellenic Republic shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the implementation of its national plans for accelerated eradication, approved in accordance with Article 9 (2) of Directive 77/391/EEC, on the date laid down by the Commission in its Decision approving the plans and not later than 31 December 1981.
2. Notwithstanding Article 29 (3) of Directive 78/52/EEC, Community financing shall be restricted to slaughterings carried out before 1 January 1983.
Article 3
This Directive is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.
Done at Brussels, 1 January 1981. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 341/2008
of 16 April 2008
on the issuing of import licences for applications lodged in April 2008 under tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for poultry meat
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (1),
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 of 4 June 2007 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas for poultrymeat originating in Brazil, Thailand and other third countries (3), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 opened tariff quotas for imports of products in the poultrymeat sector.
(2)
The applications for import licences lodged in April 2008 for the subperiod 1 July to 30 September 2008 and, for group 3, for the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined and an allocation coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for.
(3)
The applications for import licences lodged in April 2008 for the subperiod 1 July to 30 September 2008 do not, for some quotas, cover the total quantity available. The quantities for which applications have not been lodged should therefore be determined and these should be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 for the subperiod 1 July to 30 September 2008 and, for group 3, for the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
2. The quantities for which import licence applications have not been lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 616/2007, to be added to the subperiod 1 October to 31 December 2008, are set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 April 2008.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 April 2008. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 505/2002
of 21 March 2002
amending Regulation (EC) No 1370/95 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of export 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), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1365/2000(2), and in particular Article 8(2) and Article 13(12) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1370/95(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2898/2000(4), lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of export licences in the pigmeat sector.
(2) It is necessary to adapt the product codes laid down in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1370/95 to the recent amendments of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds(5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 488/2002(6).
(3) The Management Committee for Pigmeat has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1370/95 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.
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 licences applied for as from 8 April 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 March 2002. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 19 January 1988
on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures in the Federal Republic of Germany in 1987 pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 797/85
(Only the German text is authentic)
(88/152/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 of 12 March 1985 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1760/87 (2), and in particular Article 25 (3) thereof,
Whereas, pursuant to Article 24 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has forwarded the laws, regulations and administrative provisions listed in the Annex to this Decision;
Whereas, under Article 25 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85, the Commission has to decide whether the conditions for a financial contribution from the Community are satisfied in the light of the compatibility of the stated laws, regulations and administrative provisions with Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 and bearing in mind the objectives of the latter and the need to ensure that the various measures are properly related;
Whereas the said laws, regulations and administrative provisions are consistent with the conditions and objectives of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 so that, with due regard to the extent to which they comply with that Regulation, it is justified to conclude that the conditions for a financial contribution from the Community in respect of measures eligible under that Regulation are satisfied;
Whereas the EAGGF Committee has been consulted on the financial aspects;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Agricultural Structures,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The laws, regulations and administrative provisions set out in the Annex to this Decision which were forwarded by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 satisfy the conditions governing a financial contribution from the Community in 1987 in respect of the measures eligible under the Regulation.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.
Done at Brussels, 19 January 1988. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 221/93 of 1 February 1993 opening and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for frozen peas originating in Sweden (1993)
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 Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas an Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Sweden was concluded on 22 July 1972; whereas following the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community, an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters has been concluded and approved by Council Decision 86/558/EEC (1);
Whereas the said Agreement provides for the opening of a 6 000-tonne Community tariff quota at a reduced rate of duty for frozen peas originating in Sweden; whereas, therefore, the tariff quota in question should be opened for the period 1 January to 31 December 1992;
Whereas equal and continuous access to the quota should be ensured for all Community importers and the rate laid down for the quota should be applied consistently to all imports until the quota is exhausted;
Whereas the decision for the opening, in the execution of its international obligations, of tariff quotas should be taken by the Community; whereas, to ensure the efficiency of a common administration of these quotas, there is no reasonable obstacle to authorizing the Member States to draw from the quota-volumes the necessary quantities corresponding to actual imports; whereas this method of administration requires close cooperation between the Member States and the Commission and the latter must in particular be able to monitor the rate at which the quotas are used up and inform the Member States accordingly;
Whereas since the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg are united within and jointly represented by the Benelux Economic Union, any operation concerning the administration of this quota may be carried out by any one of its members,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. From 1 January to 31 December 1993 the customs duty applicable to imports of the following products originating in Sweden, shall be suspended at the level indicated and within the limits of a Community tariff quota as shown below:
09.0613 0710 21 00
ex 0710 29 00 (*) Frozen peas originating in Sweden 6 000 6 (*) Taric code 0710 29 00 * 10.
2. The Protocol on the definition of the concept of originating products and on methods of administrative cooperation, annexed to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Sweden shall be applicable.
Article 2
If an importer presents, in a Member State, a declaration for release for free circulation, including a request for preferential benefit for a product covered by this Regulation and if this declaration is accepted by the customs authorities, the Member State concerned shall inform the Commission and draw an amount corresponding to its requirements from the quota amount.
The drawing requests, with indication of the date of acceptance of the said declarations, must be transmitted to the Commission without delay.
The drawings shall be granted by the Commission by reference to the date of acceptance of the declarations for release for free circulation by the customs authorities of the Member State concerned to the extent that the available balance so permits.
If a Member State does not use the quantities drawn, it shall return them as soon as possible to the quota amount.
If the quantities requested are greater than the available balance of the quota amount, allocation shall be made on a pro rata basis with respect to the request. Member States shall be informed by the Commission thereof.
Article 3
Each Member State shall ensure that importers of the products concerned have equal and continuous access to the quota for such time as the residual balance of the quota volume so permits.
Article 4
Member States and the Commission shall collaborate closely in order to ensure that this Regulation is complied with.
Article 5
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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, 1 February 1993. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 8 February 1994 concerning an application for the refund of anti-dumping duties collected on certain imports of certain polyester yarns (man-made staple fibres) originating in Indonesia (Ottoman Pacific Ltd) (Only the English text is authentic) (94/133/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 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 Community (1), and in particular Article 16 thereof,
Whereas:
A. PROCEDURE (1) On 31 March 1992 by Council Regulation (EEC) No 830/92 (2), a definitive anti-dumping duty of 11,9 % was imposed on imports of certain polyester yarns (man-made staple fibres) originating in Taiwan, Indonesia, India, the People's Republic of China and Turkey.
(2) Ottoman Pacific Ltd, 3 Hawksworth Street, Ilkley, UK-West Yorkshire LS29 9DU, importer of polyester yarns produced and exported by PT Indo Rama Synthetics, an Indonesian exporter (hereinafter referred to as 'the exporter'), subject to the anti-dumping duty of 11,9 %, claimed on 19 June 1992 a refund of anti-dumping duties paid in the period 3 October 1991 to 30 April 1992. In accordance with the Commission notice concerning the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties (3) (hereinafter referred to as 'the notice'), the Commission considered that as the refund request related to more than three consignments in a period of at least six months, it should be treated as a recurring application in the context of point I.4 of the notice.
The total refund claimed by Ottoman Pacific Ltd, for anti-dumping duties paid between 3 October 1991 and 30 April 1992, amounts to (£ . . .) (4).
(3) Following submissions by the applicant with regard to the margin of dumping during the above reference period, the Commission sought and verified all information deemed to be necessary for the purposes of a determination and carried out investigations at the premises of the exporter in Indonesia.
Subsequently, the applicant was informed of the preliminary results of this examination and given an opportunity to comment. Its observations were taken into account where considered necessary.
(4) The Commission informed the Member States and gave its opinion on the matter. No Member State disagreed with this opinion.
B. ARGUMENTS OF THE APPLICANT (5) The applicant based its claim on the allegation, supported by data concerning normal value and export prices to the Community, that the export prices from the exporter were such that dumping did not exist.
C. ADMISSIBILITY (6) The application is admissible since it was introduced in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Community's anti-dumping legislation, in particular that concerning time limits.
D. MERITS OF THE CLAIM (7) Pursuant to Article 16 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 and point II of the notice, the applicant showed, and the verifications carried out confirmed, that the export prices were, with the exception of a small number of transactions, not lower than the normal value for sales of the like product in Indonesia.
(8) Concerning the methodology applied in establishing the dumping margin, account had to be taken of the fact that the exporter concerned had not cooperated during the original anti-dumping proceeding. It was therefore necessary to determine the methodology in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88.
(9) (a) Normal value
Where a particular product type exported to the Community was sold on the domestic market in the ordinary course of trade, and in sufficient quantities, normal value was established on the basis of the weighted average domestic price actually paid or payable for that product type.
Where a particular product type exported to the Community was not sold or was sold in insufficient quantities on the domestic market, normal value was constructed on the basis of the costs of production plus a reasonable profit margin. The selling general and administrative expenses included in the cost of production and the profit margins were calculated by reference to the expenses incurred and the profits realized on sales of other types of the like product on the domestic market, in accordance with Article 2 (3) (b) (ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88.
(b) Export price
All shipments of the product concerned during the reference period made by the exporter and released for free circulation in the Community were considered.
No importer in the Community of the product exported by the exporter was related to the latter. Export prices were thus established on the basis of the price paid or payable for the product sold for export to the Community.
(c) Comparison
Normal value and export prices were compared according to the provisions of Article 2 (9) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88.
(10) On this basis, it was found that the application was justified and that the actual dumping margin for the reference period was negligible (less than 0,1 %).
(11) Amount of the refund: since no actual dumping margin was found, the amounts to be refunded are (£ . . .), corresponding to the full amount of anti-dumping duty paid for those imports released for free circulation in the Community between 3 October 1991 and 30 April 1992,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The application for the refund of anti-dumping duties submitted by Ottoman Pacific Ltd for the period 3 October 1991 to 30 April 1992 is granted for the amount of (£ . . .).
Article 2
The amount set out in Article 1 shall be refunded by the United Kingdom.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom and Ottoman Pacific Ltd, 3 Hawksworth Street, Ilkley, UK-West Yorkshire LS29 9DU.
Done at Brussels, 8 February 1994. | [
0,
1,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 119/2007
of 8 February 2007
amending Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 laying down transitional measures within the framework of the reform of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector
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 Article 44(a) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 (2) lays down certain special transitional measures, applicable for the 2006/2007 marketing year, the first year of implementation of the reform of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector.
(2)
The 2006/2007 marketing year has seen an imbalance on the Community markets for sugar under quota and for non-quota sugar. While the surplus of sugar under quota is likely to increase, there could be insufficient supplies of non-quota sugar for the chemical industry during the second half of the 2006/2007 marketing year in view of the quantities being produced, stocks and the increase in demand for raw materials for bioethanol production.
(3)
Special transitional measures, limited to the 2006/2007 marketing year, should therefore be laid down to re-establish balance on the markets for sugar under quota and for non-quota sugar and to facilitate the transition in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries between the old arrangements for the supply of sugar under quota in force during the 2005/2006 marketing year and the new arrangements for the supply of non-quota sugar laid down by Regulation (EC) No 318/2006. The reform of the sector was fully implemented only at the end of June 2006, which led to uncertainty, seriously hampering the conclusion of supply contracts for the 2006/2007 marketing year. Such contracts should in practice be concluded before beet is sown, i.e. before the previous March. The measures provided for in this Regulation should provide greater flexibility in the management of production in excess of the quota and ensure supplies of sugar to the chemical industry at world prices. Producers should be allowed to replace quantities of industrial sugar with sugar produced under quota. However, that possibility should be granted only on condition that additional checks on the quantities delivered and actually used by the industry are carried out correctly. The decision to grant that possibility must therefore be left to the discretion of the competent authorities of the Member States.
(4)
The provisions on the delivery and use of industrial sugar laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 of 29 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards sugar production in excess of the quota (3) must apply to quantities delivered under the transitional measures laid down in this Regulation.
(5)
Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 should therefore be amended.
(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
The following Article 3a is inserted in Regulation (EC) No 493/2006:
‘Article 3a
Use of sugar under quota
1. For deliveries of industrial sugar made until 30 September 2007 under the contracts referred to in Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 (4), the competent authorities of the Member States may allow producers, at their request, to deliver sugar they have produced under quota, including sugar withdrawn under Article 3 of this Regulation, in place of industrial sugar produced in excess of the quota.
2. Quantities of sugar delivered in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be entered in the accounts as industrial raw material delivered to a processor as provided for in point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 for the 2007/2008 marketing year.
3. The communications provided for in Article 8 and 10 of Regulation (EC) No 967/2006 shall indicate separately the quantity delivered in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article.
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, 8 February 2007. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 754/2008
of 31 July 2008
amending Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Community and the quarantine conditions thereof
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 10(3) and the first subparagraph of Article 10(4) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (2), and in particular the fourth indent of Article 18(1),
Whereas:
(1)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 (3) lays down the animal health conditions for imports of certain birds other than poultry into the Community and the quarantine conditions applicable to such birds after import.
(2)
Annex V to that Regulation sets out a list of quarantine facilities and centres approved by the competent authorities of the Member States for import of certain birds other than poultry.
(3)
Cyprus, Hungary, Italy, Austria, Portugal and the United Kingdom have reviewed their approved quarantine facilities and centres and have sent an updated list of those quarantine facilities and centres to the Commission. The list of approved quarantine facilities and centres set out in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(4)
Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(5)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 318/2007 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirely and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 31 July 2008. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2060/93 of 27 July 1993 concerning the stopping of fishing for plaice by vessels flying the flag of Belgium
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3483/88 (2), and in particular Article 11 (3) thereof,
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 3919/92 of 20 December 1992 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1993 and certain conditions under which they may be fished (3), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 927/93 (4), provides for plaice quotas for 1993;
Whereas, in order to ensure compliance with the provisions relating to the quantitative limitations on catches of stocks subject to quotas, it is necessary for the Commission to fix the date by which catches made by vessels the flag of a Member State are deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated;
Whereas, according to the information communicated to the Commission, catches of plaice in the water of ICES division III a Skagerrak by vessels flying the flag of Belgium ore registered in Belgium have reached the quota allocated for 1993; whereas Belgium has prohibited fishing for this stock as from 16 July 1993; whereas it is therefore necessary to abide by that date,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Catches of plaice in the waters of ICES division III a Skagerrak by vessels flying the flag of Belgium or registered in Belgium are deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated to Belgium for 1993.
Fishing for plaice in the waters of ICES division III a Skaggerak by vessels flying the flag of Belgium or registered in Belgium is prohibited, as well as the retention on board, the transhipment and the landing of such stock captured by the abovementioned vessels after the date of application of this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 16 July 1993.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 July 1993. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1795/97 of 17 September 1997 fixing the minimum selling prices for beef put up for sale under the invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1570/97
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 organization of the market in beef and veal (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2222/96 (2), and in particular Article 7 (3) thereof,
Whereas tenders have been invited for certain quantities of beef fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1570/97 (3);
Whereas, pursuant to Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2173/79 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2417/95 (5), the minimum selling prices for meat put up for sale by tender should be fixed, taking into account tenders submitted;
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
The minimum selling prices for beef for the invitation to tender held in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1570/97 for which the time limit for the submission of tenders was 8 September 1997 are as set out in the Annex hereto.
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, 17 September 1997. | [
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003
of 10 November 2003
on transitional measures to be adopted in respect of trade in agricultural products on account of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,
Having regard to the Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, and in particular Article 41, first paragraph, thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Transitional measures should be adopted in order to avoid the risk of deflection of trade, affecting the common organisation of agricultural markets due to the accession of 10 new States to the European Union on 1 May 2004.
(2) In accordance with the rules set out in 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(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 500/2003(2), products are not entitled to refund unless they have left the customs territory of the Community within 60 days of acceptance of the export declaration. The obligation to leave the customs territory of the Community within 60 days of acceptance of the export declaration is also a primary requirement for releasing the security linked to the licence under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 of 9 June 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 325/2003(4). Since the internal borders will be removed upon accession, products exported from the Community of Fifteen must have left the customs territory of the Community by 30 April 2004 at the latest in all cases, including where the export declaration has been accepted less than 60 days before the date of accession.
(3) Trade deflections liable to disrupt the market organisations often involve products moved artificially with a view to enlargement and do not form part of the normal stocks of the State concerned. Surplus stocks may also result from national production. Provisions should, therefore, be made for deterrent charges to be levied on surplus stocks in the new Member States.
(4) It is necessary to prevent goods in respect of which export refunds were paid before 1 May 2004 from benefiting from a second refund when exported to third countries after 30 April 2004.
(5) The measures provided for in this Regulation are necessary and appropriate and should be applied in uniform fashion.
(6) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of all the Management Committees concerned,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Definitions
For the purposes of this Regulation:
(a) "Community of Fifteen" means the Community as constituted on 30 April 2004;
(b) "new Member States" means the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia;
(c) "enlarged Community" means the Community as constituted on 1 May 2004;
(d) "products" means agricultural products and/or goods not included in Annex I of the EC Treaty;
(e) "production refund" means the refund granted pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92(5) or Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95(6) or Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001(7).
Article 2
Exports from the Community of Fifteen
Where, for the products intended for export from the Community of Fifteen to one of the new Member States for which an export declaration has been accepted by 30 April 2004 at the latest, the conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 have not been complied with by that date, the beneficiary shall reimburse any refund received in accordance with Article 52 of that Regulation.
Article 3
Suspensive regime
1. This Article shall apply by way of derogation from Annex IV, Chapter 5, to the Act of Accession and from Articles 20 and 214 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code(8).
2. Products listed in Article 4(5), which before 1 May 2004 have been in free circulation in the Community of Fifteen or in a new Member State and on 1 May 2004 are in temporary storage or under one of the customs treatments or procedures referred to in Article 4(15)(b) and (16)(b) to (g) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 in the enlarged Community, or which are in transport after having been the subject of export formalities within the enlarged Community shall be charged with the erga omnes import duty rate applicable on the date of release for free circulation.
The first subparagraph shall not apply to products exported from the Community of Fifteen if the importer gives evidence that no export refund has been sought for the products of the country of export. Upon the importer's request, the exporter shall arrange to obtain an endorsement by the competent authority on the export declaration that an export refund has not been sought for the products of the country of export.
3. Products listed in Article 4(5) coming from third countries which are under inward processing referred to in Article 4(16)(d) or temporary admission referred to in Article 4(16)(f) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 in a new Member State on 1 May 2004 and which are released for free circulation on or after that date, shall be charged with the import duty applicable on the date of release for free circulation to products coming from third countries.
Article 4
Charges on goods in free circulation
1. Without prejudice to Annex IV, Chapter 4, to the Act of Accession, and where stricter legislation does not apply at national level, the new Member States shall levy charges on holders of surplus stocks at 1 May 2004 of products in free circulation.
2. In order to determine the surplus stock of each holder, the new Member States shall take into account, in particular:
(a) averages of stocks available in the years preceding accession;
(b) the pattern of trade in the years preceding accession;
(c) the circumstances in which stocks were built up.
The notion surplus stocks applies to products imported into the new Member States or originating from the new Member States. The notion surplus stocks applies also to products intended for the market of the new Member States.
The recording of the stocks shall be performed on the basis of the Combined Nomenclature applicable on 1 May 2004.
3. The amount of the charge referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined by the erga omnes import duty rate applicable on 1 May 2004. The revenue of the charge collected by national authorities shall be assigned to the national budget of the new Member State.
4. In order to ensure that the charge referred to in paragraph 1 is correctly applied, the new Member States shall, without delay, carry out an inventory of stocks available as at 1 May 2004. For this purpose the new Member State shall notify the Commission of the quantity of products in surplus stocks, except of those quantities in public stocks as referred to in Article 5, by 31 July 2004 at the latest.
5. This Article shall apply to products covered by the following CN codes:
- in the case of Cyprus:
0204 43 10, 0206 29 91, 0408 11 80, 1602 32 11, 0402 10, 0402 21, 0405 10, 0405 20 10, 0405 20 30, 0405 90, 0406, 0703 20 00, 0711 51 00, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006 10, 1006 20, 1006 30, 1006 40, 1007, 1008, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1108, 1509, 1510, 1517, 1702 30 (9), 1702 40 (10), 1702 90 (11), 1901 90 99, 2003 10 20, 2003 10 30, 2106 90 98 (12),
- in the case of the Czech Republic:
0201 30 00, 0202 30 90, 0206 29 91, 0203 11 10, 0203 21 10, 0207 14 10, 0207 14 60, 0207 14 70, 0207 27 10, 0408 11 80, 0408 91 80, 1602 32 11, 0402 10, 0402 21, 0405 10, 0405 20 10, 0405 20 30, 0405 90, 0406, 0703 20 00, 0711 51 00, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006 10, 1006 20, 1006 30, 1006 40, 1007, 1008, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1108, 1509, 1510, 1517, 1702 30 (13), 1702 40 (14), 1702 90 (15), 1806 20, 1901 90 99, 2003 10 20, 2003 10 30, 2008 20, 2009 11, 2009 12, 2009 19, 2009 40, 2106 90 98 (16),
- in the case of Estonia:
0201 30 00, 0202 30 90, 0204 30 00, 0204 43 10, 0206 29 91, 0203 11 10, 0203 21 10, 0207 14 10, 0207 14 50, 0207 14 60, 0207 14 70, 0207 27 10, 0402 10, 0402 21, 0405 10, 0405 20 10, 0405 20 30, 0405 90, 0406, 0703 20 00, 0711 51 00, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006 10, 1006 20, 1006 30, 1006 40, 1007, 1008, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1108, 1509, 1510, 1517, 1702 30 (17), 1702 40 (18), 1702 90 (19), 1806 20, 1901 90 99, 2003 10 20, 2003 10 30, 2009 11, 2009 12, 2009 19, 2009 40, 2009 71, 2009 79, 2106 90 98 (20),
- in the case of Hungary:
0201 30 00, 0202 30 90, 0204 30 00, 0204 43 10, 0206 29 91, 0203 11 10, 0203 21 10, 0207 14 10, 0207 14 60, 0207 14 70, 0402 10, 0402 21, 0405 10, 0405 90, 0406, 0703 20 00, 0711 51 00, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006 10, 1006 20, 1006 30, 1006 40, 1007, 1008, 1101, 1102 10, 1102 20, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1108, 1509, 1510, 1517, 1702 30 (21), 1702 40 (22), 1702 90 (23), 1806 20, 2003 10 20, 2003 10 30, 2106 90 98 (24),
- in the case of Latvia:
0201 30 00, 0202 30 90, 0204 30 00, 0204 43 10, 0206 29 91, 0207 12 90, 0207 14 10, 0207 14 60, 0207 14 70, 0207 27 10, 0408 11 80, 0408 91 80, 0402 10, 0402 21, 0405 10, 0405 90, 0406, 0703 20 00, 0711 51 00, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006 10, 1006 20, 1006 30, 1006 40, 1007, 1008, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1108, 1509, 1510, 1517, 1702 30 (25), 1702 40 (26), 1702 90 (27), 1806 20, 1901 90 99, 2003 10 20, 2003 10 30, 2009 11, 2009 19, 2106 90 98 (28),
- in the case of Lithuania:
0201 30 00, 0202 30 90, 0204 30 00, 0204 43 10, 0206 29 91, 0203 11 10, 0203 21 10, 0207 14 10, 0207 14 60, 0207 14 70, 0207 27 10, 0402 10, 0402 21, 0405 10, 0405 90, 0406, 0703 20 00, 0711 51 00, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006 10, 1006 20, 1006 30, 1006 40, 1007, 1008, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1108, 1509, 1510, 1517, 1702 30 (29), 1702 40 (30), 1702 90 (31), 1901 90 99, 2002 90, 2003 10 20, 2003 10 30, 2008 20, 2009 11, 2009 12, 2009 19, 2009 40, 2106 90 98 (32),
- in the case of Malta:
0202 30 90, 0204 30 00, 0204 43 10, 0408 11 80, 0408 91 80, 0206 29 91, 0402 10, 0402 21, 0405 10, 0405 20 10, 0405 20 30, 0405 90, 0406, 0703 20 00, 0711 51 00, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006 10, 1006 20, 1006 30, 1006 40, 1007, 1008, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1108, 1509, 1510, 1517, 1702 30 (33), 1702 40 (34), 1702 90 (35), 1806 20, 2003 10 20, 2003 10 30, 2106 90 98 (36),
- in the case of Poland:
0201 30 00, 0202 30 90, 0203 11 10, 0203 21 10, 0204 30 00, 0204 43 10, 0206 29 91, 0402 10, 0402 21, 0405 10, 0405 90, 0406, 0703 20 00, 0711 51 00, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006 10, 1006 20, 1006 30, 1006 40, 1007, 1008, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1108, 1509, 1510, 1517, 1702 30 (37), 1702 40 (38), 1702 90 (39), 2003 10 20, 2003 10 30, 2008 20,
- in the case of Slovakia:
0201 30 00, 0202 30 90, 0206 29 91, 0203 11 10, 0203 21 10, 0207 14 10, 0207 14 60, 0207 14 70, 0207 27 10, 0408 11 80, 0408 91 80, 1602 32 11, 0402 10, 0402 21, 0405 10, 0405 20 10, 0405 20 30, 0405 90, 0406, 0703 20 00, 0711 51 00, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006 10, 1006 20, 1006 30, 1006 40, 1007, 1008, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1108, 1509, 1510, 1517, 1702 30 (40), 1702 40 (41), 1702 90 (42), 1806 20, 1901 90 99, 2003 10 20, 2003 10 30, 2008 20, 2009 11, 2009 12, 2009 19, 2009 40, 2106 90 98 (43),
- in the case of Slovenia:
0201 30 00, 0202 30 90, 0204 30 00, 0204 43 10, 0206 29 91, 0203 11 10, 0203 21 10, 0207 12 10, 0207 12 90, 0207 14 10, 0207 14 60, 0207 14 70, 0408 11 80, 0408 91 80, 1602 32 11, 0402 10, 0402 21, 0405 10, 0405 20 10, 0405 20 30, 0405 90, 0406, 0703 20 00, 0711 51 00, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006 10, 1006 20, 1006 30, 1006 40, 1007, 1008, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1108, 1509, 1510, 1517, 1702 30 (44), 1702 40 (45), 1702 90 (46), 2003 10 20, 2003 10 30, 2008 20, 2009 11, 2009 12, 2009 19, 2009 40, 2106 90 98 (47).
Where a CN code covers products for which the import duty in paragraph 3 is not the same, the inventory of stocks as referred to in paragraph 4 shall be made for each product or group of products subject to a different import duty.
6. The Commission may add products to the list or remove products from the list set out in paragraph 5.
Article 5
Census of public stocks
By 31 July 2004 at the latest, each new Member State shall communicate the list and the quantities of goods which are in public stocks in that Member State as referred to in Annex IV, Chapter 4 of the Act of Accession.
Article 6
National security stocks
The stocks as referred to in Article 4(4) and Article 5 shall not include national security stocks which may possibly have been constituted by the new Member States. The latter shall inform the Commission of all changes made to national security stocks together with the conditions governing the changes for the purposes of establishing the Community supply balance.
Article 7
Measures in the event of non-payment of charges
If any Member State suspects that the charges provided for in Articles 3 and 4 have not been paid in respect of a product, it shall inform the Member State concerned so as to enable it to take appropriate measures.
Article 8
Proof of non-payment of refunds/production refund
Products for which the declaration of export to third countries is accepted by the new Member States during the period from 1 May 2004 to 30 April 2005 may qualify for an export refund or for a refund under one of the procedures referred to in Articles 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/80(48) provided that it is established that no export refund has already been paid in respect of those products or their constituents.
Article 9
No double payment of refunds
No product shall be eligible for more than one export refund. Any product which attracted an export refund shall not be eligible for a production refund when used in the manufacturing of products referred to in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1722/93(49) or in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001(50).
Article 10
Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force subject to and on the date of the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia in the European Union.
It shall apply until 30 April 2007.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 10 November 2003. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 3034/94 of 13 December 1994 establishing a list of products excluded from the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 737/90 on the conditions governing imports of agricultural products originating in third countries following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 737/90 of 22 March 1990 on the conditions governing imports of agricultural products originating in third countries following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station (1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,
Whereas, in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 737/90, the Commission shall adopt a list of products excluded from its application;
Whereas most agricultural products currently imported from third countries are free of radioactive contamination from the Chernobyl accident or so slightly contaminated as to present a negligible risk to health;
Whereas the list of products excluded from the application of Regulation (EEC) No 737/90, established by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1518/93 (2), has to be extended to take this into account;
Whereas the measures provided in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the ad hoc Committee instituted by Regulation (EEC) No 737/90,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 1518/93 is hereby repealed.
Article 2
All products other than those listed in the Annex are excluded from the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 737/90.
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, 13 December 1994. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2271/2004
of 22 December 2004
amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 26 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas:
(1)
It is in the interest of the Community to suspend partially or totally the autonomous common customs tariff duties for a number of new products not listed in the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 of 27 June 1996 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products (1).
(2)
A number of products which are referred to in the said Regulation should be withdrawn from the list in the Annex because it is no longer in the Community’s interest to maintain suspension of autonomous common customs tariff duties or because the description needs to be altered in order to take account of technical product developments and economic trends on the market.
(3)
Accordingly, products whose description needs to be altered should be regarded as new products.
(4)
It is therefore appropriate to amend Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 accordingly.
(5)
Since this Regulation is to apply from 1 January 2005, it should enter into force immediately,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 is amended as follows:
1)
the products set out in Annex I to this Regulation are inserted;
2)
the products for which the codes are set out in Annex II to this Regulation are deleted.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 January 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 December 2004. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 26 February 1999 concerning the intention of the Hellenic Republic to apply a reduced rate of VAT to supplies of natural gas and electricity in accordance with Article 12(3)(b) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (notified under document number C(1999) 477) (Only the Greek text is authentic) (1999/200/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to 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 (the Sixth VAT Directive) (1), as last amended by Directive 98/80/EC (2), and in particular Article 12(3)(b) thereof,
Whereas the Government of the Hellenic Republic intends to apply a reduced rate of VAT to supplies of natural gas and of electricity; whereas it so informed the Commission by letter registered as received by the Commission on 30 November;
Whereas the measure envisaged is a general measure under which a reduced rate of VAT would be applied to supplies of natural gas and electricity in accordance with Article 12(3)(b) of the Sixth VAT Directive, irrespective of the manner in which they are produced or supplied (whether supplied domestically, or acquired elsewhere in the Community, or imported from outside the Community);
Whereas the measure is a general one, admitting no exceptions, so that there is no risk of distortion of competition; whereas the test laid down in Article 12(3)(b) is accordingly satisfied, and the Hellenic Republic should be allowed to apply the measure,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The measure described by the Hellenic Republic in its letter of 30 November 1998 under which a reduced rate of VAT would be applied to supplies of natural gas and electricity irrespective of the manner in which they are produced or supplied (whether supplied domestically, or acquired elsewhere in the Community, or imported) does not carry any risk of distortion of competition.
The Hellenic Republic may accordingly apply the measure from 1 January 1999 onward.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.
Done at Brussels, 26 February 1999. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 93/56/EEC of 29 June 1993 amending Council Directive 82/471/EEC concerning certain products used in animal nutrition
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 82/471/EEC of 30 June 1982 concerning certain products used in animal nutrition (1), as last amended by Commission Directive 93/26/EEC (2), and in particular Article 6 thereof,
Whereas Directive 82/471/EEC provides for the content of the Annexes to be regularly adapted to take account of advances in scientific and technical knowledge;
Whereas the study of the non-protein nitrogenous compound 'ammonium sulfate' and of hydroxyanalogue of methionine and its calcium salt has permitted a beneficial effect in ruminants to be established; whereas authorization for the use of the products in question should therefore be extended to this category of animal;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the Standing Committee on Feedingstuffs,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
The Annex to Directive 82/471/EEC is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.
Article 2
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1 by 30 June 1994 at the latest. 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.
Article 3
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 June 1993. | [
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 383/93 of 19 February 1993 correcting Regulation (EEC) No 217/93 on olive oil storage contracts for the 1992/93 marketing year
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of the common organization of the market in oils and fats (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2046/92 (2), and in particular Article 20d (3) and (4) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 217/93 (3) lays down rules on olive oil storage contracts for the 1992/93 marketing year;
Whereas a check has shown that an error was made in that Regulation; whereas the text of that Regulation is not identical to that put before the relevant Management Committee for opinion; whereas the Regulation should therefore be corrected,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Article 2 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 217/93 is hereby replaced by the following:
'2. Contracts shall relate only to olive-oil qualities that may be offered for intervention and to lots of at least 100 tonnes net. In Portugal, however, the minimum size of lots shall be 25 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 6 February 1993.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 February 1993. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 12 January 1988
approving a second programme for the seed sector in the Netherlands pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77
(Only the Dutch text is authentic)
(88/99/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 of 15 February 1977 on common measures to improve the conditions under which agricultural and fishery products are processed and marketed (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 560/87 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
Whereas on 27 March 1987 the Netherlands Government forwarded a second programme following on the programme approved by the Commission Decision of 30 November 1983 (3) for the seed sector in the Netherlands, and supplied additional information on 17 July 1987;
Whereas the aims of the second programme are to modernize, rationalize and extend the reception, cleaning, drying and storage facilities for seed harvested within the scope of the programme and to modernize and extend the existing buildings so as to consolidate the competitiveness of the sector and upgrade its products; whereas it therefore constitutes a programme within the meaning of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 355/77;
Whereas the second programme contains sufficient details as referred to in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 to show that the objectives of Article 1 of that Regulation may be achieved in the seed sector in the Netherlands; whereas the time limit laid down for the implementation of the programme does not exceed the period fixed in Article 3 (1) (g) of that Regulation;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Agricultural Structures,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The second programme for the seed sector forwarded by the Netherlands Government on 27 March 1987 and supplemented on 17 July 1987 pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 is hereby approved.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Netherlands.
Done at Brussels, 12 January 1988. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 206/2001
of 31 January 2001
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 2700/2000 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 1602/2000(4), and in particular Article 173 (1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) 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) 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 2 February 2001.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 31 January 2001. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3646/84
of 21 December 1984
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3138/82 laying down detailed rules for the grant of a special carry-over premium for Mediterranean sardines and anchovies
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3796/81 of 29 December 1981 on the common organization of the market in fishery products (1), and in particular Article 14 (7) thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2204/82 of 28 July 1982 laying down general rules for the granting of a special carry-over premium for Mediterranean sardines and anchovies (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
Whereas experience gained since the entry into force of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3138/82 (3) has shown the need for certain adjustments to the abovementioned Regulation, and in particular for greater flexibility in the application of the system of contracts taking into account the general characteristics of production of the species concerned;
Whereas, to this end, the contracting parties should be authorized to reduce the quantities initially agreed below the 25 % tolerance margin laid down at present, when it has not been possible to comply with this margin for reasons outside the operators' control;
Whereas significant differences have been found to occur in the granting of the premium where the quantities delivered have remained more than 25 % below the quantities initially agreed, and whereas the new more flexible provision should therefore be introduced in the interest of the operators concerned, with retroactive effect from 1 January 1983, and a new time limit should be fixed for the submission of applications capable of benefiting from this new provision;
Whereas since processors' supply requirements may lead to supplementary supplies being sought, the provisions relating to the conclusion of new contracts between the operators concerned should be amended;
Whereas the second paragraph of Article 10 of the same Regulation lays down that, in the event of late submission of an application for the premium, the security lodged against the grant of an advance on the premium can nevertheless be refunded subject to a deduction of 10 %; whereas the same provision should be laid down, with retroactive effect from 1 January 1983, for the grant of the premium itself, and a new time limit should be fixed for the submission of applications capable of benefiting from this provision.
Whereas, in particular where certain contracts are not fully executed, the processor may be forced to use, for the same lot of processed products, supplies of raw materials of various origins; whereas this situation entails serious difficulties in keeping stock records as regards the intended use of the merchandize; whereas it should consequently be made clear that, with a view to the control of the processed products at the marketing stage, the total daily output of the undertaking should be entered into the general records of stocks of total finished products;
Whereas, where an infringement of limited importance is committed against the special carry-over premium scheme, the limited financial benefit deriving from such an infringement should not be penalized by complete loss of entitlement to the premium but simply by a flat-rate reduction in the latter;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EEC) No 3138/82 is hereby amended as follows:
1. The following subparagraph is added to Article 3 (2):
'However, the additional clauses may relate to quantities falling short of the quantities originally specified by more than the abovementioned 25 % tolerance if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Member State that the failure to comply with the tolerance in question is due to significant changes in the conditions affecting production of the raw material, in particular biological and climatic conditions, or to any other reason beyond the control of the operators.'
2. Article 3 (3) is replaced by the following:
'3. During the period of validity of each purchase contract, the contracting parties may not conclude with each other new contracts for the products in question unless the current contract has been fully executed by the date of expiry of the period of validity.'
3. Article 6 (1) (c) is replaced by the following:
'(c) as regards the intended use of the merchandize:
- total daily output as entered in the records of stocks of total finished products.'
4. The following subparagraph is added to Article 8 (1):
'However, if the application is submitted at the latest in the second month following the dates of expiry of the abovementioned time limits, the premium or proportion thereof for which an advance has not been requested shall be paid, less an amount equal to 10 % of the amount of the premium for each month or part of a month by which the application in question overran the time limit.'
5. The third indent of Article 8 (2) is replaced by the following:
'- in the case of a purchase contract, the invoice number, the contract number and, where appropriate, proof of the circumstances mentioned in the last subparagraph of Article 3 (2).'
6. The first subparagraph of Article 9 is replaced by the following:
'In the cases referred to in Article 8 (1) (a) and (c), the Member State shall each month grant an advance on the special carry-over premium to persons applying therefor, provided that the latter provide a security equal to 105 % of the amount of the advance.'
7. The following Article is inserted after Article 12:
'Article 12a
1. Where a limited infringement against the system of special carry-over premium has been committed by the recipient of the premium and it is shown by the latter, to the satisfaction of the Member State concerned, that the infringement was not committed with fraudulent intent or as a result of serious negligence, the Member State shall withhold an amount equal to 10 % of the Community withdrawal price applicable to the quantities in respect of which the infringement was committed which are intended to qualify or already have qualified for the special carry-over premium.
2. Member States shall notify the Commission of cases where they have applied paragraph 1.'
Article 2
By way of derogation from Article 8 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3138/82, a new time limit of three months from the date of entry into force of this Regulation is set for the submission of an application for payment of the special carry-over premium relating to quantities processed before that date and capable of benefiting from the provisions set out in the second subparagraph of Article 3 (2) and the second subparagraph of Article 8 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3138/82.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 1 (1), (4) and (5) shall apply with effect from 1 January 1983.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 December 1984. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 3315/93 of 2 December 1993 on the sale by the procedure laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 2539/84 of beef held by certain intervention agencies and intended for processing within the Community and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2639/93
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 organization of the market in beef and veal (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 125/93 (2), and in particular Article 7 (3) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2539/84 of 5 September 1984 laying down detailed rules for certain sales of frozen beef held by the intervention agencies (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1759/93 (4), has provided for the possibility of applying a two-stage procedure when selling beef from intervention stocks;
Whereas certain intervention agencies hold substantial stocks of intervention meat; whereas an extension of the period of storage should be avoided on account of the ensuing high costs; whereas, in the present market situation, there are outlets for such meat for processing in the Community;
Whereas such sales should be made in accordance with Commission Regulations (EEC) No 2539/84, (EEC) No 3002/92 (5), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1938/93 (6), and (EEC) No 2182/77 (7), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1759/93, subject to certain special exceptions on account of the particular use to which the products in question are to be put;
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2639/93 (8) should be repealed;
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
1. The following approximate quantities of beef shall be put up for sale for processing within the Community:
(a) bone-in hindquarters:
- 2 000 tonnes of bone-in beef held by the Italian intervention agency and bought in before 1 June 1992,
- 300 tonnes of bone-in beef held by the Irish intervention agency and bought in before 1 January 1993, (13 tonnes stored in the Netherlands),
- 1 000 tonnes of bone-in beef held by the French intervention agency and bought in before 1 August 1993,
- 1 500 tonnes of bone-in beef held by the German intervention agency and bought in before 1 August 1993;
(b) bone-in forequarters:
- 1 000 tonnes of bone-in beef held by the Spanish intervention agency and bought in before 1 October 1992,
- 500 tonnes of bone-in beef held by the Irish intervention agency and bought in before 1 January 1993,
- 20 tonnes of bone-in beef held by the Danish intervention agency and bought in before 1 January 1992;
(c) boneless beef:
- 7 000 tonnes of boneless beef held by the United Kingdom intervention agency and bought in before 1 October 1992,
- 1 800 tonnes of boneless beef held by the Italian intervention agency and bought in before 1 February 1993,
- 2 000 tonnes of boneless beef held by the Danish intervention agency and bought in before 1 June 1993,
- 5 500 tonnes of boneless beef held by the Irish intervention agency and bought in before 1 January 1993.
2. The intervention agencies referred to in paragraph 1 shall sell first the meat which has been stored the longest.
3. The sales shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Regulations (EEC) No 2539/84, (EEC) No 3002/92, (EEC) No 2182/77 and this Regulation.
4. The qualities and the minimum prices referred to in Article 3 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2539/84 are given in Annex I hereto.
5. Only those tenders shall be taken into consideration which reach the intervention agencies concerned no later than 12 noon on 9 December 1993.
6. Particulars relating to the quantities and the places where the products are stored may be obtained by interested parties at the addresses given in Annex II.
Article 2
1. Notwithstanding Article 3 (1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2182/77, the tender or application to purchase:
(a) shall be valid only if presented by a natural or legal person who, for at least 12 months, has been engaged in the processing of products containing beef and who is entered in a public register of a Member State;
(b) must be accompanied by:
- a written undertaking by the applicant to process the meat purchased into products specified in Article 1 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2182/77 within the period referred to in Article 5 (1) of the abovementioned Regulation,
- a precise indication of the establishment or establishments where the meat which has been purchased will be processed.
2. The applicants referred to in paragraph 1 may instruct an agent to take delivery, on their behalf, of the products which they purchase. In this case the agent shall submit the tenders or applications to purchase of the purchasers whom he represents.
3. The purchasers and agents referred to in the foregoing paragraphs shall maintain and keep up to date an accounting system which permits the destination and use of the products to be ascertained with a view particularly to checking to ensure that the quantities of products purchased and manufactured tally.
Article 3
1. The security provided for in Article 5 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2539/84 shall be ECU 10 per 100 kilograms.
2. The security provided for in Article 5 (3) (a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2539/84 shall be:
- ECU 150 per 100 kilograms for bone-in hindquarters,
- ECU 100 per 100 kilograms for bone-in forequarters,
- ECU 140 per 100 kilograms for boneless meat.
Article 4
For the purpose of this Regulation, 100 kilograms of bone-in hindquarters equals 64 kilograms of boneless meat after removal of the fillet and the striploin.
Article 5
Regulation (EEC) No 2639/93 is hereby repealed.
Article 6
This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 December 1993.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 December 1993. | [
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Decision
of 8 August 2000
laying down the measures required to implement the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 July 2000 in Joined Cases T-94/00 R and T-110/00 R
(notified under document number C(2000) 2368)
(2000/525/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Whereas:
(1) On 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities delivered an order in cases T-94/00 R and T-110/00 R (Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV and Free Trade Foods NV - hereafter called "Rica" and "Free Trade" - versus the Commission of the European Communities) - hereafter called the "Order".
(2) The Order stayed application with regard to Rica and Free Trade of Commission Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 of 29 February 2000 introducing safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin(1).
(3) Under the terms of the Order, Rica and Free Trade have been authorised to import up to 4995 tonnes of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin by 30 September 2000 at the latest.
(4) To allow Rica and Free Trade to perform the operations authorised by the Order, implementing rules should be adopted which the Member States, Rica and Free Trade must apply, without prejudice to the ruling which the Court will hand down in the main cases,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV, company established under Aruban law, registered in Oranjestad (Aruba), and Free Trade Foods NV, company established under Netherlands Antilles law and registered there, are hereby authorised to import into the Community 2731 tonnes and 2264 tonnes respectively, making a total of 4995 tonnes, of sugar with EC/OCT cumulation of origin under the following conditions:
1. Import shall be conditional upon the issue of an import licence. The competent authorities of the Member States shall issue those licences in accordance with the applicable provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88(2).
Box 24 of the licence shall contain the indication: "ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES OF 12 JULY 2000 IN JOINED CASES T-94/00 R AND T-110/00 R."
2. A security of EUR 3/tonne shall be lodged by Rica and Free Trade. It will be released if import is performed in accordance with the import licence.
Article 2
The import licence(s) shall be issued and import shall take place by 30 September 2000 at the latest. However, Rica and Free Trade may release into free circulation in the Community's customs territory, within the limits of 2731 and 2264 tonnes respectively, any sugar delivered to them free on board prior to 30 September 2000.
Article 3
Rica and Free Trade may no longer submit any applications for import licences under Regulation (EC) No 465/2000.
Article 4
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92(3) shall apply provided its provisions are not in conflict with the other provisions of this Decision.
Article 5
This Decision is addressed to the Member States, Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV, Frankrijkstraat Z-N, Warehouse 3.2 en 3.3, Oranjestad, Aruba D.W.I. and Free Trade Foods NV, Brievengat 1-4, Curaçao, Nederlandse Antillen.
Done at Brussels, 8 August 2000. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 898/2006
of 19 June 2006
amending Council Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 as regards catch limits and fishing effort limitations for the fisheries on sandeel 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(4) and Article 7(4) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Catch limits and fishing effort limitations for sandeel in ICES zones IIa (EC waters), IIIa and IV (EC waters) are provisionally laid down in Annexes IA and IID to Regulation (EC) No 51/2006.
(2)
Pursuant to point 6 of Annex IID to Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 the Commission shall revise the catch limits and fishing effort limitations for 2006 based on advice from the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) on the size of the 2005 year class of North Sea sandeel. Where STECF estimates the size of the 2005 year class of North Sea sandeel to be between 300 000 million and 500 000 million individuals at age 0, the number of kilowatt-days shall not exceed the level in 2003 calculated as the total kilowatt-days for each year and the total allowable catches (TAC) for 2006 shall be fixed at 300 000 tonnes. The total kilowatt-days for each year are calculated as the product of the number of days present within the area and the installed engine power in kilowatts.
(3)
STECF has estimated the strength of the 2005 year-class to be not less than 324 000 million individuals at age 0.
(4)
Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 is amended as follows:
1.
Annex IA is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation;
2.
in Annex IID, point 5 is replaced by the following:
‘5.
Each Member State shall ensure that the number of kilowatt-days in 2006 for vessels flying its flag or registered in the Community does not exceed the level in 2003 as calculated in point 4(a).’
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, 19 June 2006. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2217/90
of 30 July 1990
amending Regulation (EEC) No 1759/88 laying down detailed rules for implementing the arrangements applicable to imports of sweet potatoes and manioc starch intended for certain uses
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1471/88 of 16 May 1988 concerning the arrangements applicable to imports of sweet potatoes and manioc starch intended for certain uses and amending Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3847/89 (2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1759/88 (3) provides that the importer is to undertake to process all the imported manioc starch within four months of the date of acceptance of the declaration of entry for free circulation;
Whereas, in view of the practices currently applying for similar products, that time limit is too short; whereas, for the sake of equality of treatment, a time limit of six months should accordingly be laid down for processing;
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
Regulation (EEC) No 1759/88 is hereby amended as follows:
In Article 11 (3) (a), 'four months' is replaced by 'six months'.
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 import licences issued after its date of entry into force.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 July 1990. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 859/2005
of 6 June 2005
fixing Community producer and import prices for carnations and roses with a view to the application of the arrangements governing imports of certain floricultural products originating in Jordan
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87 of 21 December 1987 fixing conditions for the application of preferential customs duties on imports of certain flowers originating in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (1), and in particular Article 5(2)(a) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Under Articles 2(2) and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87, Community import and producer prices are fixed each fortnight for uniflorous (bloom) carnations, multiflorous (spray) carnations, large-flowered roses and small-flowered roses and apply for two-week periods. Under Article 1(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 700/88 of 17 March 1988 laying down detailed rules for the application of the arrangements for the import into the Community of certain floricultural products originating in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (2), those prices are determined for two-week periods on the basis of weighted prices provided by the Member States.
(2)
Those prices should be fixed immediately so the customs duties applicable can be determined.
(3)
Following the accession of Cyprus to the European Union on 1 May 2004, it is no longer necessary to fix import prices for Cyprus.
(4)
Likewise, it is no longer necessary to fix import prices for Israel, Morocco and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in order to take account of the agreements approved by Council Decisions 2003/917/EC of 22 December 2003 on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the State of Israel concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures and the replacement of Protocols 1 and 2 to the EC-Israel Association Agreement (3), 2003/914/EC of 22 December 2003 on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures and the replacement of Protocols 1 and 3 to the EC-Morocco Association Agreement (4) and 2005/4/EC of 22 December 2004 on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures and the replacement of Protocols 1 and 2 to the EC-Palestinian Authority Interim Association Agreement (5).
(5)
The Commission must adopt these measures in between the meetings of the Management Committee for Live Plants and Floriculture Products,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The Community producer and import prices for uniflorous (bloom) carnations, multiflorous (spray) carnations, large-flowered roses and small-flowered roses as referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87 shall be as set out in the Annex hereto for the period from 8 to 21 June 2005.
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, 6 June 2005. | [
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1137/2004
of 21 June 2004
amending Regulation (EC) No 43/2003 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulations (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001 and (EC) No 1454/2001 as regards aid for the local production of crop products in the outermost regions of the European Union
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001 of 28 June 2001 introducing specific measures for certain agricultural products for the Azores and Madeira and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 (Poseima) (1), and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Annex IV to Commission Regulation (EC) No 43/2003 (2) laid down the amounts and maximum quantities applicable to aid for the local marketing of products referred to in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001.
(2)
Implementation of this measure in 2003 showed that the use made of the maximum quantities varies widely among products. It was noted that the quantities set for some products are systematically under-used, while applications for other products exceed the maximum quantities, resulting in a reduction coefficient being applied. It would seem justified, therefore, to redistribute the quantities among products in such a way as to follow the trends observed and adjust the amounts of aid for certain products, in accordance with the experience gained and results recorded, in order to make better use of resources.
(3)
Regulation (EC) No 43/2003 should be amended accordingly.
(4)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of all the management committees for the products concerned,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 43/2003 is hereby replaced by the Annex 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 Union.
It shall apply:
(a)
as regards the quantities laid down in column III of the new Annex IV, from 1 January 2004;
(b)
as regards the amounts of aid laid down in columns IV and V of the new Annex IV, to contracts concluded after its entry into force.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 June 2004. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
DIRECTIVE 98/13/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 12 February 1998 relating to telecommunications terminal equipment and satellite earth station equipment, including the mutual recognition of their conformity
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 100a thereof;
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (1),
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 189b of the Treaty (2),
(1) Whereas Council Directive 91/263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning telecommunications terminal equipment, including the mutual recognition of their conformity (3), and Council Directive 93/97/EEC of 29 October 1993 supplementing Directive 91/263/EEC in respect of satellite earth station equipment (4) should, for the sake of clarity and rationality, be codified in a single text;
(2) Whereas the sector covering telecommunications terminal equipment and satellite earth station equipment is a vital part of the telecommunications industry, which is one of the industrial mainstays of the economy in the Community;
(3) Whereas the Commission, in its Green Paper on the development of the common market for telecommunications services and equipment, has proposed to accelerate the introduction of the full mutual recognition of type approval as the measure vital for the development of a competitive Community-wide terminal market;
(4) Whereas the Commission, in its Green Paper on a common approach in the field of satellite communications in the Community, has proposed the introduction of mutual recognition of type approval for satellite earth station equipment as one of the major preconditions for, inter alia, a Community-wide market for satellite earth station equipment;
(5) Whereas the Council, in its resolution of 30 June 1988 (5) on the development of the common market for telecommunications services and equipment, has confirmed as a major goal in the telecommunications policy the full mutual recognition of type approval for terminal equipment on the basis of the rapid development of common European conformity specifications;
(6) Whereas the Council, in its resolution of 19 December 1991 on the development of the common market for satellite communications services and equipment (6), has recognised as one of the major goals in satellite telecommunications policy the harmonisation and liberalisation of appropriate satellite earth station equipment, subject, in particular, to conditions necessary for compliance with essential requirements;
(7) Whereas the Council, in its Decision 87/95/EEC (7), has set out the measures to be implemented for the promotion of standardisation in Europe and the preparation and implementation of standards in the field of information technology and telecommunications;
(8) Whereas the Council, in its resolution of 7 May 1985 (8) has provided for a new approach to technical harmonisation and standards;
(9) Whereas the scope of this Directive must be based on a general definition of the terms 'telecommunications terminal equipment` and 'satellite earth station equipment` so as to allow the technical development of products; whereas the scope excludes purpose-built satellite earth station equipment intended for use as part of the public terrestrial telecommunications network; whereas this is intended to exclude, inter alia, gateway satellite earth stations for major trunking applications within the context of the infrastructure provision (such as large-diameter stations) and earth stations for satellite tracking and control;
(10) Whereas this Directive does not affect current special or exclusive rights concerning satellite communications which may, in accordance with Community law, be retained by the Member States;
(11) Whereas harmonising conditions for the placing on the market of telecommunications terminal equipment will create the conditions for an open and unified market; whereas the same applies to the goal of an advanced, open trans-European market for satellite earth stations equipment, which requires effective and efficient harmonised procedures for certification, testing, marking, quality assurance and product surveillance; whereas the alternative to Community legislation is an analogous system of provisions negotiated between Member States, which would involve obvious difficulties because of the number of organisms which would be involved in multiple bilateral negotiations; whereas this is hardly practicable, and would be neither rapid nor efficient; whereas therefore the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States; whereas on the contrary the form of a Community Directive has repeatedly shown itself, in the sector of telecommunications among others, to be a practicable, rapid and efficient means; whereas the objectives of the action under consideration can therefore be better achieved at Community level;
(12) Whereas Community law in its present form provides - notwithstanding one of the fundamental rules of the Community, namely the free movement of goods - that obstacles to movement within the Community, resulting from disparities in national legislation on the marketing of products, must be accepted in so far as such requirements can be recognised as being necessary to satisfy imperative requirements; whereas, therefore, the harmonisation of laws in this case must be limited only to those requirements necessary to satisfy the essential requirements relating to telecommunications terminal equipment and satellite earth station equipment; whereas these requirements must replace the relevant national requirements because they are essential;
(13) Whereas the essential requirements must be satisfied in order to safeguard the general interest; whereas those requirements must be applied with discernment to take account of the state of the art at the time of manufacture, and economic requirements;
(14) Whereas Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (9) and Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (10), are applicable inter alia to the fields of telecommunications and information technology;
(15) Whereas Directive 73/23/EEC in general also covers safety of persons;
(16) Whereas Council Directive 89/336/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility (11) sets out harmonised procedures for the protection of apparatus from electromagnetic disturbances and defines the protection requirements and inspection procedures relating thereto; whereas the general requirements of Directive 89/336/EEC apply inter alia to the fields of telecommunications and information technology and also to satellite earth station equipment; whereas electromagnetic compatibility requirements are covered by this Directive in so far as they are specific to telecommunications terminal equipment and satellite earth station equipment;
(17) Whereas in respect of the essential requirements and in order to help manufacturers to prove conformity to those requirements, it is desirable to have standards harmonised at European level to safeguard the general interest in the design and manufacture of terminal equipment and in order to allow checks as to conformity to those requirements; whereas these standards, harmonised at European level, are drawn up by private-law bodies and must retain their non-binding status; whereas for this purpose the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (Cenelec) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), are the bodies recognised as competent to adopt harmonised standards; whereas, for the purposes of this Directive, a harmonised standard is a technical specification (European standard or harmonisation document) adopted by one of those bodies, on the basis of a remit from the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Directive 83/189/EEC, and in accordance with the general guidelines referred to above;
(18) Whereas in respect of the essential requirements relating to interworking with public telecommunications networks and, in cases where it is justified, through such networks, it is in general not possible to comply with such requirements other than by the application of unique technical solutions; whereas such solutions should therefore be mandatory;
(19) Whereas the proposals for common technical regulations are, as a general rule, drawn up on the basis of harmonised standards, and in order to ensure appropriate technical coordination on a broad European basis, through additional consultations, in particular with the Telecommunications Regulations Application Committee (TRAC);
(20) Whereas satellite earth station equipment is configured, as far as its interface to the space-based system is concerned, either for the emission of radio-communications signals or for both the emission and reception of radio-communications signals, or for the reception only of radio-communications signals;
(21) Whereas satellite earth station equipment is, as far as the terrestrial interface is concerned, either intended or not intended for terrestrial connection to the public telecommunications network;
(22) Whereas orbits (such as the geo-stationary orbit, low earth orbits and elliptical orbits) are paths in space described by satellites or other space-based systems, and are limited resources determined by nature;
(23) Whereas orbital resources are used in conjunction with the radio frequency spectrum which is also a limited resource determined by nature; whereas transmitting satellite earth station equipment makes use of both those resources;
(24) Whereas the effective use of orbital resources in conjunction with the radio frequency spectrum and avoidance of harmful interference between space-based and terrestrial communications systems and other technical systems is of importance for the development of European satellite communications; whereas the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) establishes criteria for effective use of orbital resources as well as for radio-coordination to enable space and terrestrial systems to co-exist without undue interference;
(25) Whereas harmonising conditions for the placing on the market of satellite earth station equipment will create conditions permitting an effective use of orbital resources and the radio frequency spectrum and will facilitate avoidance of harmful interference between space-based and terrestrial communication systems and other technical systems;
(26) Whereas in respect of the essential requirements related to effective use of orbital resources and the radio frequency spectrum, and avoiding harmful interference with space-based and terrestrial communications systems and other technical systems, it is in general not possible to comply with such requirements other than by the application of specific technical solutions; whereas common technical regulations are therefore necessary;
(27) Whereas satellite earth station equipment capable of being used for transmission or for transmission and reception of radio-communication signals may be subject to licensing, in addition to the provisions of this Directive;
(28) Whereas satellite earth station equipment, capable only of being used for the reception of radio-communications signals, may not be subject to licensing but only to the provisions of this Directive unless they are intended for terrestrial connection to the public telecommunications network, as proposed in the Green Paper on satellite communications in the Community; whereas the use of such satellite earth station equipment must be in conformity with national regulations compatible with Community law;
(29) Whereas it is essential to ensure that notified bodies are of a high standard throughout the Community and meet minimum criteria of competence, impartiality and financial and other independence from clients;
(30) Whereas the Approvals Committee for Terminal Equipment (ACTE) composed of representatives of the Member States and chaired by the representative of the Commission, should assist the Commission in executing the tasks entrusted to it;
(31) Whereas representatives of the telecommunication organisations, users, consumers, manufacturers, service providers and the trade unions should have the right to be consulted;
(32) Whereas ACTE should work in close cooperation with relevant committees dealing with licence procedures for satellite networks and services;
(33) Whereas the Member States' responsibility for safety, health and the other aspects covered by the essential requirements on their territory must be recognised in a safeguard clause providing for proper Community protection procedures;
(34) Whereas the addressees of any decision taken under this Directive must be informed of the reasons for such a decision and the remedies available to them;
(35) Whereas transitional arrangements are required in order that the manufacturers have the necessary time to adapt the design and production of satellite earth station equipment to meet the common technical regulations; whereas in order to have the necessary flexibility the transition arrangements must be worked out on a case-by-case basis; whereas the common technical regulations shall lay down the necessary transition arrangements;
(36) Whereas real, comparable access to third country markets, in particular the United States of America and Japan, for European manufacturers should preferably be achieved through multilateral negotiations within the World Trade Organisation (WTO), although bilateral talks between the Community and third countries may also contribute to this process;
(37) Whereas this Directive should not affect the obligations on the part of the Member States concerning the deadlines for the transposition of the Directives set out in Annex X, Part B,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Article 1 - Scope and definitions . 5
Title I: Telecommunications terminal equipment . 5
Title II: Satellite earth station equipment . 8
Title III: Common provisions . 11
Annex I: EC type-examination . 13
Annex II: Conformity of type . 15
Annex III: Production quality assurance . 16
Annex IV: Full quality assurance . 18
Annex V: Minimum criteria to be taken into account by Member States when designating notified bodies in accordance with Article 11(1) . 20
Annex VI: Marking for the terminal equipment referred to in Article 12(1) . 21
Annex VII: Marking for the equipment referred to in Article 12(4) . 21
Annex VIII: Model of declaration referred to in Article 3(1) . 22
Annex IX: Community internal production control procedure . 23
Annex X: Part A - list of repealed Directives and provisions . 24Part B - list of deadlines for transposition into national laws . 24
Annex XI: Correlation table . 25
Article 1 Scope and definitions
1. This Directive shall apply to terminal equipment and to satellite earth station equipment.
2. For the purpose of this Directive:
- 'public telecommunications network` shall mean the public telecommunications infrastructure which permits the conveyance of signals between defined network termination points by wire, by microwave, by optical means or by other electromagnetic means,
- 'terminal equipment` shall mean equipment intended to be connected to the public telecommunication network, namely:
(a) to be connected directly to the termination of a public telecommunications network; or
(b) to interwork with a public telecommunications network being connected directly or indirectly to the termination of a public telecommunications network
in order to transmit, process or receive information.
The system of connection may be wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic system,
- 'technical specification` shall mean a specification contained in a document which lays down the characteristics required of a product such as levels of quality, performance, safety or dimensions, including the requirements applicable to the product as regards terminology, symbols, testing and test methods, packaging, marking and labelling,
- 'standard` shall mean a technical specification adopted by a recognised standards body for repeated or continuous application, compliance with which is not compulsory,
- 'satellite earth station equipment` shall mean equipment which is capable of being used either for transmission only, or for transmission and reception (transmission-receive), or for reception only (receive-only), of radio-communication signals by means of satellites or other space-based systems, but excluding satellite earth station equipment intended for use as part of the public telecommunications network of a Member State,
- 'terrestrial connection to the public telecommunications network` shall mean any connection to the public telecommunications network which does not include a space segment.
TITLE I TELECOMMUNICATIONS TERMINAL EQUIPMENT
Chapter I Placing on the market and free circulation
Article 2
The intended purpose of the equipment shall be declared by the manufacturer or supplier of the equipment. However, terminal equipment within the meaning of Article 1(2), second indent, which makes use of a system of communication employing the radio frequency spectrum is presumed to be intended for connection to the public telecommunications network.
Article 3
1. Notwithstanding Articles 1 and 2, equipment which is capable of being connected to the public telecommunications network, but is not intended for such a purpose, shall be accompanied by a manufacturer's or supplier's declaration, the model of which is to be found in Annex VIII and by the operating manual. At the time of placing the equipment on the market for the first time, a copy of such documentation shall be transmitted to the notified body referred to in Article 11(1) in the Member State where this first placing on the market takes place. In addition, such equipment shall be subject to the provisions of Article 12(4).
2. The manufacturer or supplier shall be prepared to justify once, at the request of any notified body referred to in Article 11(1), the intended purpose of such equipment on the basis of its relevant technical characteristics, its functions and indications of the market segment it is intended for.
Article 4
1. Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that terminal equipment may be placed on the market and put into service only if it bears the CE marking provided for in Article 12 attesting to its conformity to the requirements of this Directive, including the conformity assessment procedures laid down in Chapter II and where it is properly installed and maintained and used for its intended purpose.
2. Member States shall also take all appropriate measures to ensure that equipment referred to in Article 3 may be placed and allowed to remain on the market only if it complies with the requirements laid down by this Directive for this equipment and may not be connected to the public telecommunications network within the meaning of Article 1(2), first indent.
3. Member States shall also take all appropriate measures to ensure that terminal equipment or equipment referred to in Article 3 is disconnected from the public telecommunications network if it is not used for its intended purpose. Member States may moreover take all appropriate measures, according to their national laws, to prevent connection to the public telecommunications network of terminal equipment that is not used in conformity with its intended purpose.
4. (a) Where the terminal equipment is subject to other Directives concerning other aspects and which also provide for the affixing of the CE marking, the latter shall indicate that the equipment is also presumed to conform to the provisions of those other Directives;
(b) however, where one or more of those Directives allow the manufacturer, during a transitional period, to choose which arrangements to apply, the CE marking shall indicate conformity to the provisions only of those Directives applied by the manufacturer. In such a case, particulars of the Directives applied, as published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, must be given in the documents, notices or instructions required by the Directives and accompanying the terminal equipment.
Article 5
Terminal equipment shall satisfy the following essential requirements:
(a) user safety, in so far as this requirement is not covered by Directive 73/23/EEC. For the purposes of this Directive, the essential requirements shall imply the safety of persons in the same way as in Directive 73/23/EEC;
(b) safety of employees of public telecommunications networks operators, in so far as this requirement is not covered by Directive 73/23/EEC;
(c) electromagnetic compatibility requirements in so far as they are specific to terminal equipment;
(d) protection of the public telecommunications network from harm;
(e) effective use of the radio frequency spectrum, where appropriate;
(f) interworking of terminal equipment with public telecommunications network equipment for the purpose of establishing, modifying, charging for, holding and clearing real or virtual connection;
(g) interworking of terminal equipment via the public telecommunications network, in justified cases.
The cases where terminal equipment supports:
(i) reserved service according to Community law; or
(ii) a service for which the Council has decided that there should be Community-wide availability,
are considered as justified cases and the requirements concerning this interworking are determined in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 29. In addition, after consultation of representatives of the bodies referred to in Article 28(3) and taking due account of the result of these consultations, the Commission may propose that this essential requirement be recognised as being justified for other terminal equipment in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 29.
Article 6
Member States shall not impede the placing on the market and the free circulation and use on their territory of terminal equipment which complies with the provisions of this Directive.
Article 7
1. Member States shall presume compliance with the essential requirements referred to in Article 5(a) and (b) in respect of terminal equipment which is in conformity with the national standards implementing the relevant harmonised standards, the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Member States shall publish the references of such national standards.
2. The Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 29, adopt:
- as a first step, the measures identifying the type of terminal equipment for which a common technical regulation is required, as well as the associated scope statement for that regulation, with a view to its transmission to the relevant standardisation bodies,
- as a second step, once they have been prepared by the relevant standardisation bodies, the corresponding harmonised standards, or parts thereof, implementing the essential requirements referred to in Article 5(c) to (g), which shall be transformed into common technical regulations, compliance with which shall be mandatory and the reference of which shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 8
Where a Member State or the Commission considers that the harmonised standards referred to in Article 7 exceed or do not entirely meet the essential requirements referred to in Article 5, the Commission or the Member State concerned shall bring the matter before the Committee referred to in Article 28, giving the reasons therefor. The Committee shall deliver an opinion as soon as possible.
In the light of the Committee's opinion and after consultation of the standing Committee set up by Directive 83/189/EEC, the Commission shall inform the Member States whether or not it is necessary to withdraw reference to those standards and any related technical regulations from the Official Journal of the European Communities and shall take the necessary steps to correct the shortcomings noted in the standards.
Article 9
1. Where a Member State finds that terminal equipment bearing the markings under the provision laid down in Chapter III does not comply with the relevant essential requirements when properly used in accordance with the purpose intended by the manufacturer, it shall take all appropriate measures to withdraw such products from the market or to prohibit or restrict their being placed on the market.
The Member State concerned shall immediately inform the Commission of any such measure indicating the reasons for its decision, and in particular whether non-compliance is due to:
(a) incorrect application of the harmonised standards or common technical regulations referred to in Article 7;
(b) shortcomings in the harmonised standards or common technical regulations themselves referred to in Article 7.
2. The Commission shall enter into consultation with the parties concerned as soon as possible. Where, after such consultation, the Commission finds that any measure as referred to in paragraph 1 is justified it shall immediately so inform the Member State that took the action and the other Member States. Where the decision referred to in paragraph 1 is attributed to shortcomings in the harmonised standards or common technical regulations, the Commission, after consulting the parties concerned, shall bring the matter before the committee referred to in Article 28 within two months if the Member State which has taken the measure intends to maintain them, and shall initiate the procedure referred to in Article 8.
3. Where terminal equipment which does not comply with the relevant essential requirements bears the CE marking the competent Member State shall take appropriate action against whomsoever has affixed the marking and shall inform the Commission and the other Member States thereof.
4. The Commission shall keep the Member States informed of the progress and outcome of the procedure.
Chapter II Conformity assessment
Article 10
1. According to the choice of the manufacturer or his authorised representative established within the Community, terminal equipment shall be subject to either the EC type-examination, as described in Annex I, or to the EC declaration of conformity, as described in Annex IV.
2. An EC type-examination, as described in Annex I, shall be accompanied by a declaration issued according to the EC declaration of conformity to type procedure, as described in Annex II or Annex III.
3. The records and correspondence relating to the procedure referred to in this Article shall be in an official language of the Member State where the said procedure will be carried out, or in a language acceptable to the notified body involved.
Article 11
1. Member States shall notify the Commission and the other Member States of the bodies established within the Community which they have designated for carrying out the certification, product checks and associated surveillance tasks pertaining to the procedures referred to in Article 10, together with the identification numbers assigned to them beforehand by the Commission.
Member States shall apply the minimum criteria set out in Annex V for the designation of such bodies. Bodies that satisfy the criteria fixed by the relevant harmonised standards shall be presumed to satisfy the criteria set out in Annex V.
2. Member States shall inform the Commission of test laboratories established in the Community which they have designated for carrying out tests pertaining to the procedures referred to in Article 10. Notified bodies shall apply the criteria fixed by the appropriate parts of the relevant harmonised standards for the designation of such laboratories.
3. The Commission shall publish in the Official Journal of the European Communities a list of notified bodies together with their identification numbers and a list of test laboratories, together with the tasks for which they have been designated, and shall ensure that those lists are kept up to date.
4. A Member State having designated a notified body or a test laboratory under paragraph 1 or 2 shall annul the designation if the notified body or the test laboratory no longer meets the relevant criteria for designation.
It shall immediately inform the other Member States and the Commission accordingly and withdraw the notification. Where a Member State or the Commission considers that a notified body or a test laboratory designated by a Member State does not meet the relevant criteria the matter shall be brought before the committee referred to in Article 28, which shall give its opinion within three months; in the light of the committee's opinion the Commission shall inform the Member State concerned of any changes needed if that notified body or test laboratory is to retain its recognised status.
5. In order to facilitate the determination of conformity of terminal equipment with technical regulations and standards, the notified bodies shall recognise documentation issued by third country relevant bodies, when agreements between the Community and the third country concerned have been concluded on the basis of a mutually satisfactory understanding.
6. The notified bodies shall, when issuing an EC type-examination certificate as referred to in Annex I, followed by the appropriate document referred to in Annex II or III, or a decision on quality assurance assessment as referred to in Annex IV, issue at the same time an administrative approval for the connection of the concerned terminal equipment to the public telecommunications network.
Chapter III CE marking of conformity and inscriptions
Article 12
1. The marking of terminal equipment complying with this Directive shall consist of the CE marking consisting of the initials CE, followed by the identification number of the notified body involved in the production control stage and a symbol indicating that the equipment is intended and is suitable to be connected to the public telecommunications network. The form of CE marking to be used, together with the other information, is shown in Annex VI.
2. The affixing of markings on the equipment which are likely to deceive third parties as to the meaning and form of the CE marking specified in Annexes VI and VII shall be prohibited. Any other marking may be affixed to the equipment provided that the visibility and legibility of the CE marking is not thereby reduced.
3. Terminal equipment shall be identified by the manufacturer by means of type, batch number and/or serial number and by the name of the manufacturer and/or supplier responsible for placing it on the market.
4. Equipment manufacturers or suppliers who place on the market equipment as referred to in Article 3 shall affix the symbol specified in Annex VII in such a way that it follows the initials CE as shown in Annex VI and visually forms an integral part of the total marking.
Article 13
Without prejudice to Article 9:
(a) where a Member State establishes that the CE marking has been affixed improperly, the manufacturer or his authorised representative established within the Community shall be obliged to make the equipment conform with the provisions concerning the CE marking and to end the infringement under the conditions imposed by the Member State;
(b) where non-conformity continues, the Member State must take all appropriate measures to restrict or prohibit the placing on the market of the equipment in question or to ensure that it is withdrawn from the market in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 9.
TITLE II SATELLITE EARTH STATION EQUIPMENT
Chapter I Placing on the market and free circulation
Article 14
The manufacturer or supplier of satellite earth station equipment shall declare whether the equipment is intended or not intended for terrestrial connection to the public telecommunications network.
Article 15
1. Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that receive-only satellite earth station equipment not intended for terrestrial connection to the public telecommunications network may be placed on the market and put into service and used on their territory, in conformity with national law compatible with Community law, provided that it complies with the requirements of this Directive when it is properly installed and maintained and used for its intended purposes.
Such use must be in conformity with any national law, compatible with Community law, which restricts the use to the reception of services intended for that user.
2. Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that other satellite earth station equipment may be placed on the market only if it complies with the requirements of this Directive when it is properly installed and maintained and used for its intended purposes. The use of such equipment may be subject to licensing in conformity with Community law.
3. Member States shall also take all appropriate measures to ensure that satellite earth station equipment which is not intended for terrestrial connection to the public telecommunications network is not permitted to be connected to the public telecommunications network.
4. Member States shall also take all appropriate measures to ensure that satellite earth station equipment which is not intended for terrestrial connection to the public telecommunications network is disconnected from the public telecommunications network.
Member States shall moreover take all appropriate measures, according to their national laws, to prevent terrestrial connection to the public telecommunications network of such equipment.
Article 16
Member States shall not impede the free circulation and the placing on the market of satellite earth station equipment conforming to the provisions of this Directive.
Article 17
1. Satellite earth station equipment shall satisfy the same essential requirements as those set out in Article 5.
2. For the purpose of this Directive, the essential requirements of Article 5(a) shall imply the safety of persons in the same way as in Directive 73/23/EEC.
3. In the context of transmission or transmission-receive satellite earth station equipment, the essential requirement set out in Article 5(e) concerning effective use of the radio frequency spectrum shall include the effective use of orbital resources and the avoidance of harmful interference between space-based and terrestrial communications systems and other technical systems.
4. In the context of satellite earth station equipment, electromagnetic compatibility requirements in so far as they are specific to satellite earth station equipment shall be subject to the essential requirement set out in Article 5(c).
5. Satellite earth station equipment shall satisfy the essential requirement set out in Article 5(f) regarding the interworking of satellite earth station equipment with the public telecommunications network.
6. Satellite earth station equipment shall satisfy the essential requirement set out in Article 5(g) regarding the interworking of satellite earth station equipment via the public telecommunications network in justified cases.
Cases where satellite earth station equipment is capable of supporting and intended to support a service for which the Council has decided that there should be Community-wide availability are considered as justified cases and the requirements concerning this interworking shall be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 29.
7. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1, 5 and 6, satellite earth station equipment which is not intended for connection to the public telecommunications network shall not be required to satisfy the essential requirements set out in Article 5(b), (d), (f) and (g).
Article 18
1. Member States shall presume compliance with the essential requirements referred to in Article 5(a) and (b) in respect of satellite earth station equipment which is in conformity with the national standards implementing the relevant harmonised standards, the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Member States shall publish the references of such national standards.
2. The Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 29, adopt:
- as a first step, the measures identifying the type of satellite earth station equipment for which a common technical regulation is required, as well as the associated scope statement for that regulation, with a view to its transmission to the relevant standardisation bodies,
- as a second step, once they have been prepared by the relevant standardisation bodies, the corresponding harmonised standards, or parts thereof, implementing the essential requirements referred to in Article 17(3) to (6), which shall be transformed into common technical regulations, compliance with which shall be mandatory and the reference of which shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 19
Where a Member State or the Commission considers that the harmonised standards referred to in Article 18 exceed or do not entirely meet the relevant essential requirements referred to in Article 17, the same enquiry and notification procedures shall apply as those set out in Article 8.
Article 20
1. Where a Member State finds that satellite earth station equipment bearing the marking under the provisions laid down in Chapter III of this Title does not comply with the relevant essential requirements when properly used in accordance with the purpose intended by the manufacturer, the same measures, information and consultation procedures shall apply as those set out in Article 9(1), (2) and (4).
2. Where satellite earth station equipment which does not comply with the relevant essential requirements bears the CE marking, the competent Member State shall take appropriate action against whomsoever has affixed the marking. The same notification procedures shall apply as those set out in Article 9(3) and (4).
Chapter II Conformity assessment
Article 21
1. All transmission or transmission-receive satellite earth station equipment shall, according to the choice of the manufacturer or his authorised representative established with the Community, be subject to all the provisions of Article 10(1) and (2) concerning conformity assessment.
2. The same procedures regarding language requirements shall apply as those set out in Article 10(3).
Article 22
Receive-only satellite earth station equipment which is intended for terrestrial connection to the public telecommunications network shall, as far as its terrestrial interface is concerned, be subject to the provisions of Article 21(1) concerning conformity assessment while, as far as other elements are concerned, they shall be subject either to the provisions of Article 21(1) or to the Community internal production control procedure set out in Annex IX.
Article 23
Receive-only satellite earth station equipment which is not intended for terrestrial connection to the public telecommunications network shall be subject either to the provisions of Article 21(1) or to the Community internal production control procedure set out in Annex IX.
Article 24
In addition to the provisions of Articles 21, 22 and 23, satellite earth station equipment which is not intended for connection to the public telecommunications network shall be accompanied by a manufacturer's or supplier's declaration made and transmitted in accordance with the same procedures as those set out in Article 3 and Annex VIII.
Article 25
In relation to satellite earth station equipment, the same procedures for notified bodies and test laboratories shall apply as those set out in Article 11 and Annex V.
Chapter III CE marking of conformity and inscriptions
Article 26
1. The marking of satellite earth station equipment complying with this Directive shall consist of the CE marking consisting of the initials 'CE`, followed by the identification number of the notified body responsible and, where relevant, by a symbol indicating that the equipment is intended and is suitable to be connected through a terrestrial connection to the public telecommunications network. The 'CE` symbol, the identification number and the symbol of suitability shall be the same as those shown in Annex VI.
2. The affixing of marks which are likely to be confused with the CE marking referred to in paragraph 1 above shall be prohibited.
3. Satellite earth station equipment shall be identified by the manufacturer by means of type, batch number and/or serial number and by the name of the manufacturer and/or supplier responsible for placing it on the market.
4. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the marking of receive-only satellite earth station equipment which is not intended for terrestrial connection to the public telecommunications network and which has been subject to the Community internal production control procedure set out in Annex IX shall consist of the CE marking, consisting of the initials 'CE`.
Article 27
Where it is established that the marking referred to in Article 26(1) of this Directive has been affixed to satellite earth station equipment which:
- does not conform to an approved type, or
- conforms to an approved type which does not meet the essential requirements applicable to it,
or where the manufacturer has failed to fulfil his obligations under the relevant Community declaration of conformity, the same procedures shall apply as those set out in Article 13.
TITLE III COMMON PROVISIONS
Chapter I Committee
Article 28
1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee of an advisory nature composed of the representatives of the Member States and chaired by the representative of the Commission. The committee shall be called the Approvals Committee for Terminal Equipment (ACTE).
2. The representative of the Commission shall submit to the committee a draft of the measure 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, if necessary by taking a vote.
The opinion shall be recorded in the minutes; in addition, each Member State shall have the right to ask to have its position recorded in the minutes.
The Commission shall take the utmost account of the opinion delivered by the committee. It shall inform the committee of the manner in which its opinion has been taken into account.
3. The Commission shall periodically consult the representatives of the telecommunications organisations, the users, the consumers, the manufacturers, the service providers and trade unions and shall inform the committee on the outcome of such consultations, with a view to taking due account of the outcome.
Article 29
1. Notwithstanding Article 28(1) and (2), the following procedure shall apply for matters covered by Article 5(g), Article 7(2), Article 17(6) and Article 18(2).
2. The representative of the Commission shall submit to the committee referred to in Article 28 a draft of the measures to be taken as referred to in Article 5(g), Article 7(2), Article 17(6) and Article 18(2). 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.
3. (a) The Commission shall adopt the measures envisaged if they are in accordance with the opinion of the committee.
(b) If the measures envisaged are not in accordance with the opinion of the committee, or if no opinion is delivered, the Commission shall, without delay, submit to the Council a proposal relating to the measure to be taken. The Council shall act by qualified majority.
If, within three months from the date of referral to it, the Council has not acted, the proposed measure shall be adopted by the Commission.
Chapter II Final and transitional provisions
Article 30
1. The Commission shall draw up every second year a report on the implementation of this Directive, including progress on drawing up the relevant harmonised standards and on transforming them into technical regulations, as well as any problems that have arisen in the course of implementation. The report will also outline the activities of the committee, and assess progress in achieving an open competitive market for terminal equipment at Community level consistent with the essential requirements referred to in Article 5.
2. The Commission shall, when submitting those draft measures referred to in Article 18(2) dealing with common technical regulations, ensure that transition arrangements, where appropriate, form part of the draft measures.
Article 31
Article 10(5) of Directive 89/336/EEC shall not apply to equipment falling within the scope of this Directive.
Article 32
1. Any type approval granted by Member States in accordance with Directive 86/361/EEC (12) may remain valid under the legislation of the Member States within the criteria of validity appropriate to the original approval.
2. Measures adopted pursuant to Directive 86/361EEC shall be submitted to the committee under the procedure of Article 29 for possible transposition into common technical regulations.
Article 33
Member States shall inform the Commission of the main provisions of domestic law which they adopt in the field governed by this Directive.
Article 34
1. The Directives and provisions listed in Annex X, Part A, are hereby repealed without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States concerning the deadlines for transposition of the said Directives set out in Annex X, Part B.
2. References to the repealed Directives shall be construed as references to this Directive and should be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex XI.
Article 35
This Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 36
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 February 1998. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DIRECTIVE
of 15 December 1988
determining the groups of varieties of spinach beet and beetroot referred to crop isolation conditions of Annex I to Council Directive 70/458/EEC on the marketing of vegetable seed
(89/14/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 70/458/EEC of 29 September 1970 on the marketing of vegetable seed (1), as last amended by Directive 88/380/EEC (2),, and in particular the final sentence of Annex I (4) (A) thereof,
Whereas Commission Directive 87/481/EEC (3) amended the conditions laid down in Annex I (4) to Directive 70/458/EEC for crop isolation for the production of spinach beet seed and beetroot seed;
Whereas, according to Directive 87/481/EEC, the minimum distance from neighbouring plants of the same sub-species which might result in undesirable foreign pollination depends on whether the spinach beet or beetroot crop is of a variety belonging to the same group of varieties as those plants;
Whereas it is therefore necessary to determine the groups of varieties of spinach beet and beetroot referred to in Annex I (4) (A) of Directive 70/458/EEC;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Seeds and Propagating Material for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
The groups of varieties of spinach beet and beetroot referred to in Annex I (4) (A) of Directive 70/458/EEC are those listed in the Annex to this Directive.
Article 2
Member States shall take the measures necessary to comply with this Directive not later than 1 January 1990. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
Article 3
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 December 1988. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 20 June 1989 on hygiene and health problems affecting the production and the placing on the market of egg products (89/437/EEC)
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, in order to ensure the smooth operation of the common market and more especially of the common organization of the market in eggs established by Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3907/87 (5), and of the common system of trade for ovalbumin and lactalbumin introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 2783/75 (6), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 4001/87 (7), it is essential that the marketing of egg products should no longer be hindered by disparities existing between Member States in respect of health requirements in this area; whereas this will enable production to be better harmonized and bring about competition on equal terms while assuring consumers of a quality product;
(8) OJ No C 67, 14. 3. 1987, p. 9 and OJ No C 53, 2. 3. 1989, p. 10.
(9) OJ No C 187, 18. 7. 1988, p. 184.
(10) OJ No C 232, 31. 8. 1987, p. 1.
(11) OJ No L 282, 1. 11. 1975, p. 49.
(12) OJ No L 370, 30. 12. 1987, p. 14.
(13) OJ No L 282, 1. 11. 1975, p. 104.
(14) OJ No L 377, 31. 12. 1987, p. 44.
Whereas the marketing of certain egg products which are not covered by Annex II to the Treaty is closely linked with the marketing of egg products for which a market organization exists; whereas distortions of competition should be eliminated for all egg products;
Whereas it appears appropriate to exclude from the scope of this Directive egg products which are obtained in small scale enterprises, shops or restaurants and used for the manufacture of foodstuffs intended for direct sale to the final consumer or to be consumed on the spot;
Whereas health requirements should be laid down for the production, storage and transport of egg products; whereas, in particular, it is important that rules be laid down governing the approval of establishments;
Whereas it is important also that the health requirements to be met by egg products be laid down;
Whereas the said rules must apply in an identical manner to intra-Community trade and to trade within the Member States;
Whereas it is the responsibility primarily of producers to ensure that egg products meet the health requirements laid down in this Directive; whereas the competent authorities of the Member States must, by carrying out checks and inspections, see to it that producers comply with the abovementioned requirements; whereas the rules governing these checks and inspections must take account of the demands of the internal market;
Whereas a random check must be made to detect the presence of residues of substances liable to be harmful to human health;
Whereas Community control measures should be introduced to guarantee the uniform application in all Member States of the standards laid down in this Directive;
Whereas, in the context of intra-Community trade, the consignor, the consignee or their representative must be given the opportunity, where a dispute arises with the competent authorities of the Member States of destination, of seeking an expert's opinion;
Whereas egg products manufactured in a third country intended to be placed on the market on Community territory must not qualify for more favourable arrangements than those laid down in this Directive; whereas provision should be made for a Community procedure for inspecting establishments in third countries;
Whereas the Commission should be entrusted with the task of adopting certain measures for implementing this Directive; whereas, to that end, procedures should be laid down introducing close and effective cooperation between the Commission and the Member States within the Standing Veterinary Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1 This Directive lays down hygiene and health requirements concerning the production and the placing on the market of egg products for direct human consumption or for the manufacture of foodstuffs.
However, this Directive shall not apply to:
- finished foodstuffs manufactured from egg products, as defined in Article 2 and which meet with the provisions of Article 3,
- egg products which are obtained in small scale enterprises and which, without having undergone any treatment, are used for the manufacture of foodstuffs intended for direct sale, without any intermediary, to the consumer or consumed on the spot immediately after having been prepared.
Article 2 For the purposes of this Directive, the definition given in Article 1 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75 (15) shall apply. The following definitions shall also apply:
1. egg products: products obtained from eggs, their various components or mixtures thereof, after removal of the shell and membranes, intended for human consumption; they may be partially supplemented by other foodstuffs or additives; they may be liquid, concentrated, dried, crystallized, frozen, quick-frozen or coagulated;
(16) OJ No L 282, 1. 11. 1975, p. 56.
2. farm of production: without prejudice to Regulation (EEC) No 2782/75 (17), farm for the production of eggs intended for human consumption;
3. establishment: establishment approved for the manufacture and/or treatment of egg products;
4. cracked eggs: eggs with a damaged but unbroken shell, with intact membranes;
5. batch: a quantity of egg products which have been prepared under the same conditions and in particular treated in a single continuous operation:
6. consignment: a quantity of egg products for a single delivery to one destination for further processing by the food industry or intended for direct human consumption;
7. country of dispatch: the Member State or third country from which egg products are dispatched to another Member State;
8. country of destination: the Member State to which egg products are dispatched from another Member State or from a third country;
9. packing: the placing of egg products in any form of package;
10. competent authority: the veterinary department or any other equivalent department designated by the Member State concerned to monitor compliance with the provisions of this Directive;
11. placing on the market: the marketing of egg products, as defined in point 5 of Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75.
Article 3 Member States shall ensure that only egg products which meet the following general requirements are produced as foodstuffs or used in the manufacture of foodstuffs:
(a) they must have been obtained from hens', ducks', geese's, turkeys's, guinea fowl's or quail's eggs, but not a mixture of eggs of different species;
(b)
they must bear an indication of the percentage of egg ingredients they contain when they are partially supplemented by other foodstuffs or, provided they fulfil the requirements of Article 12, by additives;
(c)
they must have been treated and prepared in an establishment approved in accordance with Article 6 which complies with Chapters I and II of the Annex, and satisfy the requirements of this Directive;
(d)
they must have been prepared under hygiene conditions complying with Chapters III and V of the Annex, from
(18) OJ No L 282, 1. 11. 1975, p. 100.
eggs meeting the requirements laid down in Chapter IV of the Annex;
(e)
they must have undergone a treatment process authorized under the procedure laid down in Article 14 which enables them to meet inter alia the analytical specifications laid down in Chapter VI of the Annex.
However, where it is necessary for technological reasons associated with the preparation of certain foodstuffs obtained from egg products, the competent authority shall decide, on the basis of criteria to be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 14, that certain egg products need not undergo treatment; in such a case, the egg products must be used without delay in the establishment where they are intended for the manufacture of other foodstuffs;
(f)
they must comply with the analytical specifications set out in Chapter VI of the Annex;
(g)
they must have undergone a health check in accordance with Chapter VII of the Annex;
(h)
they must have been packed in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Annex;
(i)
they must be stored and transported in accordance with Chapters IX and X of the Annex;
(j)
they must bear the mark of wholesomeness provided for in Chapter XI of the Annex and, where intended for direct human consumption, must meet the requirements of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer (19), as last amended by Directive 86/197/EEC (20).
Article 4 The competent authorities shall ensure that the manufacturers of egg products adopt all measures necessary to comply with this Directive, and in particular that:
- samples for laboratory examination are taken in order to check that the analytical specifications set out in Chapter VI of the Annex have been observed,
- egg products that may not be kept at the ambient temperature are transported or stored at the temperatures stipulated in Chapters IX and X of the Annex,
- the period during which the conservation of egg products is assured is laid down,
- the results of the various checks and tests are recorded and kept for presentation to them for a period of two years,
- each batch marked in such a way that its date of treatment can be identified; this batch mark must appear on the
(21) OJ No L 33, 8. 2. 1979, p. 1.
(22) OJ No L 144, 29. 5. 1986, p. 38.
treatment record and on the mark of wholesomeness provided for in Chapter XI.
Article 5 1. Member States shall ensure that checks are effected to detect any residues of substances having a pharmacological or hormonal action, and of antibiotics, pesticides, detergents and other substances which are harmful or which might alter the organoleptic characteristics of egg products or make their consumption dangerous or harmful to human health.
2. If the egg products examined show traces of residues in excess of the permitted levels fixed in accordance with paragraph 4, they must not be allowed to be used in food
for human consumption or placed on the market, either for
the manufacture of foodstuffs or for direct human consumption.
3. Tests for residues must be carried out in accordance with proven and scientifically recognized methods, in particular those prescribed in Community Directives or other international standards.
It must be possible to assess the tests for residues using reference methods laid down in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 14 after the Scientific Veterinary Committee has expressed its opinion.
In accordance with the same procedure, at least one reference laboratory must be designated in each Member State to carry out the examination for residues in the event of application of Articles 7 and 8.
The Commission shall publish the reference methods and the list of reference laboratories in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
4. Acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, the Council shall adopt:
- the detailed arrangements for monitoring,
- the tolerances for the substances referred to in paragraph 2,
- the frequency of sampling.
Article 6 1. Member States shall draw up lists of their approved establishments, each of which shall have an approval number. Member States shall forward this list to the other Member States and to the Commission.
No Member State shall approve an establishment unless compliance with this Directive is assured. A Member State shall withdraw approval if the conditions for granting it cease
to be fulfilled. The other Member States and the Commission shall be informed of the withdrawal of approval.
2. The inspection and monitoring of establishments and packaging centres shall be carried out regularly on the responsibility of the competent authority, which shall at all times have free access to all parts of the establishments, in order to ensure that this Directive is being observed.
If such inspections reveal that not all the requirements of this Directive are being met, the competent authority shall take the appropriate action to remedy the situation.
Article 7 1. Experts from the Commission may, in cooperaton with the competent authorities, make on-the-spot checks insofar as that is indispensable for ensuring uniform application of the Directive; they may in particular verify whether establishments and packing centres approved in accordance with Article 5 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75 are actually complying with the Directive.
A Member State within the territory of which a check is being carried out shall give all necessary assistance to the experts in carrying out their duties. The Commission shall inform the Member State concerned of the results of the checks.
The Member State concerned shall take any measures required to take account of the results of the check. If the Member State does not take those measures, the Commission may, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 13, decide that the Member State in question must suspend the placing on the market of egg products from the establishment which fails to comply with this Directive.
2. Before the checks referred to in paragraph 1 are carried out, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 14, the general provisions for applying this Article shall be determined and a Commission recommendation shall be established, containing the rules to be followed for the purpose of the checks provided for in paragraph 1.
Article 8 1. Without prejudice to Articles 6 and 7, the country of destination may, where there are serious grounds for suspecting irregularities, carry out non-discriminatory inspections of egg products in order to check that a consignment meets the requirements of this Directive.
2. The inspections referred to in paragraph 1 shall be carried out at the place of destination of the goods or at another suitable place, provided that in the latter case the choice of the place interferes as little as possible with the routing of the goods.
Such inspections must be carried out as soon as possible so as not unduly to delay the placing of egg products on the
market, or cause delays which might impair their quality.
3. If, during an inspection carried out in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2, it is found that the egg products do not comply with this Directive, the competent authority of the country of destination may give the consignor, the consignee or their representative the choice of withdrawing the consignment from the market in order that it may undergo further treatment or of using it for other purposes if this is permissible on health grounds. If not, the alternative offered must be the destruction of the egg products. In any event, precautionary measures shall be taken by the competent authority to prevent improper use of such egg products.
4. (a) Decisions and the grounds for taking them must be notified to the consignor, the consignee or their representative. Should such person so request, reasons must be given for such decisions and must be notified to him immediately in writing together with particulars of the remedies available to him under the law, their forms and the time limits within which action must be taken.
Remedies available to the consignor, the consignee or their representative shall not be affected by this Directive.
(b) If such decisions are based on the existence of a particularly serious risk to human health, they shall be communicated forthwith to the competent authority of the Member State of dispatch and to the Commission.
(c) Following such communication, appropriate measures may be taken in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 13, in particular for the purpose of coordinating the measures taken in other Member States with regard to the egg products concerned.
5. Member States shall grant consignors whose egg products may not be placed on the market as a result of an inspection as provided for in paragraph 1 the right to obtain an expert's opinion.
The expert must be a national of a Member State other than the country of dispatch or the country of destination.
The Commission, acting on a proposal from the Member States, shall draw up a list of experts who may be instructed to prepare such opinions. The detailed rules for the application of this paragraph shall be adopted according to the procedure laid down in Article 14.
Article 9 Where a Member State considers, after carrying out an inspection in accordance with Article 8, that the provisions of
this Directive are no longer being observed in an establishment in another Member State it shall so inform the competent authority of that State. The said authority shall take all necessary measures and notify the competent authority of the first Member State of the decisions taken and of the reasons for such decisions.
If the first Member State fears that such measures have not been taken or are inadequate, the two Member States shall together seek ways and means of remedying the situation, if necessary by means of an inspection visit of the establishment.
The Member States shall inform the Commission of disputes and of the solutions reached.
If the Member States are unable to reach agreement, one of them shall refer the matter within a reasonable period to the Commission, which shall instruct one or more experts to deliver an opinion.
Pending that opinion, the Member State of dispatch shall intensify checks on egg products coming from the establishment in question and, at the request of the Member State of destination, the Commission shall immediately instruct an expert to go to the consignor establishment in order to propose appropriate interim protective measures.
In the light of the opinion provided for in the fourth subparagraph, or the result of the check performed in accordance with Article 7 (1), Member States may be authorized, under the procedure laid down in Article 13, temporarily to deny access to their territory for egg products coming from that establishment.
Such authorization may be withdrawn under the procedure laid down in Article 13 on the basis of a further opinion delivered by one or more experts.
The experts shall be nationals of a Member State other than those involved in the dispute.
Detailed rules for the application of this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 14.
Article 10 The Annex to this Directive shall be amended by the Council acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission.
Article 11 1. Pending the application of the provisions of this Directive, national provisions governing imports of egg products from third countries shall continue to apply and must not be more favourable than those governing intra-Community trade.
2. On-the-spot inspections shall be carried out by experts from the Member States and the Commission. Member
States' experts instructed to carry out these inspections shall be appointed by the Commission on proposals from the Member States. Inspections shall be carried out on behalf of the Community, which shall bear the costs relating thereto.
3. A list of the establishments which meet the requirements set out in the Annex shall be drawn up in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 14.
4. The health certificate accompanying the products on importation and the form and nature of the mark of wholesomeness applied to the products shall correspond to a model to be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 14.
Article 12 The Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, shall decide which additives contained in the list of additives authorized by the Community rules in force on additives which may be used in foodstuffs may be used for the egg products defined in Article 3 (a) and the detailed rules on such use.
Pending such decision, national rules governing such use shall continue to apply.
Article 13 1. Where the procedure laid down in this Article is to be applied, the matter shall be referred forthwith to the Standing Veterinary Committee set up by the Council Decision of 15 October 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ´the committee') by its chairman on his initiative or at the request of a Member State.
2. The respresentative 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.
3. The Commission shall adopt the measures envisaged if they are in accordance with the opinion of the committee.
4. If the measures envisaged are not in accordance with the opinion of the committee, or if no opinion is delivered, the Commission shall, without delay, submit to the Council a proposal relating to the measures to be taken. The Council shall act by a qualified majority.
If, within 15 days of the date of referral to the Council, the Council has not acted, the proposed measures shall be adopted by the Commission, save where the Council has decided against the said measures by a simple majority.
Article 14 1. Where the procedure laid down in this Article is to be applied, the chairman shall refer the matter without delay to the committee on his own initiative or at the request of a Member State.
2. 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 State within the committee shall be weighted in the manner set out in that Article. The chairman shall not vote.
3. The Commission shall adopt the measures envisaged if they are in accordance with the opinion of the committee.
4. If the measures envisaged are not in accordance with the opinion of the committee, or if no opinion is delivered, the Commission shall, without delay, submit to the Council a proposal relating to the measures to be taken. The Council shall act by a qualified majority.
If, within three months of the date of referral to the Council, the Council has not acted, the proposed measures shall be adopted by the Commission, save where the Council has decided against the said measures by a simple majority.
Article 15 Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 31 December 1991. They shall inform the Commission thereof forthwith.
The Commission shall, no later than 31 December 1994, submit a report to the Council on the experience acquired on the subject, accompanied, where appropriate, by proposals aimed at adapting the Annex to this Directive taking special account of scientific and technological developments.
Article 16 This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 20 June 1989. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 371/2004
of 27 February 2004
fixing the maximum subsidy on exports of husked long grain rice B to Réunion pursuant to the invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1878/2003
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), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2692/89 of 6 September 1989 laying down detailed rules for exports of rice to Réunion(2), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1878/2003(3) opens an invitation to tender for the subsidy on rice exported to Réunion.
(2) Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2692/89 allows the Commission to fix, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 and on the basis of the tenders submitted, a maximum subsidy.
(3) The criteria laid down in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2692/89 should be taken into account when fixing this maximum subsidy. Successful tenderers shall be those whose bids are at or below the level of the maximum subsidy.
(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
A maximum subsidy on exports to Réunion of husked long grain rice B falling within CN code 1006 20 98 is hereby set on the basis of the tenders lodged from 23 to 26 February 2004 at 285,00 EUR/t pursuant to the invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1878/2003.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 February 2004.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 February 2004. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 31 May 2007
amending Decision 2004/20/EC in order to transform the ‘Intelligent Energy Executive Agency’ into the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation
(2007/372/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (1),
Whereas:
(1)
In the framework of the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs, the Community has taken a number of measures aimed at promoting and developing competitiveness and innovation in order to contribute to growth and to make Europe a more attractive place to invest and work.
(2)
Those measures include Decision No 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007 to 2013) (2). The objectives of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (hereinafter referred to as CIP) are to foster the competitiveness of enterprises, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (hereinafter referred to as SMEs), to promote all forms of innovation, including eco-innovation, to accelerate the development of an information society and to promote energy efficiency and new and renewable energy sources. Those objectives are to be pursued through the implementation of the following specific programmes: the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme, the Information and Communications Technology policy support Programme and the Intelligent Energy - Europe Programme.
(3)
The measures taken in the framework of the Lisbon strategy also include Regulation (EC) No 1692/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing the second Marco Polo programme for the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system (Marco Polo II) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1382/2003 (3). The objectives of Marco Polo II are to reduce congestion, improve the environmental performance of the transport system and to enhance inter-modal transport, thereby contributing to efficient and sustainable transport systems and to competitiveness and innovation, especially of SMEs, within the Community.
(4)
The Intelligent Energy Executive Agency (hereinafter referred to as the IEEA) was set up by Commission Decision 2004/20/EC (4), to manage the Community action in the field of energy carried out in the framework of the Intelligent Energy - Europe Programme 2003-2006 (hereinafter referred to as the IEE Programme 2003-2006) adopted by Decision No 1230/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5). Decision 2004/20/EC provides for the IEEA to carry out its functions until 31 December 2008 in order to execute contracts and grants signed under the 2003-2006 IEE programme.
(5)
A cost-benefit analysis carried out by external consultants has shown that continuing to entrust programme implementation tasks related to the new IEE programme 2007-2013 to the existing IEEA would be the most cost-effective option.
(6)
Cost-benefit analyses also showed that programme implementation tasks related to the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme within the framework of the CIP, as well as Marco Polo II, could be carried out more efficiently by an executive agency, whilst ensuring the overall management by the Commission of these programmes.
(7)
Since the IEE Programme for 2007-2013 has been integrated into the CIP, and in order to ensure consistency in the manner in which projects are implemented under the CIP, the IEEA should be entrusted with certain implementation tasks related to the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme, which also forms part of the CIP, in addition to the execution of the IEE Programme for 2007-2013. Moreover, since Marco Polo II shares common objectives with the CIP, and in particular with the IEE programme, namely to improve energy efficiency in transport and reduce its environmental impact, and both programmes could benefit from important synergies, certain implementation tasks related to Marco Polo II should also be delegated to the IEEA.
(8)
In order to reflect its additional tasks, the IEEA should be transformed into the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation.
(9)
Decision 2004/20/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.
(10)
The provisions set out by this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for Executive Agencies,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
Decision 2004/20/EC is amended as follows:
1.
in Article 1, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:
‘2. The name of the Agency shall be the “Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation.”’;
2.
Article 3 is replaced by the following:
‘Article 3
Duration
The Agency shall carry out its tasks from 1 January 2004 until 31 December 2015.’;
3.
Article 4 is replaced by the following:
‘Article 4
Objectives and tasks
1. The Agency shall be responsible for carrying out the following implementation tasks for the management of Community actions in the fields of energy, entrepreneurship and innovation, including eco-innovation, and sustainable freight transport, under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme 2007-2013 established by Decision No 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) (hereinafter referred to as the CIP), and the second Marco Polo Programme 2007-2013 established by Regulation (EC) No 1692/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7):
(a)
managing all the phases in the lifetime of specific projects in the context of the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme and the Intelligent Energy - Europe Programme established by Decision No 1639/2006/EC and the second Marco Polo Programme, as well as the necessary checks to that end, by adopting the relevant decisions where the Commission has empowered it to do so;
(b)
adopting the instruments of budget implementation for revenue and expenditure and carrying out, where the Commission has empowered it to do so, all the operations necessary to manage the implementing measures and, in particular, those linked to the award of contracts and grants under the CIP and the second Marco Polo Programme;
(c)
gathering, analysing and passing on to the Commission all the information needed to guide and evaluate the implementation of the CIP and the second Marco Polo Programme.
2. The Agency shall also manage all the phases in the lifetime of the implementing measures delegated to it in the framework of the following programmes:
(a)
Intelligent Energy - Europe (2003 to 2006) established by Decision No 1230/2003/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (8);
(b)
Marco Polo (2003 to 2006) established by Regulation (EC) No 1382/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9).
The Commission’s rights and obligations in respect of the implementing measures referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph are assigned to the Agency.
3. The Agency may be charged by the Commission, following the opinion of the committee established by Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003, to carry out tasks of the same type under the CIP or other Community programmes, within the meaning of Article 2 of that Regulation, in the fields referred to in paragraph 1.
4. The Commission Decision delegating authority to the Agency shall set out in detail all the tasks entrusted to it and shall be adapted in the light of any additional tasks which may be entrusted to the Agency. The Commission decision will be transmitted, for information, to the committee established by Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003.
4.
Article 6 is replaced by the following:
‘Article 6
Grants
The Agency shall receive grants which shall be entered in the general budget of the European Communities from the funds allocated to the CIP and the second Marco Polo Programme and, where appropriate, other Community programmes or actions entrusted to the Agency for implementation pursuant to Article 4(3).’;
5.
Article 8 is replaced by the following:
‘Article 8
Implementation of the administrative budget
The Agency shall implement its administrative budget in accordance with the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1653/2004 (10).
Article 2
All references to the Intelligent Energy Executive Agency shall be interpreted as references to the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision.
Done at Brussels, 31 May 2007. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1062/2008
of 28 October 2008
implementing Regulation (EC) No 453/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quarterly statistics on Community job vacancies, as regards seasonal adjustment procedures and quality reports
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 453/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 concerning quarterly statistics on Community job vacancies (1), and in particular Article 3(3) and 6(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 453/2008 established a common framework for the systematic production of quarterly statistics on Community job vacancies.
(2)
Seasonal adjustment is an essential part of the compilation of short-term statistics. Adjusted series facilitate the comparison and interpretation of results over time. The transmission of adjusted series increases the coherence between data disseminated nationally and at international level.
(3)
For the purposes of applying the quality dimensions laid down in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 453/2008, the modalities, the structure and the periodicity of the quality reports to be provided by Member States should be defined.
(4)
The European Central Bank has been consulted.
(5)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Statistical Programme Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Seasonal adjustment procedures
For the purpose of applying Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 453/2008, the transmission of seasonally adjusted data shall start at the latest when time series with 16 observed periods at least are available at the aggregation level of NACE Rev. 2 specified in Annex 1. The number of periods shall be counted starting from the first non-seasonally adjusted data required according to Regulation (EC) No 453/2008.
Article 2
Quality reports
1. The modalities and the structure of the quality reports provided for by Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 453/2008 shall be as set out in Annex 2.
2. The quality reports shall be transmitted to the Commission by 31 August each year at the latest and shall relate to the previous calendar year. The first quality report shall be transmitted by 31 August 2011 at the latest.
Article 3
Entry into force
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, 28 October 2008. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 17 September 2008
on State aid C 61/07 (ex NN 71/07) - Greece Olympic Airways Services/Olympic Airlines
(notified under document C(2008) 5073)
(Only the Greek text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2010/459/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 above Articles (1), and having regard to these comments,
Whereas:
1. PROCEDURE
(1)
By letter dated 19 December 2007, the Commission informed Greece of its decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the Treaty in respect of a number of financial flows and transfers which gave rise to issues of State aid concern in connection with the financing and operations of Olympic Airways Services SA and Olympic Airlines SA.
(2)
On 14 January 2008 Greece requested an extension of the deadline for its reply which was accepted by the Commission. Greece transmitted its comments on 13 February 2008.
(3)
The Commission’s decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measures in question within one month of the publication date.
(4)
The Commission received comments on the subject from interested parties. It transmitted the comments to Greece by electronic mail of 9 April 2008. Greece was given the opportunity to respond to these comments, the Commission received Greece’s observations by electronic mail dated 13 May 2008.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE FACTS
2.1. The parties
2.1.1. Olympic Airways Services SA
(5)
Olympic Airways Services SA is the current name of the company formerly known as Olympic Airways SA (3). It is primarily involved in the provision of ground-handling and aircraft maintenance/engineering services in Greece and does not operate any aircraft. It is 100 % state-owned.
2.1.2. Olympic Airlines SA
(6)
Olympic Airlines SA began operation in December 2003 and was established from the flight divisions of Olympic Airways. It operates scheduled air services within Greece on intra-EU and inter-continental routes. It is 100 % state-owned (4).
2.2. Measures under investigation
(7)
The opening decision investigated the following four areas:
-
Potential State aid to Olympic Airways Services SA through forbearance of debts The Hellenic Republic may have granted illegal and incompatible State aid to this company through its continued forbearance towards Olympic Airways in relation to its tax and social security debts since January 2005 (5).
-
Potential State aid to Olympic Airways Services SA by means of arbitral panel awards The Hellenic Republic may have granted illegal and incompatible State aid to Olympic Airways Services in connection with payments made in respect of a number of arbitral panel decisions. These decisions result from a number of damages actions taken by this company against the State.
-
Potential State aid to Olympic Airlines SA: The Hellenic Republic may have granted illegal and incompatible State aid by means of aircraft lease payments and non-execution of its debts (including tax and social security liabilities) against this indebted State owned company since June 2005 (6).
-
Potential State aid to Olympic Airways Services SA and to Olympic Airlines by means of special creditor protection: meaning that no legal action or individual or collective enforcement measures (includes precautionary measures and injunctions) may be taken, in Greece or abroad, against either company by any private creditor. This legal protection is not granted to any other entity in Greece and is specific to these companies. Any other company in Greece seeking such creditor protection would have to go into bankruptcy.
(8)
The potential State aid to Olympic Airways Services by means of the arbitral panel awards requires further, more detailed examination. It is therefore excluded from the scope of the current decision and will be dealt with in a separate later Commission decision.
2.2.1. Tax and social security debts of Olympic Airways Services since December 2004
(9)
In its 2005 Decision the Commission identified a pattern of behaviour whereby the State did not collect its taxation and social security liabilities from Olympic Airways when these fell due, these debts would then be ‘certified’ against the company but no execution of this debt would be undertaken by the State. Over time the company would make partial payments by instalment (7). In the 2005 Decision the Commission concluded that the delayed or under-payment of taxation and social security liabilities by Olympic Airways provided a cash flow benefit to this company at the expense of the State.
(10)
In the 2005 Decision (Article 3 thereof) the Commission obliged Greece to ‘immediately suspend all further payments of aid to Olympic Airways and Olympic Airlines’. On several occasions (8) the Commission requested the Greek authorities to provide information on how it had implemented this aspect of the decision. And to provide Commission services with information regarding the tax and social security contributions paid by this company to the State. Notwithstanding these repeated specific requests the Greek authorities have failed to provide adequate information in this regard.
(11)
Far from providing the Commission services with information and confirmation that these companies are paying their tax and social security debts in full and on time the information provided by the Greek authorities to the Commission and to the European Courts is such as to suggest that the two companies Olympic Airways Services and Olympic Airlines cannot and do not discharge their ever-increasing debts to the public authorities.
(12)
By letter dated 30 October 2006 (9) the Greek authorities provided the Commission services with a letter dated 13 June 2006 from an ‘independent assessor’ called ‘Progressive Finance’ on the subject of the financial situation of Olympic Airways. The expert based itself on the 2004 Balance Sheet (not provided to the Commission) and the 2006 Cash Flow. The expert concluded that, on the basis of the information at its disposal, the company’s negative financial situation was directly related to its obligations to the State and to the social security administration and the outstanding State aid issues. ‘Progressive Finance’ also stated that on the basis of the 2006 Cash Flow, the company is not considered creditworthy and it had no possibility of contracting and servicing a loan to repay the State aid identified in the 2005 Decision.
(13)
Furthermore, in the context of Case T-423/05 R, Olympic Airways was asked by the President of the Court of First Instance to provide the Court with information on its capacity to repay the State aid identified by the Commission and its level of indebtedness.
(14)
By letter dated 27 November 2006 the company provided the Court with a report by the independent expert PriceWaterhouseCoopers on the possibility of a repayment by instalments of aid and an assessment of the aid that had been repaid following the negative Commission Decisions of 2002 and 2005.
(15)
Olympic Airways’ expert (PwC) calculated the amounts to be recovered as a result of the 2005 Decision at EUR 411 million, which it said could be refunded in 48 monthly instalments and which, having regard to the debts owed to the Social Security administration, could be extended to 96 instalments only following a legislative modification. The expert however acknowledged that ‘the analysis of Olympic Airway’s cash flows as they were provided us by the company (and which, for lack of time could not be subject to a detailed control as to their exactitude and their exhaustiveness) leads to the conclusion that the eventuality of a total or partial repayment of the amounts due is not possible’.
(16)
In its opening of the investigative procedure the Commission reached the preliminary conclusion that the obligation to suspend all further payments of aid to Olympic Airways contained in Article 3 of the 2005 Decision has not been respected. Furthermore, the Commission came to the preliminary conclusion that Olympic Airways is not paying its tax and social security liabilities in full and on time and cannot even pay its existing debts and that this behaviour is only possible due to the forbearance of the State.
2.2.2. State aid to Olympic Airlines since 2005
(17)
In relation to Olympic Airlines the Commission in its 2005 Decision identified as State aid granted to Olympic Airlines the ‘Acceptance by Olympic Airways and by Greece of lease payments from Olympic Airlines for the sub-leasing of aircraft which are lower than the amounts paid for head leases …’
(18)
The Hellenic Republic (10) did not dispute the fact that the State and Olympic Airways had sub-leased the aircraft in question to Olympic Airlines at rates lower than those of the original leases, it did however take issue with the assessment that this amounted to State aid. The Hellenic Republic’s contention was that as Olympic Airlines paid the market price for these sub leases it obtained no advantage.
(19)
As previously mentioned, Article 3 of the 2005 Decision required Greece to immediately suspend all State aid payments. Notwithstanding repeated reminders of the Commission (11) of the obligation to ‘immediately suspend all further payments of aid to Olympic Airways and Olympic Airlines’ and requests to furnish the Commission with information that Olympic Airlines is currently paying or has paid the head lease payments in respect of the leased aircraft identified in the 2005 Decision, the Greek authorities have failed to do so.
(20)
In relation to the financial situation of Olympic Airlines, the Commission has asked Greece to provide it with information regarding the current financial situation of Olympic Airlines and how the company is currently operating. The information provided by the Greek authorities prior to the opening of procedure has not reassured the Commission. The Commission does not understand how the company finances its day-to-day operations and addresses its losses. The Commission expressed doubts as to whether the company is paying its taxes and social liabilities to the State in full and on time or whether, it benefits from the forbearance from the State in this regard.
(21)
In the opening decision the Commission noted that although Olympic Airlines began operations in December 2003 with little or no debt (12), in 2004 it already suffered an operating loss of EUR 94,5 million on a turnover of EUR 616,7 million and a net loss for the year before taxation of EUR 87,1 million. In 2005 Olympic Airlines posted a net loss of EUR 123,7 million (13) on revenues of EUR 643 million for 2005 (14). It had been widely reported by the media (15) that the losses of the company for 2006 will be in excess of EUR 120 million. On this basis, since it commenced services in December 2003, Olympic Airlines has lost a total of over EUR 330 million over the first three years of operations.
2.2.3. State aid to Olympic Airways Services SA and to Olympic Airlines SA by means of special creditor protection
(22)
Article 22 of Law No 3404/05 (16) provides that ‘up to and including 28 February 2006 no legal action or individual or collective enforcement measures (includes precautionary measures and injunctions) may be taken, in Greece or abroad, against Olympic Airlines S.A., Olympic Airways - Services S.A., Olympic Aviation S.A., their assets or any part of their assets which is necessary for or useful to such assets; any such legal action currently ongoing and the consequences of any such measures shall be suspended for the abovementioned period of time. The Greek State is exempted from these restrictions.’ The validity of this provision was extended three times, initially until 31 October 2006 (17) subsequently to 31 October 2007 (18) and finally to 31 October 2008.
(23)
This provision effectively prohibited the enforcement of rulings, in Greece or abroad, against any company within the Olympic Group. The effect of this law is to unilaterally shield these companies from their obligations as ruled by a court of law, halting the procedures intended to enforce such obligations, and blocking the possibility of precautionary measures.
(24)
The Commission concluded that this provision therefore gives Olympic Airways and the other companies within the group preferential treatment, granting it a type of legal protection not afforded to other domestic or foreign airlines or indeed any other economic operator. Any other company in Greece seeking such creditor protection would have to go into bankruptcy.
2.3. Initial assessment by the Commission
2.3.1. Existence of aid
2.3.1.1. Tax and social security debts of Olympic Airways Services since December 2004
(25)
In opening the investigative procedure the Commission concluded that the State forbearance in relation to its tax and social security debts of Olympic Airways Services accumulated since January 2005 clearly constituted a grant of State resources aimed at one undertaking which is in competition with others and as such constituted State aid.
2.3.1.2. State aid to Olympic Airlines since 2005
(26)
In opening the investigative procedure the Commission concluded that the suspected discounted aircraft lease payments and non-execution of State debts (including tax and social security liabilities) in favour of Olympic Airlines since May 2005 involve State resources aimed at specific undertakings in competition with others and as such constituted State aid.
2.3.1.3. State aid by means of special creditor protection
(27)
The Commission also concluded that the special creditor protection afforded to both companies is similar to bankruptcy protection. In this regard it is settled jurisprudence (19) that in situations where a Member State has put in place a system derogating from the rules of ordinary law relating to insolvency in favour of an undertaking such a system is to be regarded as State aid where it is established that the undertaking has been permitted to continue trading in circumstances in which it would not have been permitted to do so if the rules of ordinary law relating to insolvency had been applied, or if it has enjoyed further advantages from the State.
2.3.2. Compatibility of aid
(28)
In opening the investigation in relation to the public financing believed to have been given to Olympic Airways Services by means of forbearance of debts (including tax and social security) and the special creditor protection the Commission expressed serious doubts as whether any of these measures could be declared compatible with the common market, as none of the exceptions to the general prohibition of State aid seemed to apply.
(29)
Similarly with regard to the public financing believed to have been given to Olympic Airlines by means of forbearance of debts (including tax and social security), reduced aircraft lease payments and the special creditor protection the Commission expressed serious doubts whether any of this can be declared compatible with the common market, as none of the exceptions to the general prohibition of State aid seems to apply.
3. COMMENTS FROM GREECE
(30)
The Hellenic Republic began its observations by underlining the importance of clarifying the time period which is being examined in the current investigation. The opening of procedure is stated in relation to Olympic Airways to cover from December 2004 and in relation to Olympic Airlines from May 2005. The Hellenic Republic takes issue with this and points out that for example, the sum of EUR 12 267 250 (capital plus interest) referred to in the third line of the table in paragraph 138 of the 2005 Decision relates to a debt of Olympic Airways - Services S.A. of 9 March 2005 which was a debt to the tax authorities. In the opinion of the Greek authorities the starting point for the Commission’s current investigation under Article 88(2) EC has to be the date on which the 2005 Decision was issued (14 September 2005).
(31)
Furthermore, the Hellenic Republic stated that it had already recovered the aid covering the period referred to by the 2005 Decision. By letter dated 21 November 2007 the Hellenic Republic informed the Commission that it had fully implemented the 2005 Decision.
3.1. Tax and social security debts of Olympic Airways Services since December 2004
(32)
In relation to this heading of aid the Hellenic Republic contends that the company holds a tax and social security clearance form. This means that at present the Greek State has no claim against the company which the company is obliged to settle immediately. The company is not obliged to immediately pay any debts to the tax authorities that remain unpaid due to the fact that it successfully sought judicial remedies and has obtained judgements from the competent national courts. There is no claim for due debts from the Civil Aviation Authority relating to Olympic Airways Services. Certain older debts of Olympic Airways Services to the IKA (Social Security) Fund are being paid via monthly instalments, in line with the generally applicable provisions of Law 3518/2006. Consequently, Greece argues that there is no ‘prolonged forbearance’ by the Greek State in relation to the purported non-payment of debts.
(33)
The Hellenic Republic acknowledged that the company’s delay in publishing the balance sheets is not in line with its obligations under national law. However, it informed the Commission that it has already taken suitable measures to ensure that this matter is dealt with. The Board of Directors of Olympic Airways Services has already taken a decision to appoint an auditing firm to update its financial statements. The company has already drawn up draft balance sheets for the years 2004 to 2006. The company has established an impression of its financial situation for 2007 in a Balance Sheet Estimate.
(34)
The draft balance sheets for the 2004-2006 periods show that the company was in the red with equity of […] (20) million at the end of 2006 and had taxes and duties and social security debts of EUR 1 098 million. However, at the end of the 2007 period the company had significantly improved its equity which now stands at […]*million. Its tax, duties and social security debts now stand at […]*million.
(35)
According to the information provided (based on estimates provide by the company), the breakdown of debts to the State and social security providers on 31.12.2007 was as follows:
(in EUR million)
Olympic Airways Services debts
Amounts
Total
Social security debts
Balance of old debts to the IKA fund paid in monthly instalments
[…]*
Social security debts
Non-due debts of Olympic Airways Services for the month of December and the Christmas bonus (payable by the end of February 2008)
[…]*
Social Security debts
[…]*
Taxes - duties
Certified debts to FABE Tax Office suspended due to successful judicial remedies (from tax audits up to 30.4.2007)
[…]*
Olympic Airways Services estimates of taxes and fines from May to December 2007
[…]*
Taxes - duties
[…]*
Grand total
[…]*
(36)
As far as social security debts are concerned, Olympic Airways Services has paid all its debts to the IKA Fund and has made arrangements for the repayment of old debts for the period up to and including 31.10.2006 under Law 3518/2006. For accounting purposes, the company is shown in the 2007 financial statement assessments as having a liability to social security providers whose total amount is the debt repayment facility amount on 31.12.2007 plus contributions for the month of December and the 2007 Christmas bonus.
(37)
The Hellenic Republic has pointed out in relation to the repayment facility for old Olympic Airways Services debts to the IKA Fund and repayment via monthly instalments that under both Community legislation and well established case law the repayment of debts to the State is to be effectuated in accordance with the rules of national law. This is in compliance with Community law where the specific legal framework does not introduce any discrimination between debtors. In this regard the Hellenic Republic also cites the Commission Communication on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (21) where the Commission states that taxation measures which apply to all economic operators operating within the territory of a Member State are, prima facie, general measures.
(38)
In this case, the procedures to collect old IKA Fund debts which are contained in national law apply without any discrimination to all debtors, including Olympic Airways Services, in accordance with the general legislative framework governing the payment of debts to the State. Consequently in the view of Greece there is no specificity and therefore no infringement of Article 87(1) EC.
(39)
As far as its tax debts are concerned, Olympic Airways Services has paid all certified debts to the tax office (FABE and FAEE Tax Offices) apart from those debts for which it successfully obtained judicial remedies before the Greek courts. Consequently, its only outstanding debts are those which are not due and payable under national law.
(40)
In the 2007 balance sheet estimate, the company is shown as having tax - duties liability covering all amounts in the said table which relate to the year 2007. Overall, those amounts (plus fines and surcharges) come to EUR […]* million. However, the Hellenic Republic states that the company is not under obligation to pay the Greek State any of the aforementioned debts at present since the company has been successful in obtaining judicial remedies on these matters.
(41)
Furthermore, the 2007 balance sheet estimates contains an estimate from the company about probable debts of EUR […]* million.
(42)
In this regard the Hellenic Republic asks that the Commission draw a distinction between (a) those debts which are presented for accounting purposes in the company’s books and (b) those debts which are payable at present to the Greek State in accordance with the generally applicable provisions of national law. Examination of any issues being reviewed by the Commission in the context of this procedure could only focus on the latter.
(43)
On the basis of the information provided the Hellenic Republic opines that there is no issue of transfer of state resources in this case within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, and even less so any issue of favourable treatment of Olympic Airways Services.
3.2. State aid to Olympic Airlines from 2005 onwards
(44)
In relation to the sub-lease of aircraft to Olympic Airlines by Olympic Airways Services and the Greek State, the Greek authorities state that Olympic Airlines had the financial ability to conclude operating leases directly with market players and that Olympic Airlines was never favoured by concluding operating leases since these leases were concluded at current market rates and thus there was no concealed State aid.
(45)
Furthermore, in selecting Olympic Airlines, Olympic Airways Services had acted just as any private investor in the same position would have acted, since not only did it manage to cut its monthly losses in the best possible manner, but it also ensured that that loss would be limited over time given the stated intention of Olympic Airlines to re-negotiate and take over the head leases.
(46)
The Hellenic Republic also wished to point out that the lease payments made by Olympic Airlines for operating sub-leases should not be compared with lease payments for finance leases, with which in its view the Commission has erroneously compared them. These are in effect dissimilar types of leases.
(47)
In relation to Olympic Airlines’ tax and social security debts the Hellenic Republic states that there has been no forbearance on non-payment, Olympic Airlines has fully settled its social security debts. In relation to its tax debts, the delay in payment of only a part of its tax debts to the Greek State for a limited period since the 2005 Decision does not constitute ‘prolonged forbearance’ on the part of the Greek State. In any event the Greek State states that it has already taken all the measures required under national law to certify and then collect the greater part of the company’s arrears. Moreover, the company has already submitted a request for repayment of its certified tax debts in 48 instalments under the generally applicable rules of national law.
3.2.1. Sub-leasing of aircraft
(48)
The sub-leasing of the aircraft at a price below that of the lease payments in the head leases does not constitute State aid because there was no favourable treatment of Olympic Airlines nor did that company obtain any benefit which it would not have obtained anyway in light of market conditions. The Greek authorities argue that the Commission did not examine at all the level of the lease payments in light of the private investor test and employed a flawed methodology by taking into account the difference between the head lease and the sub-lease of the aircraft instead of examining whether the sub-lease was concluded at market rates.
3.2.2. Finance leases and operating leases
(49)
The Hellenic Republic considers that the Commission was clearly in error in not distinguishing between finance and operating leases.
(50)
Firstly, the Hellenic Republic pointed out that of all the aircraft leased by Olympic Airlines, four A340-300 aircraft had been sub-leased to that company by Olympic Airways Services which had those aircraft on the basis of finance leases. From December 2004 the Greek State replaced Olympic Airways Services in the said finance leases from December 2004 onwards (for the first pair) and from April 2005 onwards (for the second pair). From then to now those aircraft have been sub-leased to Olympic Airlines by the Greek State.
(51)
Greece explains that a finance lease is a lease under which the risks and benefits deriving from ownership of an asset are effectively transferred (Title may or may not eventually be transferred). In reality it equates to purchase subject to condition of payment of the price in instalments. An operating lease is any lease that is not a finance lease. Consequently, the lease payment under a finance lease corresponds to the amount of the instalment to repay the value of the aircraft so that in the end the finance lessee is the owner of the aircraft at the end of the lease. The monthly lease payment paid by the Greek State to the lessors for the aircraft will cease in 2011 since the aircraft will become its full property then.
(52)
The Greek State’s decision to sub-lease the aircraft at prices below the finance lease payments paid under the head lease is not a grant of State aid to Olympic Airlines since (a) it is justified by the different nature of the two types of contracts and (b) the lease payments paid in the context of operating subleases reflect the market rates for leases of similar aircraft at the critical time when the contracts are concluded.
(53)
Consequently, it is self evident that the lease payment under a finance lease is higher than the lease payment under a simple operating lease since such payment also includes gradual repayment of the value of the aircraft. On the contrary, Olympic Airlines paid the Greek State a lease payment only for operating the aircraft without any expectation under the contract of acquiring ownership in the future.
(54)
In relation to the operating leases for aircraft operated by Olympic Airlines, the Hellenic Republic informed the Commission that all such subleases for aircraft between Olympic Airways Services and Olympic Airlines have expired apart from one (for an A300-600 aircraft). In a number of cases contracts were renegotiated and renewed (at various dates between 2005 and 2007) between Olympic Airlines and the initial lessors, without the intermediation of Olympic Airways Services based on current market rates.
(55)
More specifically, in the case of four leases for DHC 8-102 aircraft, four leases for B-737-400 Aircraft, one lease for a B-737-300 aircraft and three leases for B-717-200 aircraft, where the lessee had been Olympic Airways Services, the position of lessee in the head operating lease is now Olympic Airlines
(56)
In the opinion of Greece, Olympic Airways Services’ decision to generate income from the aircraft and cut its losses by subleasing them to Olympic Airlines was fully justified in commercial terms and in line with the private investor test. Moreover, by signing these subleases Olympic Airways Services released itself from the aircraft safeguarding and maintenance costs and benefited from ground handling and maintenance services it provided to Olympic Airlines for those aircraft.
3.2.3. Debts and current financial situation of Olympic Airlines
(57)
Over the period 2004 -2007 Olympic Airlines reported revenues up some 16,5 % and managed to curtail its cost increases (fuel excluded) to 9,7 %.
(58)
Under the provisions of Law 2190/1920 the company is obliged to complete preparation of its financial statements for 2007 by the end of April 2008. Greece provided the following table to explain Olympic Airlines financial situation.
INCOME - EXPENSES
2007 Estimates
2006
2005
2004
TOTAL INCOME
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
AIRCRAFT FUEL
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
OTHER PROPORTIONAL EXPENSES
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
TOTAL PROPORTIONAL EXPENSES
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
RESULTS BEFORE FIXED EXPENSES
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
AIRCRAFT LEASE PAYMENTS
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
OTHER EXPENSES
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
TOTAL
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
EBITDA
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
TOTAL DEPRECIATION
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
RESULTS
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
OTHER FINANCIAL EXPENSES
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
TOTAL EXPENSES
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
EARNINGS BEFORE TAXES & EXTRAORDINARY ITEMS
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
EXTRAORDINARY RESULTS
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
EBT
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
[…]*
(59)
As set out in the table, Olympic Airlines’ total income in 2004 was […]*million while total expenses were […]*before tax with the result that the company reported losses of EUR 87,1 million. The company’s situation worsened over the following years. In 2007 its losses were […]*million.
(60)
According to the Greek authorities, this change in Olympic Airlines’ financial situation is to a large extent a consequence of its legal inability to increase its share capital (22) imposed by the sole shareholder (the Greek State) and by the complications which previous state aid decisions have created in the effort to include private funds in the company.
(61)
The company has pointed out that a long-term shortage of capital has forced it to significantly increase costs particularly in relation to aircraft leases where short-term rather than long-term leases have made a major contribution to its negative results. Moreover, due to the shortage of capital there have been significant delays in introducing innovations to the production process within the company resulting in delay implementing of for example e-ticketing.
(62)
These facts notwithstanding, the Greek authorities state that the company has regularly settled its debts to social security schemes and has no due debts to the main social security scheme, the IKA Fund.
(63)
At present the company has delayed its debt payments to a certain number of creditors. More specifically, its total due debts (up to 31.12.2007) to Olympic Airways Services (and its subsidiary Olympic Aviation) were […]*, to Athens International Airport were […]*million and to Olympic Catering were […]*million.
(64)
At present there is also some delay is paying certain debts the company has to the tax authorities and the CAA. According to data available to the Hellenic Republic, on 7 February 2008 the certified tax debts of Olympic Airways Services stood at […]* million for the period up to 31.12.2007. Of that amount only […]*million has become due and payable at present.
(65)
The company has delayed making lease payments for aircraft to the Greek State in the total sum of […]*million. The company has also not paid the Greek State the sum of […]* million for aircraft maintenance reserves.
(66)
The Hellenic Republic points out that the issue of prolonged forbearance of non-payment of Olympic Airlines’ debts to the Greek State is raised for the first time in the 2005 Decision. It points out that the 2005 Decision found that following the investigation by Community experts the company had discharged its obligations in this regard for the period which had been examined (namely up to May 2005).
(67)
Consequently the Hellenic Republic stresses that even if there are at present certain unpaid debts of Olympic Airlines to the State any delay in paying them only relates to a short time period. In the opinion of the State this is not sufficient on its own to establish a claim of prolonged forbearance by the Greek State in light of the conditions laid down in Community case law in this regard.
(68)
According to case law, ‘where a public body with responsibility for collecting social security contributions tolerates late payment of such contributions, its conduct undoubtedly gives the recipient undertaking a significant commercial advantage by mitigating, for that undertaking, the burden associated with normal application of the social security system’ (23).
(69)
However, in order for that economic advantage to be treated as State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC it also needs to be shown that the undertaking would not have obtained that advantage under normal market conditions, in other words one needs to examine whether the organisation which received the contributions acted in the same way that a private creditor would do under the same circumstances.
(70)
In the view of Greece, it is not easy to apply this criterion in practice since there is no standard of conduct for a private creditor. More specifically, depending on the financial prospects of the debtors and its viability, a creditor may decide to do nothing or utilise all legal means available to him to collect debts due. Therefore Greece opines that one should examine whether the public authority took all available legal steps to collect the debt and whether it did so without delay (24).
(71)
In the Magefesa (25) case the court ruled that non-payment of tax and social security debts for many years (more than 8 years) indicated that the authorities were not using all lawful means to ensure payment of the debts.
(72)
Likewise, in the Lenzing (26) case, the CFI considered that a) forbearance of non-payment of social security contributions for a period of at least 6 years which permitted debts to accumulate, b) forbearance of non-compliance with the debt repayment arrangement which had been concluded and c) conclusion of a new debt repayment arrangement even though the authorities were able to claim immediate repayment of the total amount of the claims due to breach of the terms of the original arrangement - possibly by compulsory enforcement, did not meet the private creditor test and consequently was equivalent to State aid.
(73)
Lastly in the Spain v. Commission case (27) the ECJ ruled the Spanish authorities, even though they needed three years to reach debt restructuring agreements with undertakings and even though they wrote off two thirds of the debts and concluded debt restructuring agreements of 10 years duration with a two year grace period acted in line with the private creditor tests and used all lawful means to collect the debts.
(74)
In light of this the Hellenic Republic considers that there was no protracted forbearance on its part in relation to collection of debts due from Olympic Airlines.
3.3. State aid via special creditor protection
(75)
In its response the Hellenic Republic argues that the legal provisions in question do not lead to a removal of the rights of the creditors of Olympic Airways and Olympic Airlines concerning the enforcement of their claims under national law but simply to a suspension thereof, which national case law has found to be compatible with national law (and in particular with the Constitution). They further note that the State (including all agencies of the State which could provide advantages via state resources) is expressly excluded from the scope of this creditor protection. Consequently, in their view there can be no State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC. There would only be State aid if the Greek State had guaranteed payment of Olympic Airways Services’ and/or Olympic Airlines’ debts to creditors or if it made payments on behalf of those companies to suppliers and/or creditors.
(76)
The Hellenic Republic does not disagree that this specific provision relates specifically to Olympic Airways Services and Olympic Airlines. However, the specificity of those provisions on its own is not sufficient to constitute an infringement of Article 87 EC as Article 22 of Law 3404/2005 does not confer any economic advantage.
(77)
In the opinion of Greece, in order for there to be State aid under Article 87 EC it is vital that State resources actually be transferred (28). The creditor protection afforded from 17 October 2005 to 28 February 2006 and then following an extension to the original deadline to 31 October 2006 and then to 31 October 2007 and then to 31 October 2008 for Olympic Airways Services and Olympic Airlines only relates to debts to private creditors.
(78)
The rationale for excluding the Greek State from the scope of this provision was precisely to ensure compliance with the requirements of Community law on State aid as the explanatory report accompanying the law states.
(79)
The Hellenic Republic would stress that the only case in which there would be an issue of State aid on the basis of special creditor protection for private creditors would be the case where the Greek State had guaranteed the payment of Olympic Airways Services and Olympic Airlines’ debts to their creditors or where it made payments on behalf of the companies to their suppliers and/or creditors.
4. COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES
4.1. Olympic Airlines SA
(80)
Olympic Airlines’ comments were fully in line with the response provided by the Hellenic Republic dated 11 February 2008.
(81)
With respect to the sub-leasing of aircraft from the Greek State and Olympic Airways, Olympic Airlines is of the opinion that both Olympic Airways and the Greek State acted in a manner absolutely in accordance with the private investor test and there was no favourable treatment for Olympic Airlines. Furthermore it submits that the lease payments paid by Olympic Airlines to both Olympic Airways and the Greek State are in general terms in line with current market rates.
(82)
Olympic Airlines also referred to the distinction that should be drawn between the case of a finance lease and an operating lease.
(83)
The choice made by the Greek State to sub-lease the aircraft at prices below the finance lease prices paid in the head lease was not necessarily a grant of unlawful aid to Olympic Airlines. Firstly the difference in the level of lease payments is justified by the different nature of the two types of leases, and secondly by the fact that the lease payments paid in the context of operating leases reflect market rates for leasing similar aircraft at the critical point in time when the leases were concluded.
(84)
In simple terms, the finance lessee acquires the right to expect to acquire ownership of the aircraft at the end of the finance lease, which would not occur in the case of an operating lease. Consequently, the lease payment under a finance lease corresponds to the amount of the instalment to repay the value of the aircraft so that in the end the finance lessee is the owner of the aircraft at the end of the lease. In the specific case, the monthly lease payment paid by the Greek State to the lessors for the aircraft will cease in 2011 since the aircraft will become its full property then.
(85)
Olympic Airlines pointed out that all operating sub-leases for aircraft from Olympic Airways have now expired.
(86)
The operating leases concluded between Olympic Airways and Olympic Airlines for such time as they were in effect (until the latter took its placed in the head leases) had been concluded at current market rates, as stated above. Consequently, there was no concealed State aid. Olympic Airlines repeated that it did not receive any favourable treatment under the said operating sub-leases since the lease payment agreed at the time they were concluded (11.12.2003) reflected the market rate as can be seen from the aforementioned Aviation Economics report. Following that Olympic Airlines directly concluded leases with the original lessors (in some cases in 2005 and in others in 2007) at current market rates.
(87)
Moreover, the sole operating lease which had been concluded between Olympic Airways and Olympic Airlines in 2003 and which remained in effect until a few days ago, which related to an A 300-600 aircraft, had -like all the other contracts- been concluded at current market rates. This contract has now expired.
(88)
The decision of Olympic Airways to sub-lease the said aircraft to Olympic Airlines was required under the circumstances and was in accordance with the conduct of any private investor in the same position. If it had not been done, Olympic Airways would have been called upon to pay immense amounts of compensation to the aircraft lessor, which it would no longer have been able to use due to removal of air carrier services from its business objectives in December 2003.
(89)
It should be noted that under the lease concluded with the initial lessors, payment of the lease payments continued to be mandatory irrespective of whether the aircraft were used for flights by Olympic Airways. Given these circumstances, Olympic Airways’ decision to generate income from the aircraft and to cut its losses by subleasing them to Olympic Airlines was fully justified in commercial terms and in line with private investor test. Moreover, by concluding these sub-leases Olympic Airways released itself from safeguarding and maintenance costs for the aircraft. It also benefited from the provision of ground handling and maintenance services to Olympic Airlines for these aircraft.
(90)
In relation to the debts and current financial situation of Olympic Airlines the company confirmed the information already provided by the Hellenic Republic.
(91)
In relation to the allegation of State aid to Olympic Airlines by means of the special creditor protection, the company takes the view that Article 22 of Law 3404/2005 conveys no financial benefit on Olympic Airlines.
(92)
In conclusion, Olympic Airlines considers that after taking into consideration these comments the Commission will no longer have any doubts about the issues being examined.
4.2. Olympic Airways Services SA
(93)
The comments received from Olympic Airways Services primarily referred to the arbitration panel proceedings and the awards. These are excluded from the scope of the present decision (29). In as much as these touched on the other issues covered by the present decision they were completely in line with the comments received from Olympic Airlines and with the response provided by the Hellenic Republic dated 11 February 2008.
4.3. Aegean Airlines
(94)
Aegean Airlines is a competitor of Olympic Airlines, in its comments it particularly wished to address the issue of the arbitration panel awards. Aegean Airlines also pointed out that with 35 million passengers in the Greek aviation market and activity of more than 150 airlines Olympic Airlines covers 17 % of the market, as such it is not an ‘essential’ part of the market. What Aegean Airlines opine is needed in the Greek aviation market is fairness in regulation, equal treatment and no special subsidies, costs or rights for one market participant.
4.4. HATTA
(95)
The Hellenic Association of Travel and Tourism Agencies (HATTA) represents more than 1 500 Greek travel agencies and tour operators and expresses great concerns about the future of Olympic Airlines and the impact it may have on the Greek tourism industry.
(96)
HATTA expresses the opinion that Olympic Airlines should become a privately owned and managed company that will operate on a level playing field will other domestic and Community carriers. HATTA also wishes to underline the magnitude of the impact of potential bankruptcy of Olympic Airlines on the Greek economy; this in their view makes this case a political matter rather than a legal procedure.
(97)
As tourism represents 18 % of the Greek GDP; if Olympic Airlines were to disappear they opine that there would not be sufficient commercial interest to fill the entire gap in flights that would be lost. What is at stake is not just the future of a State owned company but the future and stability of a sector upon which the Greek economy is greatly dependent.
4.5. Ryanair
(98)
Ryanair states that it does not currently operate any routes to and from Greece, although it flies to less popular tourist destinations for western European travellers such as Riga in Latvia, Kaunas in Lithuania, and Constanta in Romania. Their lack of presence on the Greek market is they state, due to the artificial maintenance of Olympic Airlines and Olympic Airways Services through State aid. Should such State aid disappear, Ryanair would be in a much better position to become, with the fleet of aircraft at its disposal, a competitor of Olympic Airlines on a number of domestic and international routes to and from Greece. As a result Ryanair states that it is not only a party concerned, but its market position is substantially affected by the State aid in favour of Olympic Airlines/Olympic Airways Services.
(99)
In Ryanair’s view, the Article 88(2) EC investigation should have been initiated earlier and must be concluded without delay, well before the 18 month period. Ryanair points to the numerous state aid actions taken by the Commission in connection with Olympic Airways since 1994. Ryanair states that while superficially, these various actions and investigations concern distinct forms and instances of State aid, all of the aid measures are interrelated. They evidence a systematic, and thus far successful, effort by the Greek authorities to delay the whole process by constantly repackaging earlier and new aid into new forms - and then disputing, through any available means, that these measures constitute illegal State aid. The close links between different forms of State aid granted through various means over many years are also evident from the Commission’s narrative.
(100)
In the opinion of Ryanair, if the past is anything to go by, the detailed financial information required by the Commission will be incomplete and/or delayed; the Commission will, eventually, adopt a negative decision ordering recovery, which the Greek authorities will both appeal and ignore and by the time the Community Courts have upheld the Commission’s decision and found that Greece has infringed its obligations, part or the whole of the State aid involved will have morphed into new forms of illegal support to Olympic Airlines/Olympic Airways Services.
(101)
Ryanair state that the Commission has the power and duty to speed up the process significantly. In its view it would be outrageous if the formal investigation finally initiated by the Commission were to exhaust or even exceed the 18 month period provided by Article 7(6) 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 (30) (hereafter the Procedural Regulation). Such a formalistic approach would only reward the Greek authorities’ delaying tactics and provide a precedent for others to follow. Information provided on the amount of aid is incomplete because key data described as ‘confidential’ by the Greek authorities have not been properly disclosed.
(102)
In the view of Ryanair there is no justification for treating certain information concerning amounts of aid and how this has been calculated as confidential. Its disclosure would not confer any competitive advantage to competitors or other parties, but would help them respond to the Commission’s invitation with more concrete arguments, provide comparative data and expose flaws in Olympic Airlines/Olympic Airways Services’ machinations that may escape the Commission’s examination.
(103)
In relation to the forbearance of tax and social security debts since December 2004, Ryanair points out that the indicative figures for Olympic Airways Services losses underline the seriousness of the case.
(104)
In relation to the special creditor protection, Ryanair urges the Commission to clarify specifically the compensation rights that private parties will derive from this violation of the State aid rules.
5. COMMENTS FROM GREECE ON THIRD PARTY COMMENTS
(105)
The Hellenic Republic declared itself to be in complete agreement with the observations made by Olympic Airways Services, Olympic Airlines and HATTA. However, in relation to the observations of Aegean Airlines and Ryanair, the Hellenic Republic disputes the comments made and according to the Hellenic Republic, the observations of Aegean Airlines and of Ryanair do not substantially add any new or critical information and or documentation to the investigation.
(106)
In relation to the comments of Aegean Airlines the Hellenic Republic underlines that Aegean Airlines has been particularly successful on the Greek market over the last ten years and that this success ultimately works in favour of the final consumer - the passenger - thus proving the benefits of competition. The existence of competition in air travel constitutes the main position and aim of the Greek government.
(107)
The Greek authorities highlight what they see as a contradiction in Aegean Airline’s observations in that it presents its main competitor - Olympic Airlines - as on the one hand, having significant activity, but on the other, being replaceable. In the view of the Hellenic Republic this assessment is founded on Olympic Airways supposedly having a small percentage of the total transfer of passengers to/from Greek airports, the Greek authorities dispute this assessment.
(108)
The main aim of the Greek government constitutes the assurance of unhindered air travel service to Greek islands and remote areas, with the use of special provisions for the provision of public service (PSOs) where necessary. They point out that to date Aegean has not participated in any tender of the Civil Aviation Authority for PSOs.
(109)
The Greek authorities take issue with the references by Aegean Airlines to the ‘Olympic Airways Group’, which in the view of the State is inaccurate as Olympic Airways Services does not participate in the share capital or in the management of Olympic Airlines, neither does it control the decisions of the latter’s General Meeting, nor does it have the authority to appoint members to its Board of Directors. In particular, the two companies do not constitute one common financial unit, since the one company does not influence the financial policy of the other, nor is there a common interest between them; on the contrary, their business relations are conducted strictly on market terms.
(110)
With regard to the financial situation of Olympic Airways, the Hellenic Republic observes that Aegean Airlines has not presented any information proving that the daily operation of Olympic Airways is ensured by means of state aid.
(111)
In the view of the Hellenic Republic, Ryanair cannot be deemed as an ‘interested party’ in this case. This is because Ryanair does not carry out flights to and/or from Greece, so it cannot be maintained that it is affected in any way by the supposed granting of state aid to Olympic Airlines and Olympic Airways.
(112)
In the view of Greece, Ryanair’s claims that it does not carry out flights to and/or from Greece because of the long-term granting of a competition advantage to Olympic Airways and Olympic Airlines by the Greek government are not substantiated by the facts. The Greek authorities point out that other low-cost airlines are active on the Greek market, ‘Easy Jet’, ‘Aer Lingus’, ‘Air Berlin’, ‘Sky Europe’, ‘Germanwings’ and ‘Virgin Express’. Both ‘Easy Jet’ (31) and ‘Germanwings’ (32) carry out daily flights to and from Athens International Airport, while they are also connected with other major Greek airports. Similarly, ‘Air Berlin’ carries out flights to a total of fifteen of the country’s airports (33), with daily flights (more than one) to and from Athens International Airport.
(113)
Second, there is no obstacle existing in Ryanair’s entry to the Greek market due to alleged advantages in favour of Olympic Airlines, given that the two companies provide their services on the basis of two entirely different business models. As is evident from the entry of the above-mentioned low-cost airlines to the Greek market, the activity of Olympic Airline and Aegean would not impede or influence the entry of Ryanair, nor is there an issue of a restricted number of slots at Greek airports.
(114)
The Greek authorities therefore find it odd that Ryanair claims that it is incapable of carrying out flights on the Greek market due to the alleged distortion of competition, as all the above-mentioned carriers, many of which are of a smaller size and higher cost than Ryanair, have done so successfully.
(115)
The Hellenic Republic sums up the main views of the above-mentioned companies as follows:
5.1. Regarding Olympic Airways Services tax and social insurance debts
(116)
As of 11 February 2008, the updated taxation and insurance records of Olympic Airways Services had already been proven. Regarding Olympic Airway’s older debts to the Social Security Institute, an adjustment has been made to pay off these debts in monthly instalments, according to the general provisions of Law No 3518/2006, applicable to all Greek companies and natural persons (34).
(117)
Consequently, in the view of Greece there can be no ‘tolerance’ and even less of ‘perpetual tolerance’ on behalf of the Greek Government as regards the non-payment of Olympic Airway’s debts.
5.2. Regarding alleged state aid to Olympic Airlines
5.2.1. State aid through aircraft subleases
(118)
Greece agrees with the declaration made by Olympic Airlines that it had the financial potential to conclude operating leasing contracts directly with the market. This is proved to be true as immediately after the expiry of each operating leasing contract, some of the initial lessors in the main contracts were directly contracted to Olympic Airlines at the current market rates, without the intermediation of Olympic Airways.
(119)
In turn, Olympic Airways, in selecting Olympic Airlines, acted out as any other private investor would have in the same position. On the one hand, it succeeded in reducing monthly damages in the best possible way and on the other hand, ensured that the damages in question were to be time-restricted given the stated intention of Olympic Airlines to renegotiate and enter itself into the main leasing contracts.
(120)
Olympic Airlines were not favoured even in the case of the sub-leasing of four financial leases of Airbus A340-300 to the Greek Government as these contracts were drawn up at the market price. Regarding this matter, it should be mentioned that the lease charges paid by Olympic Airlines for operating leasing agreements can only be compared with the respective operating leasing charges on the market during the same period, and not the financial leasing charges, as the Commission erroneously worked out.
5.2.2. State aid through Olympic Airlines’ tax and social insurance debts
(121)
The Hellenic Republic observes that there is no ‘perpetual tolerance’ regarding this company’s overdue payments.
5.3. Regarding the special protection against creditors
(122)
The provisions of Law No 3404/05 imply a suspension rather than an elimination of the rights of Olympic Airways’ and Olympic Airlines’ creditors regarding the execution of their claims. This is compatible with Greek legislation.
(123)
The credit protection that had been provided to Olympic Airlines and to Olympic Airways concerns only debts owed to private persons and not debts pertaining to the state, namely the Greek Government. Consequently, there can be no state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
6. RESULTS OF THE EXPERT STUDY REQUESTED BY THE COMMISSION
(124)
Before the Commission can engage in an assessment of the points raised in the opening of procedure and of the information furnished by Greece and the third parties, it was necessary to examine the current economic and financial situation of Olympic Airways Services and of Olympic Airlines.
(125)
To this end the Commission engaged the services of an independent expert (Moore Stephens) to carry out a study of the financing and operations of both companies to determine what has happened since Commission 2005 decision.
(126)
Moore Stephens (hereinafter ‘the experts’) carried out their study in Athens between 1 and 15 July 2008. In carrying out this study they were facilitated by the Hellenic authorities, Olympic Airways Services and Olympic Airlines as well as their advisers.
6.1. Regarding Olympic Airways Services tax and social insurance debts
(127)
In respect of forbearance of taxes (including surcharges and fines) Moore Stephens have determined (based on an assessment of total liabilities by the tax authorities provided on 17 June 2008) that the sum owed by Olympic Airways Services is EUR […]* million. The balances as of 31 May 2008 represents the cumulative balances at that date which, except where otherwise noted, include amounts arising prior to 31 December 2004. This liability is arrived at after setting off EUR […]* million on the basis of arbitral panel awards i.e. (EUR […]* million - EUR […]* million). The liability includes:
-
Outstanding income tax, VAT, stamp duty and withholding taxes (35) Passenger duty for airport development (Spatosimo),
-
Airport parking and handling charges for airports other than AIA,
-
ABN loan repayments made by Greek state on behalf of Olympic Airways Services.
(128)
Moore Stephens note that this amount was subject to court appeal by Olympic Airways Services. The court issued a decision suspending the debt pending a final ruling. The suspension is in application of the general legal framework on requests for interim relief, which can be invoked by any individual or undertaking in litigation with the Greek State. The amount offset against the arbitral panel award represented that part of the total balance that was not subject to dispute by Olympic Airways Services.
(129)
The surcharges included in the amount of EUR […]* million concern the period until June 2008.
(130)
Current withholding taxes (mainly employee income tax) for the period May 2007 to May 2008 amounts to some EUR […]*million, while current withholding taxes (employee income tax) regarding personnel seconded to Olympic Aviation for the period Dec 2006 to May 2008) is some EUR […]*million.
(131)
With regard to the forbearance of social security contributions these amount to some EUR […]* million for the period up to October 2006 allowing for the payment of EUR […]* million by the Greek State in September 2007 from funds received following the arbitral panel awards. The amount of EUR […]* million (including surcharges and fines) is what remains (in July 2008) to be paid by Olympic Airways Services in future instalments according to the general framework of Law 3518/2006. The Social Security Administration (IKA) has accepted a deposit of EUR […]* million euro from Olympic Airways Services.
(132)
[…]*.
(133)
[…]*.
(134)
Further social security debts for the period November 2006 to May 2008 of […]*for Olympic Airways Services and EUR […]*million for persons seconded to Olympic Aviation were also noted.
(135)
Notwithstanding all of the above, the Commission notes that Olympic Airways Services had obtained a confirmation from IKA that its liabilities were not overdue. Moore Stephens’ findings can be summarised as follows
in EUR million
Balance
Assessment of total liabilities by tax authorities provided on 17 June 2008 (suspended)
[…]*
Current withholding tax May 2007- May 2008 (mainly employee income tax)
[…]*
Current withholding tax December 2006 - May 2008 (Olympic Aviation)
[…]*
Social security debt up to October 2006
[…]*
Social Security debts November 2006 - May 2008
[…]*
Social Security debts November 2006 - May 2008 (Olympic Aviation)
[…]*
Debts of Olympic Airways Services to State as of June 2008
(excluding suspended debts)
[…]*
Total debts of Olympic Airways Services to State as of June 2008
[…]*
(136)
Moore Stephens conclude that given that Olympic Airways Services have relied upon some […]* of arbitration panel awards in order to in part meet its tax and social security liabilities (EUR […]* million payment to tax authorities and EUR […]* million to IKA) if the Commission was to conclude that the continued forbearance of the State towards Olympic Airways Services since 2005 constituted State aid then Olympic Airways Services would be unable to repay this State aid based upon its current operating results and financial position.
6.2. Regarding alleged state aid to Olympic Airlines
6.2.1. State aid through aircraft subleases
(137)
Moore Stephens noted an amount of EUR […]*million as being overdue to Greek State in respect of aircraft leases, Moore Stephens note that the amount in question as of 31 May 2005 was EUR […]*meaning that during the period covered by the present decision the Olympic Airlines ran up a debt of EUR […]*million to the State for aircraft leases. The amount payable is approximately EUR […]*million per month for the […]* and EUR […]*million per month for the maintenance reserves. Approximately EUR […]* million has been paid over the 36-month period, representing about 6 months’ payments. Nothing was paid in 2007 or 2008.
6.2.2. State aid through Olympic Airlines’ tax and social insurance debts
(138)
The amount overdue for passenger duty for airport development (Spatosimo) as assessed by tax authorities is EUR […]* million. The total payable as of 31 May 2008 was EUR […]* million. Of this, EUR […]* million is payable in monthly instalments up to 2012 and has not been considered as overdue. Of the remaining balance of EUR […]* million, EUR […]*million is the subject of a court appeal by Olympic Airlines. The court issued a decision suspending this part of the debt pending a final ruling.
(139)
Moore Stephens identified an amount of EUR […]* overdue to Olympic Airways Services and Olympic Aviation for services received as per various contracts for ground handling and maintenance services.
(140)
A further sum of EUR […]* million for landing fees and parking charges payable to the Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority was also identified
in EUR million
Balance
Overdue amount for aircraft leases
[…]*
[…]*
Lease payments due
[…]*
[…]*
Maintenance reserve due
[…]*
[…]*
Interest lease payment & maintenance reserve
[…]*
[…]*
Difference between head-leases and subleases
[…]*
[…]*
Spatosimo (Passenger duty for airport development - total due EUR 98 million of which EUR 59,9 million is subject to judicial suspension)
[…]*
[…]*
Amount overdue to other entities
[…]*
[…]*
Olympic Airways Services
[…]*
[…]*
Olympic Aviation
[…]*
[…]*
Landing fees and parking charges (other than AIA)
[…]*
[…]*
Debts of Olympic Airlines to State as of June 2008
(excluding suspended debts)
[…]*
[…]*
Total estimated debts of Olympic Airlines to State as of June 2008
[…]*
[…]*
6.3. Regarding the special protection against creditors
(141)
Moore Stephens confirmed that the special creditor protection was extended to 31 October 2008 by Art. 21 of Law 3607/2007.
7. ASSESMENT OF THE AID
7.1. Legal basis for appraisal of aid
(142)
By virtue of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty ‘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.’
(143)
The concept of State aid applies to any advantage granted directly or indirectly, financed out of State resources, granted by the State itself or by any intermediary body acting by virtue of powers conferred on it.
(144)
The criteria laid down in Article 87(1) EC are cumulative. Therefore, in order to determine whether the notified measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC all of the following conditions need to be fulfilled. Namely, the financial support:
-
is granted by the State or through State resources,
-
favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods,
-
distorts or threatens to distort competition, and
-
affects trade between Member States.
(145)
The present decision relates only to aid granted since the period taken into consideration by the 2005 Decision.
7.2. Existence of aid
(146)
The Commission has carried out a close and in-depth analysis of the comments received in the course of the opening of procedure as well as of the observations of Greece and of the expert study carried out into the accounts and operations of Olympic Airways Services and Olympic Airlines. In this regard it has decided to carry out its appraisal on the existence of aid under three main headings being;
-
Potential State aid to Olympic Airways Services through forbearance of its tax and social security debts since December 2004 (36).
-
Potential State aid to Olympic Airlines by means of aircraft lease payments and non-execution of its debts (including tax and social security liabilities) since May 2005 (37).
-
Potential State aid to Olympic Airways Services and to Olympic Airlines by means of special creditor protection.
7.2.1. State aid to Olympic Airways Services through forbearance of debts
(147)
As has been demonstrated by the Commission’s expert, since the date of the adoption of 2005 Decision, Olympic Airways Services has deferred the payments of amounts due to the State and its tax and social security liabilities to the State have increased.
(148)
Olympic Airways Services difficult and deteriorating tax and social security situation has been previously described. Olympic Airways Services’ tax and social security liability as taken into consideration in the 2005 Decision was already large, at EUR 627 million, made up of an estimated EUR 431 million of unpaid tax and a further EUR 196 million of unpaid IKA contributions.
(149)
In respect of its tax liabilities and notwithstanding a ‘set-off’ payment of EUR […]* million made following the arbitral panel awards the estimated total tax liability as of June 2008 and as set out in the table following paragraph 135 above is now estimated as being in the order of EUR […]* million. This deferral of payment of tax of at least EUR […]* million is imputable to the State.
(150)
Olympic Airways Services has argued that the sum of EUR […]* million in respect of tax debts is suspended meaning that the company is ‘tax current’, this ignores the fact that while part of its tax debt to the State may have been deferred such deferral does not call the sum into question. While a Greek court may adjust this figure downwards, it is the conclusion of the Commission that the order of magnitude of the sum due by Olympic Airways Services to the State in the context of taxes will not change substantially. This opinion notwithstanding the Commission can conclude that the sum which Olympic Airways Services owes the State in respect of its tax liabilities is in the order of EUR […]* million.
(151)
In relation to Olympic Airways Services’ mounting tax liabilities, it is the State itself through the tax administration which tolerates the constant deferral and non-payment of various taxes and charges due by Olympic Airways Services.
(152)
With respect to social security contributions the situation is similar. The social security debts identified in the 2005 decision as amounting to […]* have now risen to EUR […]* million as set out in the table following paragraph 135 above, notwithstanding the payment on 27 September 2007 of a once-off sum of EUR […]* million from the arbitration panel awards.
(153)
In relation to these social security contributions, the body tasked with their collection (IKA) is a public body established by Greek Law (38), which has been made responsible, under State supervision for managing the social security system, and collecting mandatory social security contribution. It has the right (39) but not the obligation to enter into settlement agreements for late payments of debts. The ever increasing social security liability of Olympic Airways Services to the State is therefore, clearly imputable to the State.
(154)
Both tax and social security funds are State resources and their forbearance therefore involves a transfer of State resources.
(155)
This forbearance grants an advantage to Olympic Airways Services. The forbearance on the part of the State defers the payment of charges that the undertaking would normally have to pay in due time, providing the beneficiary with a source of operating capital. Olympic Airways Services is loss making and chronically indebted, therefore such a deferral cannot be considered a normal or usual behaviour of a market economy creditor; it is systematic and given the parlous financial situation of Olympic Airways Services as has been demonstrated by the Commission’s expert there is no realistic prospect Olympic Airways services ever being in a position to repay these amounts to the State at any stage in the future. The forbearance affects trade between Member States and distorts competition as the markets concerned are fully liberalised.
(156)
The Commission must therefore conclude that the forbearance of the State concerning Olympic Airways Services’ unpaid and mounting tax and social security liabilities amount to State aid to Olympic Airways Services within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty. As this aid was never notified to the Commission it is therefore illegal.
7.2.2. State aid to Olympic Airlines through forbearance of debts
(157)
As has been concluded by the Commission’s expert, since the period taken into consideration by the 2005 decision Olympic Airlines has lost money and accumulated further debts to the State.
(158)
In relation to leases for 4 A340 aircraft, during the period covered by the current investigation Olympic Airlines’ debts to the State have reached EUR […]* million, the balance of this amount as of 31 May 2005 had been EUR […]*. This means that during the period covered by the present decision the Olympic Airlines ran up a debt of EUR […]* million to the State for unpaid aircraft leases.
(159)
However, in the opinion of the Commission this amount does not fully reflect the amounts that Olympic Airlines owed the State in respect of these aircraft leases. As set out in the 2005 decision, following its take over of the headleases from Olympic Airways the State paid a price of between EUR […]*and EUR […]*per month in respect of each of these aircraft. However, as has been demonstrated by the Commission’s expert, Olympic Airlines paid between USD […]* and USD […]*. In accepting such a lower amount the State ‘accepts’ to lose somewhere between EUR […]*and EUR […]*on each aircraft per month - making for a further State aid amount of at least EUR 36 million and up to EUR 50,4 million.
(160)
In relation to the passenger duty for airport development (Spatosimo) the sum now owed by the company to the state is EUR […]* million. Olympic Airlines has argued that the total of this amount is not due as some EUR […]* million of this amount has been suspended by a judge pending a court decision. In this regard the Commission notes that such suspension does not remove the debt but only suspends its payment. In this regard the Commission can conclude that the sum which Olympic Airlines owes in respect of unpaid Spatosimo as of May 2008 is somewhere between EUR 38 million and EUR 98 million.
(161)
A sum of EUR 86,3 million is owed by Olympic Airlines to two related entities being Olympic Airways Services and Olympic Aviation. As of 31 May 2005 the amount owed by Olympic Airlines to these companies was EUR 2,6 million which sum has mushroomed over the following three years, meaning that in the period under investigation by the present decision the debts due have increased by EUR 83,7 million. A further sum of EUR 4,5 million is owed for landing fees and parking charges at airports other than AIA and is payable to the Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority, Olympic Airlines has argued that the this amount is not due its payment has been suspended by a judge pending a court decision. Once again the Commission notes that such suspension does not remove the debt but only suspends its payment.
(162)
All the forbearance described above, which amounts to EUR 326 million as set out in the table following paragraph 140 above, involves State resources as it relates to debts owed to the State, State bodies (the Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority) or State-owned undertakings (Olympic Airways Services and Olympic Aviation).
(163)
As regards the imputability to the State of the forbearance shown by Olympic Airways Services and Olympic Aviation towards Olympic Airlines, the Commission notes that the imputability to the State of a measure taken by a public undertaking may be inferred from a set of indicators arising from the circumstances of the case and the context in which the measures were taken.
(164)
In this regard the Commission notes that the State held 100 % of the shares of all three companies. In addition all the management and boards of these companies were appointed by the State. In these circumstances, it has to be concluded that the companies have been at all material times under the control of the State. Greece was able directly and indirectly (as the largest creditor of both Olympic Airways Services and of Olympic Airlines) to exercise dominant influence over all undertakings. Finally, this forbearance is concomitant to the forbearance of the State itself and public bodies. As such the decisions of Olympic Airways Services and of Olympic Aviation to extend credit to Olympic Airlines and allow debts amounting to EUR 86,3 million to build up were not the acts of independent undertakings and are therefore imputable to the State.
(165)
This forbearance also involves an advantage to Olympic Airlines by freeing it from the liabilities that it would otherwise have to bear.
(166)
The difficult financial situation of Olympic Airlines has already been set out in detail. In 2004 the company reported losses of EUR 87,1 million, with each successive year it has continued to lose more money and in 2007 its losses were EUR […]* million. The business of Olympic Airlines is heavily cyclical, as evidenced by the negative cash flow in the months of October to March that is compensated for by positive cash flow in the months of April to September. This cycle repeats itself with deeper losses each year. The net inflows in the summer months never compensate in full the net outflows in the winter months so that, overall, the company loses more and more money. It can only exist thanks to the largesse of the State. It is far from clear if the company as it is presently structured can ever become cash-flow positive. It is therefore obvious that this forbearance cannot reflect the normal behaviour of a market economy creditor, it is systematic and given the difficult situation of Olympic Airlines there is little possibility that these debts will ever be paid.
(167)
The Commission also notes that the measures involved affect inter-state trade and distort or threaten to distort competition inside this market as they involve a Community air carrier. The Commission therefore concludes that the continued forbearance on the part of the State, State bodies and State-owned undertakings of Olympic Airlines’ tax and other operational liabilities constitute State aid to Olympic Airlines for the purposes of Article 87(1) of the Treaty. As this aid was never notified to the Commission it is therefore illegal.
7.2.3. State aid by means of special creditor protection
(168)
According to settled case-law, the concept of aid encompasses advantages granted by public authorities which, in various forms, mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking (40). Considerable advantage appears to be granted to Olympic Airways Services and to Olympic Airlines by means of the special and unique creditor protection it has been afforded by the State by means of the law specifically passed whereby the execution of any judgment against this company by any private creditor is postponed.
(169)
In the present case, the special creditor protection has only been extended to Olympic Airways services and Olympic Airlines; it is thus a selective and specific measure within the meaning of Art. 87(1).
(170)
It is settled jurisprudence that the concept of aid is wider than that of a subsidy because it embraces not only positive benefits, such as subsidies themselves, but also measures which, in various forms, mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which, without therefore being subsidies in the strict meaning of the word, are similar in character and have the same effect (41).
(171)
The expression ‘aid’, within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, necessarily implies advantages granted directly or indirectly through State resources or constituting an additional charge for the State or for bodies designated or established by the State for that purpose (42).
(172)
By analogy with what the Court held in Ecotrade (43) concerning Article 4c of the ECSC Treaty, several characteristics of special creditor protection make it possible to establish the existence of aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
(173)
First, it is apparent that the special creditor protection applies only to Olympic Airways Services and Olympic Airlines both State-owned entities that owe particularly large debts to certain, mainly public, classes of creditors. Indeed as has already been shown in the present decision Olympic Airlines owes some EUR 86,3 million to Olympic Airways Services for unpaid services.
(174)
It is also indisputable that the special creditor protection places Olympic Airways Services and Olympic Airlines in a more favourable situation than others, inasmuch as it allows them to continue trading in circumstances in which that would not be allowed if the ordinary insolvency rules were applied, since under those rules protection of creditors’ interests is the determining factor. The fact that these two companies can continue their activity involves an additional burden for the public authorities as State owned bodies are among the principal creditors of the undertaking in difficulties, all the more so because, by definition, that undertaking owes debts of considerable value. Indeed, given the parlous financial situation of Olympics and the special creditor protection privately owned companies will in all likelihood not wish to do business with Olympic Airlines or Olympic Airways Services on normal commercial terms as there is no realistic possibility to recover sums due. Moreover, given the large debts to publicly owned creditors (see recital 139), State-owned companies will lose resources as a result of the special creditor protection and taking into consideration that the continuous State support to Olympic Airlines and Olympic Airways Services can only be due to national industry policy considerations rather than that of a market creditor seeking repayments of sums due, the Commission can conclude that State resources are involved and that the measure is imputable to the State.
(175)
In the light of the foregoing, it must be concluded that application to an undertaking of a system of special creditor protection of the kind existing in the present case which derogates ‘from the rules of ordinary law relating to insolvency’, is to be regarded as giving rise to the grant of State aid, within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, where it is established that the undertaking
-
has been permitted to continue trading in circumstances in which it would not have been permitted to do so if the rules of ordinary law relating to insolvency had been applied, or
-
has enjoyed de facto waiver of public debts wholly or in part, which could not have been claimed by another insolvent undertaking under the application of the rules of ordinary law relating to insolvency (44).
(176)
In the present case, with regard to the special and unique creditor protection afforded to Olympic Airways Services and to Olympic Airlines, the Commission notes that both the above criteria are complied with. The companies in question have been permitted to continue in business in circumstances in which they would not have been permitted to do so if the rules of ordinary law relating to insolvency had been applied. Furthermore and has been shown throughout this decision the companies in question have enjoyed several advantages from the State which could not have been claimed by another insolvent undertaking under the application of the rules of ordinary law relating to insolvency.
(177)
The measures concerned affect trade between Member States as they concern companies which operate in a liberalised market. Therefore, they also distort or threaten to distort competition within this market as they are focused on specific undertakings competing with other Community operators.
(178)
Under these conditions, having regard to the special creditor protection provided to Olympic Airways Services and Olympic Airlines the Commission concludes that this amounts to State aid. As this aid was never notified to the Commission it is therefore illegal.
7.3. Compatibility of Aid
7.3.1. Compatibility of aid granted to Olympic Airlines through aircraft lease payments, forbearance of debts and special creditor protection
(179)
Having reached the conclusion that Olympic Airlines has received State aid since 2005, the Commission must then examine the measures in favour of this company in the light of Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty which provide for exemptions to the general rule of incompatibility set out in Article 87(1).
(180)
The exemptions in Article 87(2) of the Treaty cannot apply in the present case because the aid measure does not have a social character and is not granted to individual consumers, nor do they make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences nor are they granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by its division.
(181)
Further exemptions to the general prohibition on State aid are set out in Article 87(3). The exemptions in Articles 87(3)(b) and 87(3)(d) do not apply in this case because the aid does not promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State nor does it promote culture and heritage conservation.
(182)
Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty contain derogation in respect of aid intended to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment. Greece is a region falling entirely within the scope of Article 87(3)(a). Nevertheless the aid does not meet the criteria of the applicable ‘Guidelines on National Regional Aid’ (45).
(183)
With regard to the derogation provided by Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty in respect of aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, the Commission will have to examine whether this provision can apply to the current situation. In carrying out this examination the Commission has to have regard to the applicable guidelines relating to the aviation sector (46).
(184)
In this context, it is obvious that none of the provisions of the guidelines are met in the present case. It is also obvious that the aid does not aim at compensating for PSO obligations within the meaning of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty and is therefore incompatible with the common market.
7.3.2. Compatibility of aid granted to Olympic Airways Services through forbearance of debts and special creditor protection
(185)
Having concluded that Olympic Airways Services has also received illegal state aid, the Commission must examine the measure in the light of Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty which provide for exemptions to the general rule of incompatibility set out in Article 87(1).
(186)
The exemptions in Article 87(2) of the Treaty cannot apply in the present case because the aid measure does not have a social character and is not granted to individual consumers, nor does it make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences nor are they granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by its division.
(187)
Further exemptions to the general prohibition on State aid are set out in Article 87(3). The exemptions in Articles 87(3)(b) and 87(3)(d) do not apply in this case because the does not promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State nor does it promote culture and heritage conservation.
(188)
Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty contain derogation in respect of aid intended to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment. Nevertheless the aid does not meet the criteria of the applicable ‘Guidelines on National Regional Aid’.
(189)
With regard to the derogation provided by Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty in respect of aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, the Commission will have to examine whether this proviso can apply to the current situation. In carrying out this examination the Commission has to have regard to the applicable guidelines relating to the aviation sector (47).
(190)
In this context, it is obvious that none of the provisions of the guidelines are met in the present case. It is also obvious that the aid does not aim at compensating for PSO obligations within the meaning of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty and is therefore incompatible with the common market.
(191)
Accordingly the Commission concludes that Greece has granted incompatible State aid to Olympic Airways Services through its tolerance of late and non-payment of tax and social security and by means of the special creditor protection it has afforded this company,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. The continued forbearance of the Greek State towards Olympic Airways Services in relation to its tax and social security debts to the State which are estimated to stand at least at EUR 590,4 million constitutes illegal state aid to Olympic Airways Services which is incompatible with the Treaty.
2. The continued forbearance of the Greek State toward Olympic Airlines in respect of aircraft leases estimated in the sum of EUR 137,2 million, debts owed to Olympic Airways Services and Olympic Aviation estimated at totalling EUR 86,3 million, debts owed to the Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority of EUR 4,5 million and Spatosimo tax of at least EUR 38,1 million constitutes illegal state aid to Olympic Airlines which is incompatible with the Treaty.
3. The special creditor protection granted through Greek legislation to Olympic Airways Services and Olympic Airlines constitutes illegal state aid to both companies which is incompatible with the Treaty.
Article 2
1. Greece shall recover the aid referred to in Article 1 from the beneficiary.
2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until their actual recovery.
3. The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (48) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 (49).
4. Greece shall cancel all outstanding payments of the aid referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this decision.
Article 3
1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.
2. Greece shall ensure that this decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.
Article 4
1. Within two months following notification of this Decision, Greece shall submit the following information to the Commission:
(a)
the total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from the beneficiary;
(b)
a detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;
(c)
documents demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.
2. Greece shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiary.
Article 5
Greece shall immediately suspend all further payments of aid to Olympic Airways Services and Olympic Airlines.
Article 6
This Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.
Done at Brussels, 17 September 2008. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 29 September 1989 concerning notification of the application by the Community of the International Coffee Agreement 1983 as extended until 30 September 1991 (89/550/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 113 and 116 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas in accordance with Decision 87/485/EEC (1), the Community approved the International Coffee Agreement 1983, which came into force on 1 October 1983 for a period of six years, expiring on 30 September 1989;
Whereas by resolution No 347 of 4 July 1989, the International Coffee Council decided to extend the International Coffee Agreement 1983 for a period of two years until 30 September 1991;
Whereas the Community and its Member States should notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations Organization of their intention to apply the Agreement as extended until 30 September 1991,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1 The extension of the International Coffee Agreement 1983 until 30 September 1991, in accordance with the
International Coffee Council resolution No 347 of 4 July 1989, is hereby approved on behalf of the European Economic Community.
The text of the resolution is attached to this Decision.
The European Economic Community and its Member States, once they have completed the necessary internal procedures, shall notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations Organization of their intention to apply, in the capacity as importing Members, the International Coffee Agreement 1983 as extended until 30 September 1991.
Article 2 The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person empowered to deposit the notification of the European Economic Community.
Done at Brussels, 29 September 1989. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1362/2007
of 22 November 2007
entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Salame Cremona (PGI))
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the third and fourth subparagraphs of Article 7(5) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Under Article 6(2) and pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Salame Cremona’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).
(2)
Germany and the Netherlands submitted an objection to the registration under Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. Germany and the Netherlands indicated in their statements of objection that the conditions laid down in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 had not been met. In particular, in Germany’s view, the link between the product and the region had not been shown. In the view of the Netherlands, the link between the geographical area (of production) in question and the name ‘Salame Cremona’ had not been shown sufficiently, on the one hand, and on the other hand, in the absence of any additional requirement, limiting the origin of the basic pork ingredients to the north and centre of Italy (or even to the geographical area identified in point 4.3) must be deemed simply a barrier to trade; finally, it is not established in point 4.5 how requiring that Salame Cremona be produced, packaged and sliced only in the area of production is helpful as regards controls and traceability, or in preserving the qualitative characteristics of the product.
(3)
By letters dated 2 March 2006, the Commission asked the Member States concerned to seek agreement among themselves in accordance with their internal procedures.
(4)
Given that no agreement was reached between Italy, Germany and the Netherlands within the designated time frame, the Commission must adopt a decision in accordance with the procedure outlined in Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.
(5)
Following consultation between Italy, Germany and the Netherlands, details have been added to the product specification of the designation in question. In response to the comment from Germany and the Netherlands that the link between the product and the region had not been shown, it has been clearly stated that the link is based on reputation. In response to the second comment from the Netherlands, the restriction regarding the regions from which the basic ingredient may come has been dropped and more details have been included as to specific conditions for the breeding and feeding of the pigs, and the influence of these factors on the characteristics of the final product. Finally, the Italian authorities have argued that it is necessary for control reasons that the product be sliced and packaged in the area. The Italian authorities have also argued that, were the product to be transported in temperature-controlled conditions and sliced ‘at a remove in terms of time and space’, the organoleptic characteristics of the sausage would be affected. The Dutch authorities have said that they accept these explanations on condition that they be included in the application, which they now have been.
(6)
In the Commission's opinion, the amended version of the product specification is fully in compliance with Regulation (EC) No 510/2006.
(7)
In light of the above, the designation should be entered into the ‘Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications’.
(8)
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Protected Geographical Indications and Protected Designations of Origin,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The designation contained in Annex I to this Regulation shall be entered in the register.
Article 2
A summary of the main points of the specification is given in Annex II to this Regulation.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th 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, 22 November 2007. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1195/2004
of 28 June 2004
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 (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(2) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 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 (EEC) No 1766/92, 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 1 July 2004.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 June 2004. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 24 July 1995 repealing Decision 93/687/EC concerning certain protection measures with regard to foot-and-mouth disease in Italy and repealing Decision 93/180/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) (95/289/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 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, following the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Italy during 1993, the Commission adopted several decisions, concerning certain protective measures;
Whereas the outbreaks were controlled, as a result of the measures introduced and the action taken by the Italian authorities;
Whereas Commission Decision 93/687/EC of 17 December 1993 concerning certain protection measures with regard to foot-and-mouth disease in Italy and repealing Decision 93/180/EEC (4) maintains certain restrictions on buffalo holdings and certain animal movement controls in Caserta due to the possibility of illegal vaccination;
Whereas as a result of clinical examinations and serological testing it is concluded that there is no risk associated with animals in the province of Caserta;
Whereas, therefore, it is necessary to repeal Decision 93/687/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
Decision 93/687/EEC is hereby repealed.
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, 24 July 1995. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1486/2004
of 20 August 2004
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 (Farinheira de Estremoz e Borba, Domfront, Kiwi Latina, Valle del Belice and Noix du Périgord)
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), and in particular Article 6(3) and (4) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
In accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, Portugal has sent the Commission an application for registration of the name ‘Farinheira de Estremoz e Borba’ as a geographical indication, Italy has send the Commission an application for registration of the name ‘Kiwi Latina’ as a geographical indication and an application for registration of the name ‘Valle del Belice’ as a designation of origin, and France has sent the Commission an application for registration of the names ‘Domfront’ and ‘Noix du Périgord’ as designations of origin.
(2)
In accordance with Article 6(1) of that Regulation, the applications have 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)
No statement of objection, within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, has been sent to the Commission following the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (2) of the names listed in the Annex to this Regulation.
(4)
As a result, these five names may be entered in the ‘Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications’ and therefore be protected throughout the Community as geographical indications or designations of origin.
(5)
The Annex to this Regulation supplements the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (3),
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The five names listed in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby added to the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 and entered as protected geographical indications (PGI) or protected designations of origin (PDO) in the ‘Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications’ provided for in Article 6(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.
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, 20 August 2004. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 5 December 1984
prolonging the approval of certain programmes under Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77
(85/31/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 of 15 February 1977 on common measures to improve the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1932/84 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,
Whereas Article 24 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 355/77, as set out in Article 1 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3073/82 (3), limited the effect of Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 to projects submitted before 1 May 1984; whereas approval of the programmes listed in the Annex to this Decision, which provide for a period for their implementation extending beyond the date referred to above, therefore had to be restricted to applications submitted before that date;
Whereas Article 24 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 355/77, as set out in Article 1 (15) of Regulation (EEC) No 1932/84, extended the effect of Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 to projects submitted until 30 April 1984; whereas approval of the programmes listed in the Annex can therefore be extended for the entire period provided for in the programmes for their implementation;
Whereas the period provided for in the programmes for their implementation is compatible with the period indicated in Article 3 (1) (g) of Regulation (EEC) No 355/77;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Agricultural Structure,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Approval of the programmes listed in the Annex to this Decision is hereby extended to projects submitted after 30 April 1984 and for the period provided for in each programme.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to Belgium, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
Done at Brussels, 5 December 1984. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DECISION
of 30 March 1984
relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
(IV/30.804 - Nuovo CEGAM)
(Only the Italian text is authentic)
(84/191/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 Greece, and in particular Articles 4, 6 and 8 thereof,
Having regard to the notification submitted on 22 June 1983 by the Association Nuovo Consorzio Centrale Guasti alle Macchine (Nuovo CEGAM), Milan, in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation No 17, seeking a declaration under Article 85 (3) of the Treaty that the basic instruments of the Association are exempt from the provisions of Article 85 (1),
Having regard to the summary of the application published in accordance with Article 19 (3) of Regulation No 17 (2),
After consultation with the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions,
Whereas:
I. THE FACTS
A. Procedure
(1) The proceeding in this case was initiated as a result of an investigation into the insurance industry under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty which the Commission had begun on its own initiative. On 16 February 1983 the Commission sent a statement of objections to the Italian association of engineering insurers Nuovo Consorzio Centrale Guasti alle Macchine (New Central Engineering Insurers' Association) ('Nuovo CEGAM'), in which it informed the Association's representatives that there was a prima-facie case against it which could result in adoption of a decision under Article 3 (1) of Regulation No 17. The object of the foundation of the Association and the effect of its activities appeared to be to restrict or distort competition within the common market for the class of insurance concerned. The statement of objections said the Agreement had anti-competitive effects at three levels:
At the direct insurance level, the Agreement meant that a large number of insurance companies, which otherwise would have been in competition with one another, had virtually ceased to compete on premiums and contract conditions, thereby reducing the variety of insurance services offered to the consumer.
At the coinsurance level, while in the absence of an agreement, the choice of coinsurance would have been an open one, the Agreement restricted members' choice of coinsurers since they were obliged to choose other members of the Association for this purpose.
In reinsurance, the anti-competitive effect of the Agreement was twofold: first, it restricted members' choice of reinsurers; secondly, it restricted the reinsurer's freedom to set his own premium rates and contract conditions, both in his business with members of the Association and in his business transacted within Italy with non-members.
The Agreement was also liable to affect trade between the Member States in that the rules of the Association:
- were applicable to risks situated abroad as well as on Italian territory,
- affected the coinsurance operations of insurance companies outside Italy,
- affected reinsurers outside Italy by preventing members from choosing reinsurers other than those with which the Association was under contract and by imposing contractual restrictions on the latter's activity on the market.
The Commission informed Nuovo CEGAM that it was considering finding an infringement of Article 85 (1) of the Treaty and ordering it and the individual undertakings involved to bring the infringement to an end, and that fines might be imposed.
(2) In reply to the statement of objections Nuovo CEGAM informed the Commission on 11 April 1983 that, whilst it did not accept that the Association's activities breached Article 85 (1) of the Treaty, it was nevertheless prepared to amend its basic documents to accommodate the Commission's objections.
(3) On 22 June 1983 Nuovo CEGAM notified its basic instruments, viz.:
- Statutes (Statuto),
- Convention (Convenzione) and
- Quota and Threshold Agreement (Trattato quota ed eccedente), for negative clearance or alternatively exemption under Article 85 (3).
B. The market
(4) In Italy the development of engineering insurance - which provides cover against the risks, direct and indirect, of breakdown of or damage to all manner of machinery, plant and equipment used in factories, on building sites, etc. - has lagged behind that of the other major branch of insurance of industrial risks, industrial fire insurance.
Whereas there is a long tradition of industrial fire insurance and a steady demand for fire insurance cover from industry, the volume of engineering insurance business transacted by those companies that are engaged in this market is relatively modest, and certainly a long way below the level found in other Member States.
(5) According to the companies which notified the agreements in question, the causes of this relative underdevelopment lie partly in the obsolescence of much industrial plant and the paucity of high-technology investment in Italy, and partly in the lack of an insurance tradition in the sector.
Its corollary is the backwardness of tehcnical assistance services provided by insurance companies, especially for accident prevention.
Another feature of the engineering insurance sector in the Community is the fragmentation of the market largely along national lines. The efforts that have been made at various levels to integrate the insurance market have had little impact on this sector. It has not been greatly affected either by the abolition of restrictions on freedom of establishment in direct non-life insurance by Council Directive 73/240/EEC (1) or by the judgments that the Court of Justice has handed down on freedom to provide services, particularly that in Case 33/74 (2),
According to the 1982 edition of the Directory of Italian Insurance Companies published by the National Association of Insurance Companies (ANIA), around 60 insurance companies and about 10 branch offices of companies with headquarters outside Italy do some engineering business in Italy.
Only about 30 of these do significant amounts of engineering business, however.
Between 1978 and 1980, premium income from this class of business in Italy ran to between Lit 17 000 and 20 000 million. By 1981 it had reached about Lit 23 500 million.
C. The undertakings
(6) Faced with the situation described in B above and realizing that only companies with a high degree of specialization could hope to compete on the market for engineering insurance, a number of Italian and foreign insurance companies decided to form an association, with the aim of promoting and developing this class of business.
The first such association, called Consorzio Centrale Guasti alle Macchine, was formed in 1956. The New Association, with which this Decision is concerned, was established on 1 January 1972, renewed at the beginning of 1979 and again extended in 1982.
Since the Commission intervened as reported in A above, the Association has amended its basic instruments and has extended the present Agreement to 31 December 2000.
Lists of the Association's present members and reinsurers, taken from the 1983 version of its Statutes and the Quota and Threshold Agreement with reinsurers, are given in Annexes I and II to this Decision.
Members of the Association together hold about 26 % of the Italian engineering insurance market. Their premium income from this business between 1978 and 1981 (on all risks - Italian and non-Italian, EEC and non-EEC) ranged from Lit 3 900 million (1978) to Lit 5 500 million (1981).
Although the volume of claims in this class of business can vary considerably from one year to the next and a year's results can be badly affected if one or two really big claims come up from among the bulk of relatively small risks insured, in the period 1978 to 1981 the volume of claims, paid or outstanding, on policies written by members of the Association was fairly stable. The ratio of premium income to claims rose from 1,18 in 1978 to 2,04 in 1981.
D. The agreements
(7) Nuovo CEGAM has notified to the Commission the following basic instruments of the Association:
- the Statutes (Statuto),
- the Convention (Convenzione) and the
- Share and Threshold Agreement (Trattato quota ed eccedente), which has a key function in the operation of the Association since it governs the relations between its direct insurer members and reinsurers. The main clauses of these instruments are set out below.
The Statutes
(8) The Association, called the 'Nuovo CEGAM', has its headquarters in Milan and its objects are defined in the preamble as:
'(a) action to disseminate and promote insurance against risks of machinery breakdown or damage, including consequential indirect risks, risks during installation, and construction accidents;
(b) updating and analysis of technical and actuarial data to improve performance in this class of business;
(c) provision, whenever necessary, of technical assistance to members on underwriting and claims settlement.'
The Association's organs are:
(a) the President,
(b) the General Meeting, and
(c) the Executive Committee.
Under Article 9, one of the tasks of the General Meeting is to approve technical documentation for members' use in their underwriting of risks, which is prepared by a Study Committee for proposal to the member companies. The documentation contains tariffs of basic premiums.
The General Meeting also sets up a Technical Committee for assessing and rating particular risks.
The Association's Secretary, who is appointed by the General Meeting, has among his tasks the job of 'coordinating the work of the Study and Technical Committees'. Under Article 19, any member failing to discharge his obligations towards the Association may be expelled by vote of the General Meeting.
The Convention
(9) The members of the Association also sign a Convention which supplements and elaborates on the Statutes.
The provisions of particular relevance for the purposes of this Decision are the following:
(a) preamble: the Association may enter into special agreements with outside companies, termed 'associates', the effect of which is to extend to them the Association's rules. Associates must cede to the members by way of co- and reinsurance the portion of risks they assume in excess of their net retention of 10 %;
(b) Clause 1: all business in the relevant class of insurance involving property located in Italy is subject to the Convention. The tariffs of basic premiums proposed by the Association must be used by members in fixing their final commercial premium rates for such business, which they do in the light of the particular circumstances surrounding the risk;
(c) Clause 2: states the general principles that the members agree to observe in placing reinsurance:
underwriting limits, distinction between risks in Italy and abroad, option to retain more than the standard 10 %;
(d) Clause 4: a Study Committee to be set up to amend and update the Association's rules and the general and special policy conditions;
(e) Clause 8: lays down the maximum commissions members may pay their own commercial organizations.
The Quota and Threshold Agreement
(10) The Agreement contains the rules applicable to reinsurance. The Agreement's main provisions are as follows:
(a) Clause 1
- All risks underwritten by members are to be reinsured in accordance with the Agreement.
- The rates of premium and the conditions of the reinsurance are as agreed for the original insurance.
- Risks not provided for in the tariffs and/or exceeding the maximum capacities laid down in the Agreement are to be reinsured on conditions and at premium rates which the Association will negotiate with its principal reinsurer, Muenchener Rueckversicherungsgesellschaft.
(b) Clause 2
- The Agreement covers all engineering insurance written by members alone or with others or ceded to them for co- and reinsurance by associates.
(c) Clause 3
- Risks situated in Italy are automatically subject to the Agreement.
- Risks situated abroad and assumed by members alone or with others or ceded to them for co- and reinsurance by associates may be covered by the Agreement where the insured resides in Italy or is controlled by an Italian company.
(d) Clause 4
- Lists the types of risks excluded. Such risks may be included in the cover provided subject to the Association's prior agreement.
(e) Clause 6
- Members are required to retain a share of the risk equal to 10 % of the sum insured and may not reinsure this portion with others.
- They may retain a bigger share within certain limits.
(f) Clause 8
- The maximum commission payable by the reinsurer to the ceding insurer is laid down, the actual percentage of which depends on the size of the additions to the basic premium that are contained in the final premium.
(g) Clause 9
- Reinsurance is at the same rate of premium and on the same general and special conditions and other terms as the original insurance written by the ceding insurer.
(h) Clause 11
- Reinsurers are bound by any amendments and discounts applied by ceding insurers. E. Comments of third parties
(11) The Commission did not receive any comments from third parties in response to an Official Journal notice summarizing the agreements.
II. LEGAL ASSESSMENT
A. Article 85 (1)
(12) Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty prohibits as incompatible with the common market all agreements between undertakings which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market.
Article 85 is equally applicable to agreements on services and to agreements on goods.
(13) The founding of the Association Nuovo CEGAM constitutes an agreement between undertakings and the activities of the Association are based on decisions by its organs, which constitute decisions by an association of undertakings.
(14) In scrutinizing the said agreements and decisions for restrictive elements, regard must be had to the objects and effects of the rules of the Association both as regards direct insurance and reinsurance.
(15) Under the Agreement, a large number of direct insurers, who but for the formation of the Association would be in full competition with one another, have established machinery under which, on the basis of statistical information on claims experience communicated by the members to the Association's organs, a common tariff of basic premiums for various types of risk is drawn up which the members agree to apply. In this way the members of the Association have voluntarily foresworn the right which they had prior to the Agreement to fix independently the basic rates of premium which they use in calculating the actual commercial rates of premium which they charge the insured. For risks not expressly covered by the Association's tariffs or exceeding certain limits, members are no longer free to calculate basic rates of premium themselves but must abide by the decision of the Association's competent committee. Although members are able to fix their own final premiums by adding to the basic premium a margin for expenses, commission and profit which they see to in their best commercial interest, the Agreement nevertheless unquestionably has the object and effect of restricting the competition that would otherwise exist between the firms concerned.
(16) The members' freedom of choice is restricted by the obligation to place all their reinsurance with reinsurers who are parties to the Quota and Threshold Agreement.
The reinsurers, in their turn, are restricted in their freedom to conclude contracts by the obligation to accept the premium and the general and special conditions and other terms agreed by the ceding insurer in the original insurance contract, and by the obligation to accept all amendments and discounts.
The same can be said of the obligation imposed on reinsurers to accept all risks underwritten by members.
All the above restrictions are accepted by reinsurers as part of a package deal in return for being guaranteed all the members' reinsurance business. Members are also guaranteed that any more favourable terms which the reinsurers might agree with other ceding insurers not belonging to the Association will automatically be extended to them.
These various restrictions establish a web of interlocking relationships between insurers and reinsurers which are calculated to cement their mutual ties and in the final analysis to act as a barrier to the entry of outsiders on to the market.
(17) The Agreement is liable to affect trade between Member States in that the Association's rules:
- apply to risks situated both on Italian territory and abroad, - affect reinsurers outside Italy by preventing business being given to reinsurers other than those party to the Quota and Threshold Agreement and by imposing contractual restrictions on commercial behaviour.
It is also to be noted that reinsurance companies based outside Italian territory in another EEC Member State are parties to the Agreement.
B. Article 85 (3)
(18) Article 85 (3) of the EEC Treaty states that the provisions of Article 85 (1) may be declared inapplicable in the case of any agreement between undertakings which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, and which does not:
(a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives;
(b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.
(19) The engineering insurance market in Italy is characterized by weak demand and relatively limited supply. To do business in this sector the insurer needs highly specialized resources, for such is the technological element of the risks insured that an intimate knowledge of the particular industry concerned is required both for assessing and rating the risk and preventing its occurrence.
In such a situation, the formation of an association such as Nuovo CEGAM in order to acquire the specialist expertise essential for effective performance in the sector (statistical information, studies of risk, prevention techniques), and to ensure adequate reinsurance support, can be considered to be a means of improving the production and distribution of insurance services and of promoting technical and economic progress.
(20) The consumers of insurance services can also be said to receive a fair share of the benefit resulting from the formation and operation of the Association, since the promotion work being undertaken by Nuovo CEGAM in the Italian insurance industry is helping to enlarge its capacity, thereby widening the choice available to the consumer and offering him a technically more advanced product, on terms that are competitive with those of other companies operating on the market.
(21) A number of clauses that the Commission considered unacceptable in the previous version of the Agreement have been deleted from the version now notified. This applies in particular to:
- the clause giving the organs of the Association power to fix tariffs of final premiums which the member companies were bound to apply,
- the limits on the duration of policies,
- the obligation on members to choose other members as coinsurers,
- the obligation on the reinsurers not to agree more favourable reinsurance terms or premiums on the Italian market outside the Association.
(22) The restrictions remaining in the notified version of the Agreement do appear to be indispensable to the attainment of the Association's objectives.
(23) The determination of standard tariffs of basic premiums by the Association's organs is acceptable given that it does not impede the members' freedom to determine the final premium for a particular risk in the light of their own commercial policy or business considerations. Hence, the insured, that is, the user, still has a choice between insurers offering different final premiums.
Without a standard basic tariff the Association would have found it harder to achieve its aims of improving production and distribution, in view of the technical expertise and wide claims experience required in transacting this class of insurance business. (24) In considering the exclusive obligation undertaken by the Association's members to place their reinsurance business with particular reinsurers, it is important to bear in mind the role which reinsurance contracts play in insurance. Reinsurance is a key operational consideration in the commercial calculations of an insurance company and one which must normally be settled before the direct insurer underwrites a particular risk: before assuming that risk the insurer must know whether and on what terms he can obtain reinsurance for it.
Obligatory reinsurance under an agreement by its very nature involves an automatic reciprocal obligation on the reinsured and the reinsurer to offer and accept all risks specified in the Agreement. In the case in question, considering the specificity of the market in this class of insurance business outlined in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, it is unlikely that the direct insurers would obtain reinsurance terms equivalent to those under the Agreement if they did not agree to give all their business to reinsurers who are party thereto.
It is highly unlikely, also, that direct insurers could obtain the same terms negotiating individually with the reinsurers as they have done by negotiating as a body in the Association.
It should also be borne in mind that all parties to the Agreement have an opportunity once a year to withdraw from it.
(25) The agreements do not afford the parties the opportunity of eliminating competition for a substantial part of the insurance services in question.
The Association's members together hold about 26 % of the Italian market for engineering insurance and are in competition with a number of other powerful insurance companies, the biggest of which alone has 25 % and the top three together (not including any member of Nuovo CEGAM) 46 %.
Consequently, the Association is not able to eliminate competition in the sector.
C. Articles 6 and 8 of Regulation No 17
(26) The present state of the market for engineering insurance and the relatively small impact the Association has on competition in that market justify the grant of an exemption for 10 years.
(27) To enable the Commission to check that the conditions of the competition rules continue to be fulfilled throughout the period of the exemption, the parties should be required to inform it once a year of any amendment of the agreements notified or of the conclusion of any new agreement between them, such information requirement being without prejudice to the need for the parties to notify, under Article 4 (1) of Regulation No 17, any changes in the subject matter or membership of the exempted agreements if they wish to continue to enjoy the exemption.
The parties should also be required to send the Commission annually a report containing statistical information on the activities of the Association,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Pursuant to Article 85 (3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, the provisions of Article 85 (1) are hereby declared inapplicable for the period 22 June 1983 to 21 June 1993 to the following agreements:
- the Statutes (Statuto) of the Association Nuovo CEGAM, approved by an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Association on 18 May 1983,
- the Convention (Convenzione) of the Association Nuovo CEGAM, approved by the same Meeting,
- the Quota and Threshold Agreement (Trattato quota ed eccedente), in the form notified on 22 June 1983, between the members of the Association Nuovo CEGAM and the reinsurers listed in the schedule to the Agreement.
Article 2
The undertakings to which this Decision is addressed shall inform the Commission once a year of any amendment of or addition to the notified agreements and of the conclusion of any new agreement between them. They shall also send the Commission annually a report containing statistical information on the activities of the Association.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Association Nuovo Consorzio Centrale Guasti alle Macchine, Milan, the member companies of the Association, which are parties to its Statutes and Convention, listed in Annex I, and the reinsurance companies which are parties to the Quota and Threshold Agreement with the Association, listed in Annex II.
Done at Brussels, 30 March 1984. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 28 July 1998 amending Decision 97/408/EC on protective measures in relation to classical swine fever in the Czech Republic (notified under document number C(1998) 2276) (Text with EEA relevance) (98/507/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 91/496/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (1), as last amended by Directive 96/43/EC (2), and in particular Article 18(1) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 90/675/EEC of 10 December 1990 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (3), as last amended by Directive 96/43/EC, and in particular Article 19(1) thereof,
Whereas the presence of classical swine fever has been confirmed in domestic pig holdings in some areas of the Czech Republic in 1997;
Whereas the Commission adopted Decision 97/408/EC of 25 June 1997 on protective measures in relation to classical swine fever in the Czech Republic (4);
Whereas the epidemiological situation in domestic pig holdings has improved;
Whereas classical swine fever still persists in the feral pig population in some areas of the Czech Republic;
Whereas this situation is liable to endanger the herds of the European Community;
Whereas it is therefore necessary to maintain some of the protective measures adopted with Decision 97/408/EC in areas where the disease has been detected in feral pigs in 1997 and 1998;
Whereas the measures provided for in this decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. Article 1 of Commission Decision 97/408/EC is replaced by the following article:
'Article 1
The Member States shall prohibit the importation of live pigs, semen, embryos and ova of the porcine species from the districts of the Czech Republic described in the Annex to this Decision.`
2. The Annex to Commission Decision 97/408/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2
The Member States shall amend the measures they apply in respect of the Czech Republic to bring them into line with this Decision. They shall inform the Commission thereof.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 July 1998. | [
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 19 June 1978 amending for the first time Directive 76/118/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to certain partly or wholly dehydrated preserved milk for human consumption (78/630/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 43 and 100 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 Council Directive 76/118/EEC of 18 December 1975 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to certain partly or wholly dehydrated preserved milk for human consumption (3) lays down in Article 3 (1) that only designations referred to and defined in the Annex thereto may be used to denote the products defined therein ; whereas in point 1 (c) thereof the designation "unsweetened condensed partly-skimmed milk" is referred to and defined ; whereas under this provision the only milk which may be sold by retail with this designation is partly dehydrated milk containing, by weight, between 4 and 4 75 % fat and not less than 24 % milk solids;
Whereas, in view of problems of understanding on the part of buyers, Directive 76/118/EEC sets out in Article 3 (2) certain designations, the use of which may be reserved in their territories by the Member States concerned;
Whereas similar difficulties have also been found in certain Member States in relation to the designation of unsweetened condensed partly-skimmed milk which may be sold by retail ; whereas it is therefore necessary to extend to those States the option provided for in Article 3 (2) of Directive 76/118/EEC, as regards retail sales of products with the above designation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
The following shall be added to Article 3 (2) of Directive 76/118/EEC:
"(d) "Geëvaporeerde halfvolle melk" in Belgium and the Netherlands and "lait demi-écrémé concentré" and "lait demi-écrémé concentré non sucré" in Belgium, France and Luxembourg, to denote, in the case of sale by retail, the product defined in point 1 (c) of the Annex."
Article 2
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 19 June 1978. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2352/93 of 24 August 1993 re-establishing the levying of customs duties on products falling within CN code 3817, originating in Brazil, to which the preferential tariff arrangements set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3831/90 apply
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3831/90 of 20 December 1990 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1991 in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries (1), extended for 1993 by Regulation (EEC) No 3917/92 (2), and in particular Article 9 thereof,
Whereas, pursuant to Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 3831/90, suspension of customs duties shall be accorded for 1993 to each of the countries or territories listed in Annex III other than those listed in column 4 of Annex I, within the framework of the preferential tariff ceilings fixed in column 6 of Annex I;
Whereas, as provided for in Article 7 of that Regulation, as soon as the individual ceilings in question are reached at Community level, the levying of customs duties on imports of the products in question originating in each of the countries and territories concerned may at any time be re-established;
Whereas, in the case of products falling within CN code 3817, originating in Brazil, the individual ceiling was fixed at ECU 1 389 000; whereas on 16 June 1993, imports of these products into the Community originating in Brazil reached the ceiling in question after being charged thereagainst; whereas, it is appropriate to re-establish the levying of customs duties in respect of the products in question against Brazil,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
As from 29 August 1993, the levying of customs duties, suspended for 1993 pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 3831/90, shall be reintroduced on imports into the Community of the following products, originating in Brazil:
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, 24 August 1993. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 616/2008
of 27 June 2008
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (1), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.
(2)
In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 June 2008.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 27 June 2008. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1775/2003
of 9 October 2003
fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar to certain third countries for the ninth partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1290/2003
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 1290/2003 of 18 July 2003 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar(3), for the 2003/2004 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries.
(2) Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2003 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 ninth 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 ninth partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1290/2003 the maximum amount of the export refund to certain third countries is fixed at 52,776 EUR/100 kg.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 October 2003.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 October 2003. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 810/85
of 28 March 1985
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2827/84 as regards the period of validity of measures relating to the boning of beef bought in by intervention agencies
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 the Act of Accession of Greece, and in particular Article 6 (5) (d) thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2827/84 (2) derogates from Regulation (EEC) No 2226/78 laying down detailed rules for the application of intervention measures in the beef and veal sector (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1811/84 (4), as regards the boning of meat bought in by intervention agencies; whereas the period of application of that derogation should be extended;
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
In Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2827/84, '29 March 1985' is hereby replaced by '26 July 1985'.
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, 28 March 1985. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1636/91 of 13 June 1991 establishing, for the period 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992, the Community reserve for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1630/91 (2), and in particular Article 5c (6) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (3),
Whereas Article 5c (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 provides for the establishment of a Community reserve in order to supplement, at the beginning of each 12-month period, the overall guaranteed quantities of Member States in which the levy scheme gives rise to particular difficulties; whereas the Community reserve for the eighth 12-month period should be again fixed at 2 082 885,740 tonnes, including 443 000 tonnes to be allocated in the Member States where the implementation of the levy system still raises special difficulties, 600 000 tonnes to alleviate difficulties encountered by the Member States in allocating the specific reference quantities pursuant to Article 3a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (4) as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1635/91 (5), and 1 039 885,740 tonnes to alleviate the difficulties encountered by the Member States in
allocating the additional or specific reference quantities to certain categories of producers as defined in Article 3b of that Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For the period 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992, the Community reserve provided for in Article 5c (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 shall be 2 082 885,740 tonnes, of which:
- 443 000 tonnes shall be allocated in certain Member States where the implementation of the levy system raises special difficulties,
- 600 000 tonnes shall be to alleviate the difficulties encountered by the Member States in allocating the specific reference quantities pursuant to Article 3a of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84,
- 1 039 885,740 tonnes shall be for producers as referred to in Article 3b of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply from the beginning of the eighth 12-month period of the additional levy system.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 13 June 1991. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION of 26 October 1994 amending Chapter 3 of Annex I to Council Directive 92/118/EEC laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) (94/723/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC (1), as amended by Commission Decision 94/466/EC (2), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 15 thereof,
Whereas, in the light of experience gained in the application of the provisions laid down, the conditions governing trade in and imports of hides and skins of ungulates not covered by Directive 64/433/EEC or 72/462/EEC should be amended; whereas Chapter 3 of Annex I to that Directive should be redrafted 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
Chapter 3 of Annex I to Directive 92/118/EEC is hereby replaced by the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on 1 December 1994.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 26 October 1994. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2149/96 of 8 November 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 716/96 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market in the United Kingdom
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 organization of the market in beef and veal (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1997/96 (2), and in particular Article 23 thereof,
Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 716/96 of 19 April 1996 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1974/96 (4), authorizes the purchase of animals over 30 months old and held on holdings in the United Kingdom for at least three months with a view to slaughter and destruction; whereas, following experience gained in the application of the slaughter arrangements in question, the period during which the animals must have been held on holdings must be longer;
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
In Article 1 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 716/96, the period 'three months` is hereby replaced by 'six months`.
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 to animals purchased from the third Monday following the date of publication.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 8 November 1996. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1661/2005
of 11 October 2005
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.
(2)
In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 October 2005.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 11 October 2005. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1757/82
of 2 July 1982
amending Regulation (EEC) No 1581/81 laying down detailed rules implementing the system of premiums for maintaining suckler cows
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1357/80 of 5 June 1980 introducing a system of premiums for maintaining suckler cows (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1198/82 (2), and in particular Article 6 thereof,
Whereas, in practice, the time limit fixed by Article 3 (1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1581/81 (3) has proved inadequate; whereas the said Regulation should therefore be amended;
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
Article 3 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1581/81 is hereby replaced by the following:
'1. The amounts fixed in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1357/80 and in the second paragraph of Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1056/81 shall be paid within 15 months following the beginning of the period referred to in Article 1 (1).'
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 16 June 1982.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 July 1982. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 4047/89 of 19 December 1989 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1990 and certain conditions under which they may be fished
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources(1), as amended by the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, and in particular Article 11 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas, pursuant to the terms of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83, it is incumbent upon the Council to formulate, in the light of the available scientific advice and, in particular, of the report prepared by the Scientific and Technical Committee on Fisheries, the conservation measures necessary to achieve the aims set out in Article 1 of the abovementioned Regulation;
Whereas, pursuant to the terms of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83, it is incumbent on the Council to establish the total allowable catches (TAC) by stock or group of stocks, the share available for the Community and also the specific conditions under which the catches must be made; whereas, in order to ensure effective management, the share available for the Community in 1990 should be allocated among the Member States in accordance with Article 4 of the abovementioned Regulation;
Whereas, in order to ensure the protection of fishing grounds and fish stocks and the balanced exploitation of the resources of the sea, in the interests of both fishermen and consumers, there should be fixed, each year for the
different species of which the catches must be restricted, a TAC per stock or group of stocks and the share of these catches available to the Community taking into account its commitments to third countries;
Whereas Article 161 of the Act of Accession fixes the share of the TACs to be allocated to Spain for certain stocks in certain zones;
Whereas, in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 2 of the Agreement on fisheries between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway(2), Article 2 of the Agreement on fisheries between European Economic Community and the Government of Sweden(3), and Article 2 of the Agreement on fisheries between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Government of the Faroe Islands of the other part(4), the parties have consulted on their reciprocal fishing rights for 1990;
Whereas these bilateral consultations have been successfully concluded and whereas, as a result, it is possible to fix the TACs, the Community shares and the quotas for certain joint and autonomous stocks, of which part is allocated to Norway, Sweden and the Faroe Islands;
Whereas trilateral consultations with Norway and Sweden concerning reciprocal fishing rights in the Skagerrak and the Kattegat have taken place; whereas an agreement has not yet been reached and it is therefore necessary to establish Community shares for the stocks in these areas in order to allow fishing activities to continue;
Whereas the Community has signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which contains principles and rules relating to the conservation and management of the living resources of the sea;
Whereas, in the framework of its wider international obligations, the Community participates in efforts to conserve fish stocks arising in international waters; whereas the extent to which such stocks are fished by vessels of the Community should be viewed in the light of overall fishing activity and the contribution made hitherto by the Community towards their conservation should be taken into account;
Whereas the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission has recommended TACs for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat occurring in the waters of the Baltic Sea and the shares thereof for each contracting party;
Whereas, in order to ensure effective management, the TACs available for the Community in 1990 should be distributed among the Member States in a manner which assures relative stability of fishing activities;
Whereas, in the case of certain stocks fished mainly for reduction to meal and oil, it does not appear necessary to make quota allocations;
Whereas, pursuant to Article 161 of the Act of Accession, flat-rate amounts of horse-mackerel and blue whiting are allocated to Spain;
Whereas those flat-rate amounts of horse-mackerel and blue whiting must be distributed among ICES sub-areas and divisions Vb (EC zone), VI, VII and VIIIa, b and d;
Whereas, pursuant to Article 158 of the Act of Accession, a distinction must be made between fishing for demersal species and fishing for species other than demersal and whereas the group to which blue whiting and horse-mackerel belong must therefore be defined;
Whereas, in order to ensure effective management of these TACs, the specific conditions under which fishing operations occur should be established;
Whereas, taking account of the latest scientific advice, it is necessary to establish seasonal limitations on certain fishing activities in the North Sea and to increase the minimum mesh size in order to limit catches of juvenile cod;
Whereas, it is necessary to prohibit the use of nets with a mesh size of less than 32 millimetres for sprat fishing in the Skagerrak and Kattegat in order to limit fishing of juvenile herring;
Whereas, in order to ensure a better exploitation of the quotas of herring, hake and mackerel, transfers of quotas from the zones IV c and VII d to ICES division IV b should be allowed for herring, transfers from the zones V b (EC zone), VI, VII, and XIV and from zones VIII a, b and d to zone II a (EC zone) and IV (EC zone) should be permitted for hake, and transfers from zones II a (EC zone) and IV and zones II (except EC zone), V b (EC zone), VI, VII, VIII a, b, d and e, XII, XIV to zone IV a (EC zone) should be permitted for mackerel;
Whereas, in order to ensure a better exploitation of the haddock stocks in zones V b (EC zone), VI, XII and XIV, catches in zone VI a should be limited;
Whereas, in the light of the most recent scientific advice, the definition of sole fishing should be amended for large vessels,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
This Regulation fixes for 1990, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, TACs per stock or group of stocks, the share of these catches available to the Community, the allocation of that share among Member States and the specific conditions under which these stocks may be fished(5).
For the purposes of this Regulation, the Skagerrak is bounded on the west by a line drawn from the Hanstholm lighthouse to the Lindesnes lighthouse and on the south by a line drawn from the Skagen lighthouse to the Tistlarna lighthouse and from this point to the nearest point on the Swedish coast.
For the purposes of this Regulation, the Kattegat is bounded on the north by a line drawn from the Skagen lighthouse to the Tistlarna lighthouse and from this point to the nearest point on the Swedish coast and on the south by a line drawn from Hasenoere to Gniben Spids, from Korshage to Spodsbjerg and from Gilbjerg Hoved to Kullen.
For the purposes of this Regulation, the North Sea shall comprise ICES sub-area IV and that part of ICES division IIIa which is not covered by the definition of the Skagerrak given in this Article.
Article 2
TACs for stocks or groups of stocks to which Community rules apply and the share of these catches available to the Community are hereby fixed for 1990 as set out in the Annex.
Article 3
The allocation among the Member States of the share available to the Community of the TACs mentioned in Article 2 is fixed in the Annex.
This allocation shall be without prejudice to exchanges made pursuant to Article 5 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 and re-allocations made pursuant to Article 11 (4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87(6).
Article 4
As regards the herring stock of the North Sea and of the eastern English Channel, transfers to up to 50 % of the quotas may be effected from ICES divisions IV c and VII d to ICES division IV b.
As regards the hake stock in zones II a (EC zone), IV (EC zone), Member States having a quota in this zone, may on exhaustion of this quota, make transfers from the zones V b (EC zone), VI, VII, XII and XIV and from the zones VII a, b and d to the zone II a (EC zone), IV (EC zone).
However, the transfers referred to in this Article must be notified in advance to the Commission.
Article 5
1. It shall be prohibited to retain on board or to land catches from stocks for which TACs or quotas are fixed unless:
ii(i)the catches have been taken by vessels of a Member State having a quota and that quota is not exhausted; or
i(ii)the share of the TAC available to the Community (Community share) has not been allocated by quota among Member States and the Community share has not been exhausted; or
(iii)for all species other than herring and mackerel, they are mixed with other species and have been taken with nets whose mesh size is 32 millimetres or less in regions 1 and 2 or 40 millimetres or less in region 3 in accordance with Article 2 (1) of Regulation (EEC)
No 3094/86(7), as last amended by Regulation (EEC)
No 2220/89(8), and are not sorted either on board
or on landing; or
i(iv)for herring, they are within the limits of paragraph 2; or
ii(v)for mackerel, they are mixed with horse-mackerel or pilchard and the mackerel does not exceed 10 % of the total weight of mackerel, horse-mackerel and pilchard on board and the catches are not sorted; or
i(vi)they are caught during the course of scientific investigations carried out under Regulation (EEC)
No 3094/86.
All landings shall count against the quota, or, if the Community share has not been allocated between Member States by quotas, against the Community share, except for catches made under the provisions of (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi).
2. When fishing with nets whose mesh size is less than 32 millimetres in regions 1 and 2 other than the Skagerrak and the Kattegat and with nets whose mesh size is less than 40 millimetres in region 3, it shall be prohibited to retain on board catches of herring mixed with other species unless such catches are not sorted and unless the herring, if mixed with sprat only, does not exceed 10 % by weight of the total weight of herring and sprat combined.
When fishing with nets whose mesh size is less than 32 millimetres in regions 1 and 2 and with nets whose mesh size is less than 40 millimetres in region 3, it shall be prohibited to retain on board catches of herring mixed with other species unless such catches are not sorted and unless the herring, if mixed with other species whether or not including sprat, does not exceed 5 % by weight of the total weight of the herring and other species combined.
3. The determination of the percentage of by-catches and their disposal shall be made in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86.
Article 6
1. Fishing for herring shall be prohibited from 1 July to 31 October 1990 within the area bounded by the following coordinates:
-the west coast of Denmark 55°30mN,
-latitude 55°30mN longitude 07°00mE,
-latitude 57°00mN longitude 07°00mE,
-the west coast of Denmark at 57°00mN.
2. Fishing for herring shall be prohibited in the zone extending from six to 12 miles off the east coast of the United Kingdom as measured from the baselines between latitudes 54°10mN and 54°45mN for the period 15 August to 30 September 1990 and between latitudes 55°30mN and paste 55°45mN for the period 15 August to 15 September 1990.
3. Fishing for herring shall be prohibited throughout the year in the Irish Sea (ICES division VIIa) in the maritime area between the west coasts of Scotland, England and Wales and a line drawn 12 miles from the baselines of these coasts bounded to the south by latitude 53°20mN and to the north-west by a line drawn between the Mull of Galloway (Scotland) and the Point of Ayre (Isle of Man).
4. Fishing for herring shall be prohibited from 21 September to 31 December 1990 in the parts of the Irish Sea (ICES division VIIa) bounded by the following coordinates:
(a)-the east coast of the Isle of Man at latitude 54°20mN,
-latitude 54°20mN, longitude 3°40mW,
-latitude 53°50mN, longitude 3°50mW,
-latitude 53°50mN, longitude 4°50mW,
-the south-west coast of the Isle of Man at longitude 4°50mW;
(b)-the east coast of Northern Ireland at latitude 54°15mN,
-latitude 54°15mN, longitude 5°15mW,
-latitude 53°50mN, longitude 5°50mW,
-the east coast of Ireland at latitude 53° 50mN.
Fishing for herring shall be prohibited throughout 1990 in Logan Bay, defined as being the waters east of a line drawn from the Mull of Logan situated at latitude 54°44mN and longitude 4°59mW, to Laggantalluch Head, situated at latitude 54°41mN and longitude 4°58mW.
5. Notwithstanding paragraph 4, vessels with a length not exceeding 12,2 metres based in ports situated on the east coast of Ireland and Northern Ireland between latitudes 53°00mN and 55°00mN may fish for herring in the prohibited area described in paragraph 4 (b). The only method of fishing authorized shall be drift netting with nets of a minimum mesh size of 54 millimetres.
6. Fishing for herring shall be prohibited in the maritime area situated to the north-east of a line drawn between Mull of Kintyre and Corsewall Point from 1 January to 15 April 1990.
7. The areas and periods described in this Article may be altered in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83.
Article 7
1. Fishing for sprat with trawls with a mesh size of less than 32 millimetres shall be prohibited throughout the year in the Skagerrak and Kattegat.
2. Fishing for sprat shall be prohibited:
(a)from 1 July to 31 October 1990 within the area bounded by the following coordinates:
-the west coast of Denmark at 55°30mN,
-latitude 55°30mN longitude 07°00mE,
-latitude 57°00mN longitude 07°00mE,
-the west coast of Denmark at 57°00mN;
(b)in ICES statistical rectangle 39 E8 from 1 January to 31 March 1990 and from 1 October to 31 December 1990. For the purposes of this Regulation this ICES rectangle is bounded by a line running due east from the east coast of England along latitude 55°00mN to longitude 1°00mW, due north to latitude 55°30mN and due west to the English coast;
(c)in the inner waters of the Moray Firth west of longitude 3°30mW and in the inner waters of the Firth of Forth west of longitude 3°00mW from 1 January to 31 March 1990 and from 1 October to 31 December 1990.
3. The areas and periods described in this Article may be altered in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83.
Article 8
Trawling and purse seining for mackerel, sprat and herring shall be prohibited in the Skagerrak from Saturday midnight to Sunday midnight and in the Kattegat from Friday midnight to Sunday midnight.
Article 9
1. It shall be prohibited to use any trawl, Danish seine or similar towed net from 1 January to 31 March 1990 and from 1 October to 31 December 1990 in the geographical areas bounded by a line joining the following coordinates:
-a point on the west coast of Denmark at latitude 55°00mN,
-latitude 55°00mN, longitude 7°00mE,
-latitude 54°30mN, longitude 7°00mE,
-latitude 54°30mN, longitude 6°00mE,
-latitude 53°30mN, longitude 6°00mE,
-latitude 53°30mN, longitude 4°00mE,
-a point on the coast of the Netherlands at longitude 4°00mE.
2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 it shall be permitted to use any trawl, Danish seine or similar towed net in the areas described in paragraph 1 provided that the mesh size is equal to or greater than 100 millimetres.
3. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 it shall be permitted to fish for shrimps (Crangon crangon) in the areas described in paragraph 1 provided a separator trawl is used so that the by-catch of fish is not retained in the trawl.
4. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 it shall be permitted to fish for adult eel (Anguilla anguilla) in the zones indicated in that paragraph.
Article 10
Blue whiting and horse-mackerel shall be considered to be species other than demersal.
Article 11
Notwithstanding Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86 and Annex I thereto, fishing in the North Sea between 1 April and 31 December 1990 by vessels of
221 kW or more using beam trawls with a mesh size of 80 millimetres and above but less than 90 millimetres shall be confined to the area south of latitude 55°N. For the fishery in question:
-the minimum percentage of 15 % for sole as the target species shall not apply,
-the maximum percentage of cod, haddock, whiting and saithe shall be 15 %.
It shall be prohibited for the abovementioned vessels fishing in the abovementioned zone to have on board any trawl or piece of netting with a mesh size smaller than the net which is being used for fishing.
Article 12
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
It shall apply with effect from 1 January 1990.
This regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 December 1989. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
of 10 April 1984
amending for the 20th time Directive 64/54/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the preservatives authorized for use in foodstuffs intended for human consumption
(84/223/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 100 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3),
Whereas Directive 64/54/EEC (4), as last amended by Directive 84/86/EEC (5), sets out a list of preservatives the use of which is authorized for the protection of foodstuffs intended for human consumption against deterioration caused by micro-organisms;
Whereas the Commission proposal currently under review aims, on the one hand, to add to the list of authorized preservatives potassium bisulphite and natamycin and, on the other hand, to authorize thiabendazol for surface treatment of citrus fruit and bananas, without any time limit;
Whereas, pending a Council decision on the whole of this proposal and without prejudice to current discussions on this subject, the authorization for thiabendazol should, as a precautionary measure, be extended on a transitional basis from 16 April to 15 May 1984, in order to avoid any interruption in the traditional trade flows concerning citrus fruit and bananas,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
In No E 233 (c) of Section I of the Annex to Directive 64/54/EEC, '16 April 1984' is hereby replaced by '16 May 1984'.
Article 2
The Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive and shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
Article 3
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 10 April 1984. | [
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1183/2002
of 1 July 2002
determining the world market price for unginned cotton
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Protocol 4 on cotton, annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1050/2001(1),
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 of 22 May 2001 on production aid for cotton(2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) In accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001, a world market price for unginned cotton is to be determined periodically from the price for ginned cotton recorded on the world market and by reference to the historical relationship between the price recorded for ginned cotton and that calculated for unginned cotton. That historical relationship has been established in Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001 of 2 August 2001(3). Where the world market price cannot be determined in this way, it is to be based on the most recent price determined.
(2) In accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001, the world market price for unginned cotton is to be determined in respect of a product of specific characteristics and by reference to the most favourable offers and quotations on the world market among those considered representative of the real market trend. To that end, an average is to be calculated of offers and quotations recorded on one or more European exchanges for a product delivered cif to a port in the Community and coming from the various supplier countries considered the most representative in terms of international trade. However, there is provision for adjusting the criteria for determining the world market price for ginned cotton to reflect differences justified by the quality of the product delivered and the offers and quotations concerned. Those adjustments are specified in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1591/2001.
(3) The application of the above criteria gives the world market price for unginned cotton determined hereinafter,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The world price for unginned cotton as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 is hereby determined as equalling EUR 24,067/kg.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 2 July 2002.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 July 2002. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION DECISION
of 22 December 2006
amending Decision 2006/875/EC approving programmes for the eradication and monitoring of animal diseases, of certain TSEs, and for the prevention of zoonoses presented by the Member States for the year 2007
(notified under document number C(2006) 6971)
(2007/22/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 24(6) and Articles 29 and 32 thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
By Decision 2006/875/EC approving programmes for the eradication and monitoring of animal diseases, of certain TSEs, and for the prevention of zoonoses presented by the Member States for the year 2007 (2), the Commission has approved the programmes submitted by the Member States that appear on the list of programmes established by Commission Decision 2006/687/EC (3).
(2)
For reasons of administrative efficiency all expenditure presented for a financial contribution by the Community should be expressed in euro. In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (4), the conversion rate for expenditure in a currency other than the euro should be the rate most recently set by the European Central Bank prior to the first day of the month in which the application is submitted by the Member State concerned.
(3)
Therefore Decision 2006/875/EC should be amended accordingly.
(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
Articles 17 and 18 of Decision 2006/875/EC are replaced by the following:
‘Article 17
The expenditure presented by the Member States for a financial contribution by the Community shall be expressed in euro and shall exclude value added tax and other taxes.
Article 18
Where a Member State's expenditure is in a currency other than the euro, the Member State concerned shall convert it into euro by applying the most recent exchange rate set by the European Central Bank prior to the first day of the month in which the application is submitted by the Member State.’
Article 2
This Decision shall apply from 1 January 2007.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 December 2006. | [
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Commission Regulation (EC) No 123/2004
of 23 January 2004
fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain, medium grain and long grain A rice to be exported to certain third countries in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1876/2003
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 pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1876/2003(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 fix, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 and on the basis of the tenders submitted, a maximum export refund. In fixing this maximum, the criteria provided for in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 must be taken into account. A contract is awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less than the maximum export refund.
(3) The application of the abovementioned criteria to the current market situation for the rice in question results in the maximum export refund being fixed at the amount specified in Article 1.
(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
The maximum export refund on wholly milled grain, medium grain and long grain A rice to be exported to certain third countries pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1876/2003 is hereby fixed on the basis of the tenders submitted from 19 to 22 January 2004 at 135,00 EUR/t.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 24 January 2004.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 January 2004. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 16 February 1998 amending Decision 95/514/EC on the equivalence of field inspections carried out in third countries on seed-producing crops and on the equivalence of seed produced in third countries (98/162/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 66/400/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of beet seed (1), and in particular Article 16(1)(b) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 66/401/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of fodder plant seed (2), and in particular Article 16(1)(b) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 66/402/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the marketing of cereal seed (3), and in particular Article 16(1)(b) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 69/208/EEC of 30 June 1969 on the marketing of seed of oil and fibre plants (4), and in particular Article 15(1)(b) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas, in Decision 95/514/EC (5) it has been determined for a limited period that field inspections carried out in certain third countries on seed-producing crops of certain species satisfies the conditions laid down in Directives 66/400/EEC, 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC and 69/208/EEC; whereas in Decision 95/514/EC it has also been determined that seed of certain species produced in certain third countries was equivalent to corresponding seed produced in the Community;
Whereas Decision 95/514/EC expired on 31 December 1997; whereas a new decision is therefore necessary;
Whereas in Decision 95/514/EC, reference to the OECD schemes for the varietal certification of seed moving in international trade was made as one of the bases for Community equivalence;
Whereas in 1995 a system of alternative seed certification was included in these schemes as an experiment;
Whereas, the results of this experiment have not yet been evaluated;
Whereas, in these circumstances, it appears desirable to ensure continuation of the equivalence, but to limit it, under this Decision, to a further two years,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
In Article 6 of Decision 95/514/EC '31 December 1997` shall be replaced by '31 December 1999`.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 February 1998. | [
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 687/95 of 27 March 1995 on free distribution outside the Community of fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market during the 1994/95 marketing year
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
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), and in particular Article 35 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas withdrawals from the market during the 1994/95 marketing year under Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 can be expected, particularly of apples and oranges;
Whereas Article 21 of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 specifies the possible recipients of withdrawn products;
Whereas, in order to improve the food supply of the peoples of certain third countries, and in particular of the victims of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, it should be made possible for apples, oranges and any other fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market to be sent to these countries by the agency of charitable organizations approved by the Member States;
Whereas this possibility is not provided for by Article 21 of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72; whereas, however, given the food supply difficulties of the third countries in question, and in particular of the victims of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, and the volumes of apples and oranges withdrawn from the Community market, a derogation should exceptionally be introduced from the said Article 21 in order to enable such organizations to deliver products withdrawn from the market for free distribution as humanitarian aid to the people of these countries;
Whereas sorting, packing and transport costs for fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market that are assigned for free distribution may be taken over pursuant to Commission Regulations (EEC) No 3587/86 of 20 November 1986 fixing the conversion factors to be applied to the buying-in prices for fruit and vegetables (2), (EEC) No 2103/90 of 23 July 1990 laying down the conditions for taking over sorting and packing costs relating to the free distribution of apples and citrus fruit (3), and (EEC) No 2276/92 of 4 August 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 21 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the common organization of the markets in fruit and vegetables (4);
Whereas it should be borne in mind that transport costs outside the Community of the products concerned will be met by the charitable organizations carrying out the distribution operations in question;
Whereas, so that the viability of each operation can be checked, prior authorization should be required from the Commission;
Whereas it will be necessary for Member States to see that operations are properly carried out and to report subsequently to the Commission;
Whereas, if supply difficulties in a third country and the situation on the Community market so warrant, the Commission may, after consulting the Management Committee for Fruit and Vegetables, decide to apply this Regulation to other fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market or other destinations,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. Under the conditions provided for in Article 2 of this Regulation and notwithstanding Article 21 of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72, dessert apples and oranges withdrawn from the market during the 1994/95 marketing year in accordance with that Regulation may, during that marketing year, be made available to charitable organizations approved by the Member States for free distribution as humanitarian aid to people in territories of the former Yugoslavia who are affected by the conflict in that region.
2. Sorting, packing and transport costs within the Community for the operations referred to in paragraph 1 shall be taken over in accordance with Regulations (EEC) No 3587/86, (EEC) No 2103/90 and (EEC) No 2276/92.
3. No export refund shall be granted on products dispatched pursuant to paragraph 1. The customs export, transit and any T5 document issued shall carry the endorsement 'No refund`.
Article 2
Member States shall submit to the Commission proposals by their agreed charitable organizations for free distribution operations. The Commission, having regard to what assurances are available of a satisfactory outcome and to the situation as regards market withdrawals, shall decide whether or not to authorize the operation.
Article 3
1. Member States shall take all requisite action to ensure proper execution of free distribution operations.
2. At the end of the 1994/95 marketing year, Member States shall inform the Commission of the quantities distributed under this Regulation and their recipients.
Article 4
1. Any detailed provisions required for application of this Regulation, in particular as regards coordination under the Community emergency humanitarian aid plan for the former Yugoslavia, may be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 33 of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72.
2. The Commission may decide, in accordance with the procedure referred to in paragraph 1, to respond to serious supply difficulties in third countries by applying this Regulation to other fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market or other destinations.
Article 5
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, 27 March 1995. | [
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 1331/91 of 22 May 1991 re-establishing the levying of customs duties on products of category 75 (order No 40.0750), originating in Indonesia, to which the preferential tariff arrangements set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3832/90 apply
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3832/90 of 20 December 1990 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1991 in respect of textile products originating in developing countries (1), and in particular Article 12 thereof,
Whereas Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 3832/90 provides that preferential tariff treatment shall be accorded, for each category of products subjected in Annexes I and II thereto to individual ceilings, within the limits of the quantities specified in column 8 of Annex I and column 7 of Annex II, in respect of certain or each of the countries or territories of origin referred to in column 5 of the same Annexes;
Whereas Article 11 of the abovementioned Regulation provides that the levying of customs duties may be re-established at any time in respect of imports of the products in question once the relevant individual ceilings have been reached at Community level;
Whereas, in respect of products of category 75 (order No 40.0750), originating in Indonesia, the relevant ceiling amounts to 10 000 pieces;
Whereas on 2 April 1991 imports of the products in question into the Community, originating in Indonesia, a country covered by preferential tariff arrangements, reached and were charged against that ceiling;
Whereas it is appropriate to re-establish the levying of customs duties for the products in question with regard to Indonesia,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1
As from 26 May 1991 the levying of customs duties, suspended pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 3832/90, shall be re-established in respect of the following products, imported into the Community and originating in Indonesia:
Order No Category
(unit) CN code Description 40.0750 75
(1 000 pieces) 6103 11 00
6103 12 00
6103 19 00
6103 21 00
6103 22 00
6103 23 00
6103 29 00 Men's or boys' knitted or crocheted suits and ensembles, of wool, of cotton or of man-made fibres, excluding ski suits
Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 22 May 1991. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COUNCIL DECISION of 27 January 1992 authorizing extension or tacit renewal of certain trade agreements concluded between Member States and third countries (92/53/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,
Having regard to Council Decision 69/494/EEC of 16 December 1969 on the progressive standardization of agreements concerning commercial relations between Member States and third countries and on the negotiation of Community agreements (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas extension or tacit renewal beyond the end of the transitional period was last authorized in the case of the Agreements and Protocols listed in the Annex by Decision 91/169/EEC (2);
Whereas the Member States concerned have, with a view to avoiding any disruption of their commercial relations with third countries concerned based on Agreement, requested authorizaton to extend or renew the abovementioned Agreements;
Whereas, however, most of the areas covered by these national Agreements are henceforth the subject of Community Agreements; whereas, in this situation, there should be authorization for the maintenance of national Agreements only for those areas not covered by Community Agreements; whereas, in addition, such authorization should not, therefore, adversely affect the obligation incumbent upon the Member States to avoid and, where appropriate, to eliminate any incompatibility between such Agreements and the provisions of Community law;
Whereas the provisions of the Agreements to be either prolonged or renewed should not furthermore, during the period under consideration, constitute an obstacle to the implementation of the common commercial policy;
Whereas the Member States concerned have declared that the extension or tacit renewal of these Agreements would neither constitute an obstacle to the opening of Community negotiations with the third countries concerned and the transfer of the commercial substance of those Agreements to Community Agreements nor, during the period under consideration, hinder the adoption of the measures necessary to complete the standardization of the import arrangements of the Member States;
Whereas, at the conclusion of the consultations provided for in Article 2 of Decision 69/494/EEC, it was established, as the aforesaid declarations by the Member States concerned confirm, that the provisions of the Agreements to be extended or renewed would not, during the period under consideration, constitute an obstacle to the implementation of the common commercial policy;
Whereas, in these circumstances, the Agreements concerned may be either extended or tacitly renewed for a limited period,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The Trade Agreements and Protocols between Member States and third countries, as listed in the Annex hereto, may be extended or tacitly renewed up to the dates indicated for each of them for those areas not covered by Agreements between the Community and the third countries concerned and insofar as their provisions are not contrary to existing common policies.
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 27 January 1992. | [
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 53/89
of 11 January 1989
suspending the preferential customs duties and re-introducing the Common Customs Tariff duty on imports of large-flowered roses originating in Morocco
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic 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 (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3551/88 (2), and in particular Article 5 (2) (b) thereof,
Whereas 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;
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 3005/88 (3), (EEC) No 3175/88 (4), (EEC) No 3552/88 (5) and (EEC) No 4078/88 (6) open and provide for the administration of Community tariff quotas for cut flowers and flower buds, fresh, originating in Cyprus, Jordan, Morocco and Israel respectively;
Whereas Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87 provides, on the one hand, that for a given product of a given origin, the preferential customs duty is to be applicable only if the price of the imported product is at least equal to 85 % of the Community producer price; whereas, on the other hand, the preferential customs duty is, except in exceptional cases, suspended and the Common Customs Tariff duty introduced for a given product of a given origin:
(a) if, on two successive market days, the prices of the imported product are less than 85 % of the Community producer price in respect of at least 30 % of the quantities for which prices are available on representative import markets;
or
(b) if, over a period of five to seven successive market days, the prices of the imported product are alternatively above and below 85 % of the Community producer price in respect of at least 30 % of the quantities for which prices are available on the representative import markets and if, for three days during that period, the prices of the import product have been below that level;
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3557/88 (7) fixes the Community producer prices for carnations and roses for the application of the import arrangements;
Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 700/88 (8), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3556/88 (9), lays down the detailed rules for the application of the arrangements;
Whereas, in order to enable the arrangements to operate normally, the following should be used for the calculation of the import prices:
- for the currencies which are maintained against one another within a maximum spread at any given moment for spot rate transactions of 2,25 %, a conversion rate based on their central rate adjusted by the correcting factor provided for in the last subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/85 (10), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1636/87 (11);
- for the other currencies, a conversion rate based on the arithmetic mean of the spot market rates for the currency, as recorded over a given period, against the Community currencies referred to in the preceding indent, and the abovementioned factor;
Whereas, 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 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87 for suspension of the preferential customs duty are met for large flowered roses originating in Morocco; whereas the Common Customs Tariff duty should be re-introduced,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
For imports of large-flowered roses (CN code ex 0603 10 51), originating in Morocco, the preferential customs duty fixed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3552/88 is hereby suspended and the Common Customs Tariff duty is hereby re-introduced from 13 January 1989.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 January 1989.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 11 January 1989. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 25/2008
of 14 January 2008
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (1), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.
(2)
In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 15 January 2008.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 January 2008. | [
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION DIRECTIVE
of 14 October 1985
amending Directive 77/794/EEC laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of agricultural levies and customs duties
(85/479/EEC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of agricultural levies and customs duties, and in respect of value added tax (1), as last amended by Directive 79/1071/EEC (2), and in particular Article 22 (1) thereof,
Whereas detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Directive 76/308/EEC were laid down by Commission Directive 77/794/EEC (3); whereas the title of Directive 76/308/EEC was amended by Directive 79/1071/EEC; whereas the title of Directive 77/794/EEC must be amended accordingly;
Whereas Article 20 (2) of Directive 77/794/EEC provides that no request for assistance may be made if the amount of the relevant claim or claims is less than 750 ECU;
Whereas Article 12 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3/84 of 19 December 1983 introducing arrangements for movement within the Community of goods sent from one Member State for temporary use in one or more other Member States (4) provides for mutual assistance between Member States for the recovery of charges due as a result of an irregularity committed in one of them; whereas, however, it is stipulated that the Member State which is recovering the debt may alternatively apply the provisions of Directive 76/308/EEC;
Whereas Article 22 (5) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2364/84 of 31 July 1984 laying down detailed implementing provisions for the arrangements for movement within the Community of goods sent from one Member State for temporary use in one or more other Member States (5), provides that Article 12 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3/84 shall not apply where the amount to be recovered is less than 200 ECU;
Whereas, in order to allow, in accordance with Article 12 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3/84, the provisions adopted in accordance with Directive 76/308/EEC to be applied in cases where the amount to be recovered is 200 ECU or more, it is necessary to derogate from the principle that no request or assistance may be made under that Directive if the amount of the relevant claim or claims is less than 750 ECU;
Whereas Annex I to Directive 77/794/EEC, which contains the form to be used for requesting the information mentioned in Article 4 of Directive 76/308/EEC contains a material error which requires correcting;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Recovery,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
Directive 77/794/EEC is hereby amended as follows:
1. The title is replaced by the following:
'Commission Directive of 4 November 1977 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Council Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of agricultural levies and customs duties, and in respect of value added tax'.
2. Article 20 (2) is replaced by the following:
'2. No request for assistance may be made if the amount of the relevant claim or claims is less than 750 ECU. This amount shall be reduced to 200 ECU if the request relates to the recovery of a claim payable as a result of an irregularity committed in the course of or in connection with an operation carried out under arrangements for movement of goods within the Community introduced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3/84.'
3. Annex I is replaced by the Annex to this Directive.
Article 2
1. Member States shall take the measures necessary to comply with this Directive not later than 1 January 1986. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the measures which it takes in the field governed by this Directive. The Commission shall inform the other Member States thereof.
Article 3
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 October 1985. | [
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
*****
COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 709/84
of 14 March 1984
amending quantitative limits fixed for imports of certain textile products originating in Poland
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3589/82 of 23 December 1982 on common rules for imports of certain textile products originating in third countries (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3762/83 (2), and in particular Article 7 thereof,
Whereas, by Regulation (EEC) No 3589/82, quantitative limits agreed with third countries are shared between the Member States for 1984;
Whereas, in the bilateral agreements, the Community has given undertakings to the supplier countries to adjust the allocation of limits among Member States in such a way as to ensure optimum utilization and to establish efficient and speedy procedures for adjusting the allocations;
Whereas Poland has asked that the allocation of Community quantitative limits among the Member States be adjusted in order to take account of the trend of trade flows, and to enable suppliers to utilize agreed Community limits more fully;
Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Textile Committee,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Certain Member States' shares of the Community quantitative limits for textile products originating in Poland, as fixed in Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 3589/82, are hereby amended for 1984 as laid down in 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.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 March 1984. | [
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
] |
Subsets and Splits